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: Road Walker who wrote (236805)	6/15/2005 6:46:37 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577030

Apparently you aren't going to let this issue die. Personally I think we should just agree to disagree on it. We aren't getting anywhere with this discussion, we are just going in circles. Tim

To: Road Walker who wrote (236805)	6/15/2005 7:54:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577030

re: But then when the north invaded again there was no US soldiers on the ground, no air support, and even no more financial support or re-supply. And it turns out that when they where completely cut off they didn't have the ability to defeat the NVA. Thanks for supporting my point. How does that support your point. It doesn't support the idea that South Vietnam never was able to produce a military and police force that was capable of dealing with an insurgency. The NVA didn't defeat them with an insurgency but with a conventional invasion with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, tanks, heavy artilery, aircraft ect. Tim