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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (157296)	1/2/2003 8:55:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580838

More soldiers and weaponry were deployed to Vietnam than were deployed to either the Gulf or Korean Wars and almost as many as in WW I. In Vietnam they served tours and were replaced. The total deployed goes up a lot but the amount deployed at any one time was small compared to the total deployed. The figures on the web site you link to would make it seem that more then half as many soldiers where in Vietnam as were fighting in WWII. In total that might be correct but in WWII they kept fighting. At any given time there where many times as many people as there where deployed in Vietnam at any one time. In any case a large number does not equal "overwhelming force". A large number deployed quickly and striking hard and relentlessly until the enemy is defeated is a better definition of overwhelming force. In Vietnam we slowly built up giving the enemy a lot of time to get used to dealing with our presence in the war and we did not keep the pressure on all the time once we where there. There will halts and lulls. We often allowed the enemy to decide how intense the conflict would be instead of forcing them to fight at our pace and on our time table. There were also a lot of political restrictions on how force would be used. Tim