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: Neocon who wrote (52942)	10/18/2002 3:29:31 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The French "bailed out of Vietnam"? After 20 years of relentless fighting, that's hardly bailing. That seems smart after 20 years of dumb to finally have an epiphany of "Oh, there's not winning here". We should never have given Vietnam to the French. When you compare WWII to Vietnam, you are off by miles. France, the country, was invaded. They had to fight back. "It is obvious that our failure to make a full commitment" Drafting every eligible male in this country was not a full commitment? AFter ten years there, a mere half of what France had spent, we too finally realized that saving Vietnam from Communism was not within our power. There was no home front defeatism. Despite what most people in this country felt, that the Vietnam war was a mistake, Nixon spent another six fruitless years there. We were defeated over there in Vietnam. And what if we had won? What is it that we would have won? What exactly after ten years of sacrificing young Americans would we have come away with had we "won"?

To: Neocon who wrote (52942)	10/18/2002 3:43:19 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Neocon; Re: "... French did, indeed, bail out* of Vietnam ... the ambiguous termination of our phase of the Vietnam War ..." BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Re: "... it is also obvious that we have been reluctant to use force unless we have an overwhelming advantage, and are likely to sustain few casualties, so there is something to the idea that our will to fight was damaged by Vietnam ..." In this you are dead wrong. Our willingness to fight (or more accurately, to die) is undiminished over the years. It is renewed with each new generation, just as it is renewed in other nations. What changes is the particular details of the conflicts. If we get invaded or attacked, our willingness to take casualties is unchanged from that of WW1 or WW2. If, on the other hand, the dumbass neoconservatives drag us into a hopeless unilateral land war in Asia, you will discover that our willingness to die is no more than we once had willingness to die for the corrupt South Vietnamese rulers. Our military spirit is unchanged.* What changes is the national importance of the conflict. If the conflict is on our doorstep, like the Civil War, or the Revolution and 1812 wars, then our willingness to take casualties is equal to that of any other nation similarly threatened. This is simple human nature. We will fight, where it is necessary. We are not pansies, nor are the other nations of the world. We are humans and we will fight. But we will fight a hell of a lot harder in our own territory. -- Carl