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: tejek who wrote (338047)	5/19/2007 4:00:22 PM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1576600

re: But if you read about Vietnam, it started out as a policing action under the auspices of SEATO. It was only after Johnson 'created' an excuse did it become a full fledge war. The invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked, unsanctioned attack upon a foreign country. It seems to me there is a significant difference between the two not that I think Vietnam was a high point in American history. Yes... and no. On a scale of 1 to 10, the justification for Vietnam was maybe a 1 while Iraq was a 0. In the end, from the overview, it's the same hubris that created the policy. One big difference with Vietnam was that the public was intensely aware and involved. The number serving, the number killed, and the draft saw to that. Plus the press was much stronger then... they were on the front lines with the troops every day. You saw real footage from real rice paddies every night on the news. Last time they will allow that to happen. And I don't think the press has the balls that they had when they covered Vietnam.