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 (233285)	5/19/2005 6:49:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577188

From your own source "They were subsequently reinforced by huge numbers of North Vietnamese troops infiltrating south". Those "reinforcements" where just about all that was left after Tet. After we had greatly reduced our forces in Vietnam (but not yet pulled out completely) the NVA tried a conventional invasion of the south with a couple of hundred thousand soldiers. This invasion failed. Most of the soldiers opposing it where ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam in case you don't know what that means), but heavy US air support. en.wikipedia.org historynet.com Even before that we had real conventional battles at places like Ia Drang, Khe Sanh, and Hamburger Hill. Vietnam wasn't just a guerilla war. The Iraqi opposition is a guerilla/insurgency/terrorist opposition. It doesn't have the capability to make large scale attacks on American forces. Its version of large scale might be an occasional attacks by several dozen insurgents on an American or allied target. What makes you think we are not? Comparing the state of the US to that of the Soviet Union in its terminal decline by asking that question is silly. Do you really think that within a decade or two there will be no more USA? Do you really think that American soldiers are going to sell weapons to the Iraqi insurgency, or that in general the training, moral and ability of our soldiers is even close to being in as bad of state as it was in many Soviet units in Afghanistan? Is it possible at least part of the cause of the Soviet's decay was due to Afghanistan? Afghanistan helped push the decline of the USSR, but the decay had been going on for a long time, and even before the USSR started to decline it had a real sickness at its core. It doesn't matter if the terrain was worse or better in Afghanistan........the outcome is the same. Yes, facts, and details, and information, and analysis, is meaningless, we should all follow Ted's gut feelings. Tim