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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148264)	9/30/2002 1:03:09 AM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164687

Dug into this a little more. Vietnam was not a signatory to SEATO, but it was SEATO that was the political cover for our (and other member nations' like Australia's involvement) in defending South Vietnam. The Vietnam War (the Second Indochina War) was started by North Vietnam in 1959. The American effort in Vietnam was always one of defense of whatever legitimacy South Vietnam enjoyed as a country. In no case did we preemptively attack North Vietnam. We had been fighting the North Vietnamese invasion of the South, first in baby steps. Now we can all debate in circles the validity, necessity, etc of the Vietnam War. That's not a new issue. The point here is that the US didn't need a pretext for taking the battle to the North. The North had unilaterally engaged the South in war years before the Gulf of Tonkin affair, and we had been actively engaged in the South trying to repel them.