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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (48177)	9/30/2002 11:14:16 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hell, the war party has been arguing on this thread that Vietnam was winnable Any war is winnable if one has the will to pursue it to victory. And one doesn't have to be a member of the "war party" to realize that Vietnam could have at least resulted in a stale mate between north and south, as it did in Korea. Just by bombing the dikes north of the DMZ and flooding the entire region would have gone far towards creating natural separation. But the ultimate tactic was to partition Laos as well, or force complete retreat of NVA organizations using the Ho Chi Minh trail.. That would have DRAMATICALLY reduced the amount of territory the US was required to protect. And it would have forced the NVA to concentrate their attacks in narrow fronts where they could be decisively engaged and destroyed. But what really was necesary was to convince the population of the South that THEY were responsible for the security of their country, NOT the US. And this reality wasn't apparent to them until the US enacted "Vietnamization" and began withdrawing. Hawk