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 (264181)	12/11/2005 5:13:22 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573092

In most ways Iraq and Vietnam are very different but if we fail in Iraq the reasons will be similar. There is less reason to fail in Iraq. Our casualties are lower, we don't have anyone as committed to invade as North Vietnam was, you don't have the Soviet Union and China assisting the insurgents, and I think it is less likely that we will just abandon Iraq the way we did South Vietnam. There is one very important way Iraq and Vietnam are the same and that is they are both unnecessary wars. That's why they are both unpopular. When Eisenhower first started raising issues about Vietnam, I don't thik he ever intended it to be a war.......I think it was supposed to be more of a policing action.......maintaining the status quo. And that's pretty much what Kennedy did. It was Johnson who turned it into a war. And its Bush who turned Iraq into a full fledge war. Bad presidents make bad choices and that leads them into greater trouble.........for them and for the country. Johnson was smart and did the right thing...chose not to run for a second term. Bush should have done the same. ted