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: cnyndwllr who wrote (129909)	4/23/2004 4:29:16 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Vietnam is not the most useful lens to look at Iraq. Do try not to do so by knee-jerk reaction, without looking to see if the analogy holds. Furthermore, you speak as if the loss in the Vietnam war proved that all the talk about 'credible projections of force' were nonsense. That does not follow. Meekly allowing a communist takeover without fighting would have also had its consequences. The most you can argue with certainty, is that if you decide to go to war, you should win it, because the costs of loosing are very high. I think everybody would agree with you there. But I don't see that the Vietnam analogy tells us very much about what will happen in Iraq. Different times, different politics (who is the insurgents' USSR?), different culture, and different army too - our current forces are far better than the conscript army in Vietnam, and today's officer corps all went to school on Vietnam.