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: TimF who wrote (160256)	2/6/2003 9:43:18 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578937

Tim Re.. don't think I agree with that. Look at the suffering that communists have created in South East Asia. The problem for me was that Ho Chi Minh , while he was trained in Russia, for guerella tactics, wasn't a true blue communist, in the usual sense, like a Stalin, or Pol Pot. While Ho was ruthless in his tactics in war, he didn't seem ruthless, in the way he presided over his people. Diem was as ruthless, and far more corrupt, so in a popularity contest, Ho would have won hands down. Vietnam was a follow on to the rest of our interventions, Sk, Iran, etc. If the same conditions existed in Vietnam, that existed in SK, we probably would have won. They didn't, and that was our mistake to assume they were. However Vietnam was probably no the right thing to do for practical reasons. If we didn't care enough to do what it really takes to win, and to bear the cost to win, then it doesn't make sense to bleed ourselves for a decade with half measures that won't result in victory Absolutely. And that applies to our war on terrorism. We either do what is necessary to win, or we will lose eventually. To me, Iraq is the second major step, Afghanistan, being the first. We must have the will, and patience to follow through in Iraq though, or intervention could easily be worse than doing nothing.