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 (233103)	5/17/2005 12:47:05 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574452

One of the biggest difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that there is no force in or around Iraq to play the role of the NVA. The government in the South was eventually strong enough to handle the Viet Cong, but it couldn't deal with the NVA without a lot of American support. When that support went away and the NVA started a massive invasion the south fell. It was that conventional invasion, not a guerilla campagin or an insurgency that defeated South Vietnam Insurgencies are notorious for bringing down an occupying, standing army [see Afghanistan]. No one has ever claimed it was the NVA that brought down the US. American history books say it was the Viet Cong. You and Steve are making it up. Edit - Steve makes a good point. If your going to call anything "another Vietnam" you should know enough about the Vietnam war to know what the NVA was. Huh? He throws out initials I had never seen before and presents a theory that's new.......at least to this thread. And you expect me to know exactly what he is saying. Excuse me but please don't tell me what I should or shouldn't know. And as for the theory..........its not a very good one. ted