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.

Pastimes : An Eye for an Eye -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cage Rattler who wrote (85)	9/12/2001 2:31:08 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 505

I don't think the action would be a US-Vietnam- or USSR-Afghani-type action... Vietnam strategy was coordinated and commanded by the White House and not by the Generals in the field... that was our big mistake over there, we were fighting with one hand tied behind our backs and only with special approval by the President even to fire a single shot, fire zones were designated in Washington, not in the field... that was no war, it was so constrained and constricting, it was a miracle more U.S. troops were not lost... the Afghani-type action came to pass because the Soviet Union didn't know how to train their troops, they weren't even getting paid, most of them fought with a Vodka level of 1.0 in their bloodstream, their equipment was breaking down, and so on... I think we should implement a coordinated action, a lightening fast unilateral assault jointly with other nations, that would be both broad and systemic, an action that would terrify and stun our targets into realizing they're up against a giant with superior weapons and superior troops and superior resolve... I don't think we would have a problem under those circumstances..... GZ