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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (311515)	11/21/2006 1:30:22 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576177

Vietnam was a war where we made a real effort to win. That required a draft, to put an army of 500,000 men on the ground. Even that effort was poo-poohed by the war hawks, who thought a full WWII size effort was called for. Iraq is a war lost on the cheap, by a President that urged us to "go shopping" and then LOWERED taxes to make the war even more comfortable. We'll lose wars like that every time. One way to full the military's manpower needs would be to make military service a condition of immigration. Maybe even retroactive! They're taking people up to the age of 48 now..

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (311515)	11/21/2006 1:40:17 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576177

JF, what bothers guys like you is that our military is still meeting their recruitment goals, and people from all walks of life are still signing up. Considerably larger signing bonuses, retention bonuses up to $150K, tax free if done during a deployment, age cut off up to 42 now...you make it sound like enlistment for WW2. I even had a friend who gave up an Ivy League education to sign up for the military. No, it wasn't poor grades, either. Which proves what exactly? That's one major difference between Iraq and Vietnam. The boys who fought and died in Vietnam were mostly drafted. The liberals' finest hour, i.e. the defeat of America. No wonder they want to bring back the draft. An active deployed force of 500K+ volunteer soldiers...that's a good one. You'd need 5 times that many soldiers to sustain that kind of deployment. We can't even sustain an increase in the deployed force in Iraq, with less than 1/3 the force we had in Vietnam, without triple and quadruple deployments. You probably don't even realize how ignorant and shitty what you said really is. Hey, would Bush have volunteered for a deploying national guard during the Vietnam war? Liberal's finest hour...LOL...you are a character. Al

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (311515)	11/21/2006 2:17:40 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576177

re: I love the logic of those supporting the draft. Force our youth to enlist so that more people will come out against the war. Now you say: JF, what bothers guys like you is that our military is still meeting their recruitment goals You were closer to right the first time. War should be a last, drastic action. You are sentencing many people to death. It better be justified, and the best way to insure that is to have personal sacrifice across the board. Iraq is a perfect example of a war that wouldn't have been fought and a war that shouldn't have been fought.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (311515)	11/21/2006 2:32:08 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576177

"The boys who fought and died in Vietnam were mostly drafted. The liberals' finest hour, i.e. the defeat of America." Just out of curiosity, what are you trying to say here? That if they were volunteers, we would have won? The people I know who served in Vietnam weren't screwoffs. If you were in a position to see combat, being a slacker meant you and/or your buddies were going to die. It didn't matter if you are a gung ho believer in the mission, or thought the whole idea was screwed. If you were there, you did your best. You still might wind up with a punji stick driven through your boot or gotten shot as you manned the door gun on a Huey, but if you slacked off, you certainly were going to die. I think it is pretty low to put down the men who fought and died in Vietnam. Yeah, they didn't win. But it wasn't their fault. We weren't winning in Vietnam. We weren't losing either. Much like Iraq, we were holed up in our firebases and were in danger for every moment we ventured out. It just isn't possible to win under those circumstances. Given that we are doing exactly the same in Iraq, we can't win there either. It just isn't possible.