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: Hawkmoon who wrote (91564)	4/9/2003 2:41:07 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"It was just stupid... But to claim that Vietnam was not "winnable" is just as ludicrous, IMO. It was merely a lack of will, or willingness to potentially escalate the situation by countering NV's violation of Laotian sovereignty." Hawk, Winnable yes but at what cost or to put in another way, how many more deaths beyond 58,000 were we willing to have not to mention we had an ally with little popular support and not to mention vietnamese casualties beyond what occurred. Perhaps the korean crisis lends itself to such determination. Conservative guesses have been a million dead and 100k US casualties in a non-nuclear fight. So here we may have to find another way to skin the cat. Costs not acceptable. Thats where vietnam went awry even if i accept your premise(and i do) that the war was winnable. mike