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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (58637)	4/11/2008 3:10:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543847

There was fairly continual risk for many in South Vietnam. Probably not in the cities to the same extent as in Iraq, but the Vietnam war wasn't just a clash of distant armies. The risk in the cities of Vietnam was less on a day to day basis. It was large at the end, and it was large in some of them during the war (for example at Hue during Tet), but continual day I'd agree that it was less. OTOH less doesn't mean zero. The risk for the people in Iraq that are at very high risk (rather than the general risk of war to the population as a whole, which isn't very relevant because we aren't going to accept 25 million Iraqi immigrants), is because they are working for us. Anyone who does a lot of very useful work for us, and who we have sufficiently vetted, should probably be allowed in, but for now, they are useful where they are. Taking them all to the US, would really hurt our effort, and would also hurt the future prospects of Iraq. We brought people over from Vietnam because our effort and our presence was ending.