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: ManyMoose who wrote (63764)	5/6/2008 2:48:31 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542233

"Follow through," when you have made a mistake, begins to look like hitting your head against a wall. All the books I have read on Vietnam portray it as a conflict we should not have gotten involved in. The communists were resilient, and funded by the Chinese. We were outsiders, trying to shore up a weak regime that failed to inspire its own side. You mention getting the South Vietnamese to fight harder- I think we tried that. That's why we had "advisers" over there for so long. But the North had more will. Our generals and our soldiers certainly tried to do a good job, but guerillas are notoriously hard to fight, especially when another super power is propping them up- that's why the Soviets lost Afghanistan. We were helping the Afghans. I know some people want to believe Vietnam could have been won, but that's a minority opinion, even among the military men who fought there. In the end, without our doing much, Veitnam has become a a capitalist zone. While it might have saved Vietnamese lives, maybe, we can't know that for sure. I'm glad that we erred on the side of non-involvement, and let the region work itself out. I'd hate to still be there. If it took 10 more years, or 20 (not that Americans would have stood for that) but if it had, that wouldn't have made much sense. The lesson of Veitnam is (IMO) "Meddle in civil wars, and guerilla wars, with care- they are very hard to win, and even when you can "win" it often requires such ugly measures that winning starts to look like losing."

To: ManyMoose who wrote (63764)	5/6/2008 6:38:31 PM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542233

It's hard to tell them apart because they are more similar to each other than they are to us, since we are now diverse. I might say the same thing for them. Why should they trust us when we proved in Nam and a lot of people are trying to prove again in Iraq is that we can't be trusted to follow through? If we pull out of Iraq, we'll never be able to get allies to commit again. Might it be wise to avoid conflicts where we can't tell friend from foe? As for reasons to fight, clearly the domino theory did not come to pass in SE Asia, and there were no WMD in Iraq. At what point can we accurately call both conflicts mistakes?