Re: [eia] British land phase, 3/05

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Good point.  I'm glad we could find a resolution to that problem that
didn't end up costing Turkey extra cash.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] British land phase, 3/05


> Actually, the Turkish fleet would have been forced out into the blockade
> box, not the sea space, which is the same as a port as far as maintenance
> costs go.  So no big deal.
>
> -JJY
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 1:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [eia] British land phase, 3/05
>
>
> > As I recall, the Turkish 2nd fleet wanted to hang out in Damietta for
this
> > economic phase.  Once the two Turkish Corps left, this city became
> > controlled by Egypt again and the fleet would have been forced out into
> the
> > sea space.  Would Turkey have rather put the fleet someplace where it
> would
> > still be in port for upkeep purposes?  It didn't seem a big deal until
> > Egypt put a depot in the same city as a Turkish fleet.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eia mailing list
> > eia@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia