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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (9908)	10/25/2001 10:19:00 AM
From: chowder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Good Morning Mr Ed! I think there are some things that are different this time, Viet Nam vs Afghanistan. In Viet Nam, we didn't have adequate air power. Our planes weren't allowed to fire back at some positions even though they were being fired upon. This time we'll be firing. In Viet Nam, Charlie was being supplied and armed by Communist countries. The more stores and supplies we captured, the more stores and supplies they received. Who's going to resupply the Taliban? In Viet Nam, we would drop our men in landing zones and the air cover would retreat. I'm told by active military personnel that constant air cover will be provided to troops being inserted. Whether this happens or not, I don't know. But I do know we don't have to worry about enemy planes and gunships. This war will be fought smarter than Viet Nam but that doesn't mean something can't go wrong. What if one of these clowns has a nuke suitcase? Wanna bet what America's resolve will be if one of those suckers kills our troops? Goodnight Irene, I mean Afghanistan! dabum