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 (161222)	2/16/2003 3:04:10 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574854

>Maybe a better analogy would have been Israel and the Palestinians or better yet, Vietnam. I bet most people back then thought that was a slam dunk and look how it turned out. I still think my point is a valid one.......that people fight hardest on their home turf. Whether that will make a difference in Iraq, time will tell. Israel's completely different... but that's a subject for another conversation, and would likely change the subject of the thread. Vietnam's a good analogy, but three things are off about it. One, urban warfare's difficult, but it pales in comparison with jungle warfare. Two, we're significantly stronger now than we were in the '60s. Three, what exactly was our mission in Vietnam, other than to contain the Communists? Vietnam is similar to Israel's jaunt into Lebanon... the mission was very vague. It's pretty clear to me that similar to in a medieval war... in Iraq, the king falls, the war's over. -Z

To: tejek who wrote (161222)	2/16/2003 3:58:14 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574854

Maybe a better analogy would have been Israel and the Palestinians or better yet, Vietnam. This Vietnam analogy you guys keep trotting out is absurd. There is no comparison with Vietnam. In Vietnam, a weak, liberal president quietly took us to war but was shaking in his boots the entire time. There was no statement of what the mission was to be. The leadership was literally trying to hide it from the country. And LBJ and McNamara refused to provide the military support that was required to do the job. In this situation there is a clear cut, well-defined mission, the nation knows precisely what we're doing, we will be using overwhemling force, etc., -- basically, the Powell Doctrine is being complied with. Our technology is so much better today than it was in 1965. This is no Vietnam and there are NO substantive parallels with Vietnam. Whether that will make a difference in Iraq, time will tell. The Iraqis aren't going to fight. Last time they surrendered to TV reporters. They want Saddam out of there. They have seen what the meatgrinding carpet bombing of B52s is, and they aren't going to want any part of it. My guess is we'll see mass surrenders before the fighting starts.