From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: The draft and Vietnam
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:44:11 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <83591@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
]In article 6402@anasazi.com, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]
]>In article <bxr307.717033961@huxley> bxr307@huxley.anu.edu.au (Brian Ross) writes:
]>]>They were quite capable of brutality and communist expansionism without
]>]>Soviet direction, although they did need, and receive, massive soviet
]>]>arms, training and intelligence support.
]>
]>]	Only after the US had weighed in so heavily on the side of the South
]>]John.  Soviet aid in strength didn't occur until well after the US's had.
]>
]>So what?
]
]I tried to explain this to you, too.  We were not there to counter Soviet
]expansionism.  We were there to contain the apocryphal Global Communist
]Conspiracy to take over the world.  The US wasn't even aware of the serious

You are playing with words. Whether we call it "Soviet" expansionism
or the "Global Communist Conspiracy" we are talking about what was, at
that time, the same thing.

]both politically and financially.  The partition was originally meant to be
]temporary--it had no legitimacy in history.  The plebiscite was to resolve 
]the ultimate issue, and the US government meddled directly in Vietnamese
]internal affairs by backing one side in its abrogation of an international
]treaty.  From the Vietnamese point of view, we simply assumed the role of
]the French imperialists, complete with our support of a regime dominated by
]the Catholic minority.  However noble our own reasons in attempting to stop
]the spread of world Communism, there was a plausible perception on the other
]side that we were merely opposing Vietnamese nationalism.  We stepped into a
]quagmire that we didn't understand, partly because of our benighted view that
]all Communists were part of an international conspiracy to overthrow capitalism
]and democracy.

A view that was, in fact, correct - the Communists WERE part of an international
conspiracy to overthrow capitalism. Not only is that a conservative viewpoint,
it was also the loudly stated viewpoint of the communists at the time. I
listened to a lot of Radio Moscow, Radio Peking and Radio Havana during
those years and they certainly claimed that they were part of a
movement (what a conspiracy is called by its backers) to unseat
capitalism.

As far as the relevance of the partition and the plebiscite, I agree that
it is relevant in understanding the attitudes of the opposition. However,
it is using history to justify current behavior that leads to such disasters
as Northern Ireland or Bosnia or Armenia/Azerbaijan. The question of
the legitimacy of keeping the nation partitioned depends on the attitudes
of the people of the South AT THE TIME, not on what an outside power
imposed on them 10 years before.
]
]>... Another way of looking at it was that the war in VN
]>was really just one battle in the cold "war", and the politicians screwed
]>up that battle. We still won the cold war.
]
]Yes, but in spite of Vietnam, which drained our country of youth, wealth, and
]moral standing.  Vietnam was a battle in the cold war that we fought against
]ourselves and lost.  Very similar to the disastrous lunacy with which the
]Soviets marched into Afghanistan.  At least, their supply lines were shorter.

Vietnam did not drain our country of youth.... we had plenty of youth.
It cost us wealth, and it confused our views... a confusion that we have
yet to shake. It was a battle that we fought against the international
communists. It resulted in internal struggles in the US, which were
used (and encouraged) by our enemy - probably not because the war
was such a bad idea but because our leaders lied about it so badly.
Yes, it was lunacy to go into it with the attitudes that Johnson
had and the behavior he exhibitted.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Definition: invertebrate ::= George Bush - -
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48484 alt.rush-limbaugh:6137 alt.politics.elections:14585 talk.abortion:39231