Chalu2:
My goodness, when there's a substantive piece of information developed that leads to further enlightenment of the Government's mishandling of the Waco tragedy, it seems we can rely on Chalu2, that master of misdirection, to post some diversionary comments.
<<Hey, how come my minions are getting paid, and not me? I want my check! >>
I don't blame you, Chalu2, seems to me as if you have a legitimate gripe.<g>
As to your misdirection:
<<Like Grant, Koresh could have spared lives had he taken a different course. But, also like Grant, he was willing to lead those under his command to slaughter as if they were lambs.>>
In retrospect, perhaps that's true (I'm referring to the part Koresh could have spared lives had he taken a different course.), but it would be reasonable, IMHO, for him to believe that our Government wouldn't indiscriminately attack and spray bullets into buildings that are known to contain women and children. It's still hard for me to believe they could be so callous and arrogant.
<<the Grant-like scorched earth attack policies of Clinton's cocaine-addled mercenaries. What puzzles me is why Koresh didn't learn a lesson from the Battle of Antietam>>
Since Gen. George McClellan commanded the Union forces at Antietam, linking it with Grant seems inappropriate...perhaps you used it because it was the most bloody single day of the war...still, confusing at best...and certainly not a "scorched earth" type of battle - you do know it took place on Union soil, don't you?<g>
But it is revelatory of the difference between Grant and other Union generals...McClellan reportedly had 85,000 troops vs Lee's 40,000. Had McClellan pressed on, he might well have ended the Civil War at that time. Grant, when he had numbers superiority, pushed them into the battle as so much cannon fodder...probably unnecessary when he came into pre-eminence, as the Rebs were running out of both men and material. An example, IMHO, of the wrong men at the wrong time. |
