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: michael97123 who wrote (228538)	4/24/2007 3:42:23 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Michael, we didn't have more than 20% support in Vietnam. Even int he 50s, before the real fighting started. It was widely believed that Ho would have won 75-80% of the vote if the 1956 elections had been allowed, as called for by the Geneva Accords. That was the reason the US and their Vietnamese allies didn't allow them to occur. But true, the number was likely more than 20% in Iraq initially. But the odds against establishing any kind of true accountable govt there without a lot of fighting were always very low.

To: michael97123 who wrote (228538)	4/24/2007 4:22:06 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree that we had and maybe still have, 20% support in Iraq. Unfortunately I think the anti-american support is much greater than 20% as well. Polls have shown support for attacking Americans as much greater than this. At least in Serbia, we didn't face as much ethnic and religious hatred of America, or even Nato. Iraq is not Vietnam, nor is it Serbia. The old maxim, that the Generals are always prepared to fight the last war applies I guess. However, if you want to look at Serbia, consider that we helped partition Yugoslavia, but are so far dead set against it in Iraq. If you want the level of outcome in Iraq that was obtained in Serbia/Kosovo, then support ethnic partition in Iraq. I know you have posted on the 3-state issue, but others are still don't agree. FWIW, I think the most likely outcome remains 3-state. It is the only way I see the USA disengaging without a real mess and without looking like failure. Therefore it will happen. Why so many must die first is beyond me.