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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (221620)	2/27/2007 9:26:46 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, my point is that with American troops in Vietnam, there may have been a lot of pressure on us to go into Cambodia to prevent Pol Pot's genocide. If that is the case, then 1.5 million dead Cambodians can be added to the tally of Vietnamese deaths caused by our leaving. I fully understand that the point is hypothetical, but it's one I've never seen raised when the costs of abandoning Vietnam are discussed. The ultimate point is that military intervention puts us between Scylla and Charybdis if it is not done overwhelmingly, with the appropriate commitment, and with an announced and credible goal of winning at all costs. The Powell Doctrine is 100% correct. The invasion of Iraq should have been made with 500,000 men who would have remained until a government capable of controlling the various interests was in place. Pollack recommended this, as I recall.