Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (141003)	4/28/2001 2:49:17 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Dave Ellen re:"I expect the right weapons would have been similar to the one you mention" I guess I don't understand your position....you weren't advocating nukes, but we used everything else in our arsenal including dozens of weapons developed just for Vietnam. We had helicopters, C130 gunships, B-52 saturation bombing, grenade launchers, heavy and light machine guns, artillery of all sizes, Naval guns, body armor, tanks armored personnel carriers and vehicles of all sort, river gun boats, a complete and unchallenged Air Force, Special Forces, Seal hit teams as we just learned, defoliation (agent orange), urine spelling sensors, advanced radar and listening devices, nausea and tear gas, etc etc etc........what were we missing.????? And oh btw, we had 525,000 men in the field. I'd also like to hear more about your friend having to go across and airfield to get weapons because they weren't authorized to have them by their side......sounds preposterous.... what kind of weapons was he talking about? I tend to agree we were driven out as much by the folks at home as by the enemy and in recent years the Vietnam War was becoming more glamorized and patriotic, but the Kerrey revelations, I think, are making a lot of folks remember why they were against it in the first place. Why, in your view, should we have been there?