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: Road Walker who wrote (340235)	6/13/2007 10:56:13 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574638

re: As for making Iraq worse, leaving now would be one of the things we could do that would clearly cause Iraq to take a turn for the worse. You know that 100% for sure? How? You seem to be 100% sure of the opposite. Either that or you aren't applying the standard of 100% certainty to yourself. What's your solution... a permanent 140K US military presence? No permanent presence of that size would be needed. While I think some people draw too many parallels to Vietnam, I'll draw this one - By the time we pulled out, South Vietnam was at a state where it could have remained independent without 140K US military presence in Vietnam (much less the 500+K peak). Continuing resupply and air support, could have enabled the ARVN to defeat the invasion from the North. Sure the particular circumstances in Iraq are different, but the general theory that if you engage an insurgency, that you will have to have a large troop presence forever is faulty.