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 : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (144)	5/15/2007 12:31:58 AM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

The more important question is what can staying accomplish? What is going to change that has not changed in the previous 4 years? When will it happen and why? If nothing much changes, are we willing to keep this up for how long? Message 23294298

To: neolib who wrote (144)	5/15/2007 2:25:13 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

Unfortunately, we never corrected that problem in Vietnam, so the insurgents won. We cannot correct the problem in Iraq because the various parties don't want to themselves for their various reasons. Neolib.. the insurgents didn't win.. They were ALWAYS just pawns of the Communist government in Hanoi. Who won were the North Vietnamese, BY DIRECT AND FULL INVASION of the south, in the same manner in which N. Korea attempted (and almost succeeded) to conquer S. Korea. The North, via their Viet Cong pawns, couldn't win by insurgency.. That was proven by their utter annihilation and defeat during the Tet offensive. But the won that battle politically and got the US to depart so that they could prepare for their eventual direct invasion. Did you know that North Vietnam was able to expand the Ho Chi Minh trail to nearly "highway" status between 1968 and 1975? This "trail" utterly violated the neutrality of both Laos and Cambodia. Did you know they actually built a petroleum pipeline along that "trail"? One shocking discovery made by American intelligence analysts during late 1968 was the uncovering of a petroleum pipeline running southwest from the DRV port of Vinh.[42] By early 1969 the pipeline had crossed the Laotian frontier and, by 1970, reached the approaches to the Ashau Valley in South Vietnam. The plastic pipeline, assisted by numerous small pumping stations, managed to transfer diesel fuel, gasoline, and kerosene all through the same pipe. Thanks to the efforts of the PAVN 592nd Pipelaying Regiment, the number of pipelines entering Laos would increase to six by 1970.[43] en.wikipedia.org So yeah.. the South Vietnamese lost, but it required the North having to prepare for years in advance, violating and invading the neutrality of 2 soveriegn nations, and then using its military to directly invade South Vietnam.. So yeah.. it's little wonder the South lost. They didn't have the same luxury, nor ability, to invade and occupy large parts of Laos and Cambodia in order to defend themselves. Hawk

To: neolib who wrote (144)	5/15/2007 2:26:00 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4152

Unfortunately, we never corrected that problem in Vietnam, so the insurgents won. But the insurgents did not win in Vietnam. The Vietcong did not win. The NVA, which was a conventional army backed by the USSR, invaded the south and won.

To: neolib who wrote (144)	5/15/2007 3:08:49 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

"I don't think the Shia are ever going to share power with the Sunni in any meaningful way. We can expend blood & $ trying to keep the wheels on, but we can't stop the vehicle." Shiaa may not share but i they have an interest in a peaceful sunni area next door. Why wouldnt they want a decentralized iraq with local autonomy along with shared oil revenues to fund it. I think iran goes along with sharing oil revenue and autonomy as well. Having a new gaza strip next door makes shiaa iraq israel next to the new wild gaza.