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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (52927)	11/3/2006 7:51:07 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

>>We were NOT defeated in Vietnam. We quit, thanks to the efforts of the very people I have been citing in this entire discussion, and Democrats who insisted on micromanaging the war from their desks. We turned over a very strategically important corner of the world to the bad guys. I do not want to repeat this experience in Iraq. Some of that oil revenue could go to restore the investment we made in Iraq.<< ManyMoose - I'm sure nobody wants to repeat that, which is one of the main reasons I and so many others opposed this war in the first place. Richard Nixon was in the White House for the last five years of the Vietnam war, as you know. I suppose there's some argument to be made for the notion that we didn't actually lose. I guess it depends on how you define losing a war. But it would have probably taken a massive bombing campaign, with massive civilian casualties, to have won that war. Even if we had leveled Hanoi and every other town of any size in the North, the Viet Cong would probably have kept fighting in the jungles. Considering that the Vietnamese people themselves weren't all that enthusiastic about resisting Communism, it doesn't seem like it would have been worth it for them. They really just wanted the killing to stop and to see the foreigners leave. And as far as that goes, I don't see that the people of that country were that bad off as the result of the Communist victory. Certainly they didn't become pawns of the Chinese as had been presaged by the right. Are you suggesting that we should siphon off "some" of Iraq's oil revenue to pay ourselves back for the money we've spent? (As Bush maintained we would, back when the total bill for the war was supposed to be less than 200 billion?) Even if we stopped spending money on this fiasco today, it would take 100% of that oil revenue for a long time to come to pay us back. I'm sure the Iraqis would be totally willing to accept that arrangement, though. I know how grateful they must be. - Allen