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.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stormweaver who wrote (5763)	4/28/1999 6:49:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

James--- I agree that it was a good exchange, and the best airing of the issues on this thread, IMHO:-)...Now, you have brought up the gravest difficulty, which is how many casualties should we be prepared to sustain or, for that matter, inflict. Since we lost less than 60,000 during nearly a decade of fighting in Vietnam, I am however not too worried that we will have a high mortality rate, nor, by extension, a high casualty rate. As for inflicted harm, I should say that heavy damage to men under arms, say a casualty rate of 50% and a fatality rate of 25-33%, and light collateral damage may be acceptable, although I would prefer to avoid it. As I have said before, I think we should back off from Rambouillet, get the Russians heavily involved, call a cease- fire, and try, try again...