whatever specific case you mean by
it
your statement is probably true if they have stopped fighting there
& havent resumed
but false so long as they are still fighting or actually under siege
or has your point escaped me
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "mikekaufman79"
<mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> But it was tolerated to the extent that they did not resume active
> fighting. They might not have liked it, but they did tolerate it
> enough not to engage in significant live-fire military operations
> with the goal of eliminating it.
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
> >
> > > places under siege are exceptional
> > > in not being tolerated
> > > yet are basically archetypical of enclaves also
> > >
> > > nor do these necessarily result from the division of some
larger
> > > entity
> > >
> > > but many enclaves are just the result of military standoffs
> >
> > You are correct, but I did not say that ALL enclaves result
from
> the division of
> > larger entities, but that most modern ones do.
> >
> > I suppose that West Berlin was an enclave besieged. It was
clearly
> not
> > tolerated by the surrounding power, but it persisted as a
result of
> a military
> > stand-off. Its ability to persist depended entirely on its
> resupply via a
> > sovereign airspace corridor that the surrounding power
dared not
> violate. Some
> > might argue that the existence of that corridor made it less
than
> completely
> > enclaved in all three dimensions.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA