From: khanh kim nguyen <knguyen@emr.ca>
Subject: Re: Did We Lose and who to be blamed ?
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6F76349B2022259@knguyen.emr.ca>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 6 Oct 92 15:37:45 GMT
Organization: emr
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:27:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.184103.11471@m.cs.uiuc.edu> David Kohr,
drk@m.cs.uiuc.
edu writes:
>(John Gerth) writes:
>>I can only say to the Vietnamese who've posted such compelling stories
>>here -- we seduced and abandoned your freedom in the most inexplicable
and
>>shameful way

>Huh?  I have no idea of what you are referring to here.  Please explain
>(even if the motives for the "seduction" are inexplicable :-) ).

>Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign
---------
The first poster may be once a US soldier; the guy he has referred too 
maybe I (Maybe I am wrong), who now and forever a Vietnamese.
The motives ? Easy to understand even by a foreigner like me.
- 1st motive : anguished by being forced to abandon poor friends at the 
critical time; sad of being abandoned by fellow citizens who point their 
fingers on the wrong culprits. Duty must be done and no question; this
won't happen in pubic life.  
- 2nd motive : he, like you, is conscious about atrocities in wars; but
the
difference is he has experienced some of it.
Now, who to be blamed. Please read the poster as follows :
-----------

In article <g=rz48_@rpi.edu> Peter Adamkovics, adamkp@rs6212.ecs.rpi.edu
writes:
>mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>
>>In article <5373@gold.gvg.tek.com> mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P.
Anderson) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep30.124440.28171@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
mccullou@cae.wisc.edu 
>(Mark McCullough) writes:
>>>
>>>>The press was praised by the enemy for helping cause the US to fail
to win
>>>>the Vietnam war.  How can you justify this biased and non-factual
reporting
>>>>of the press?
>>>
>>>Just because the "enemy" praised the press doesn't mean that they
helped to,
>>>in your words, "cause the US to fail to win the Vietnam War." The war
was
>>>lost precisely because its goals were immoral, and the men who led that
>>>war were also immoral. They lied, they killed men on both sides
because of
>>>their own petty hubris, and a majority of the American people saw
through
>>>them and forced them to stop their crimes.
>
>>Since when does the morality of a war indicate who wins?  Please, I hope
>>you are not that naive.
>>>
>>>Now we can go through this over and over until the supporters of
Vietnam
>>>get it right. This war should never have been fought; it was conceived
>>>by the boards of corporate America who saw their selfish interests
>>>in the far east being jeopardized, and they were willing to win, once
>>>they started, at any price.
>>>
>>What major corporate interests did we have?  Vietnam has no major
resources
>>that I have heard of, produces no major products that can't just as
easily
>>be made elsewhere.  And we certainly not take the attitude of win at any
>>price.  That attitude was last taken by the US in WWII.  If we had
decided
>>to "win ... at any price," as you say, then why did we declare large
areas
>>off limits, why did we for most of the war not bomb North Vietnam, why
didn't
>>our ground units cross the border into North Vietnam, why didn't we
mount
>>amphibious landings and naval attacks on North Vietnamese targets? 
Admittedly,
>>during the rolling Thunder campaign, we did bomb North Vietnam, but
that was
>>such a short period of time compared to the length of the war.  We tied
our
>>own hands.  In no way should the US be accused of trying to "win at any
price"
>
>>:)M^2
>
>The major corporations were probably the weapons suppliers.  how much
does a b-52 cost?
>and all the other weapons had to be bought... so they had a major
interest in the war
>           
>--pete--
------------------
This gives me a second thought about who to blame and why some with deep 
knowledge can pinpoint culprits. Corporates who have huge profits from 
ordered weaponry have created jobs (15 years ?) for US people back home. 
Now, in turn, public points their fingers to VN Vets. Is that hypocresy ?
So, John (the IBM man), you see ! They made you sad and anguished for 20 
years, but it's cra...They have to apologize to you. Wait and see.
As a Vietnamese living in exile, I tell you that you don't have to 
apologize or feel sad. To us, you, as grain of sand on a beach, have been 
trained to do any duty your elected government tell you to do. Period.
Who benefit from you sacrifice : you own people at home.
You don't need to apologize to us. Why, there is at least I ,who once
bent 
his back to support a bag of wheat and barley printed *aid from United
States of 
America*, brought home to feed family, owe you an apology for letting you 
and relatives go through hell on earth.
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam