HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:20:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.220030.13035@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <PD.92Oct6023954@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct3.105750.203@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>>
>>>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"
>>
>>Even during "Rolling Thunder" there were restrictions on the
>>targeting. Amazing, really. If I had been a military commander at
>>that time in that theatre of operations I think I would have resigned
>>as quickly as possible.
>
>Considering the high population and determination of North Vietnam,
>an invastion of N Vietname probably would have been as costly as an
>invasion of Japan would have been for WWII.  Considering that the
>military were constantly telling the Us people and leaders that the
>war was just about won, how do you think the US would have reacted
>to such a committment?.  Also, the occupation would have had to be
>long-term.  In any case, since the S Vietnam government never really
>controlled the countryside in the south, just the main cities and
>roads, any invasion of the North would have been pointless.  The
>evemy was not just "on the other side of the border", they were
>throughout the south.
---------
That is a guerilla war all about. Controlling the countryside is to
encircle cities. The cities would be beseiged and collapsed by itself.
This tactics have been executed by Mao and proved invincible, We have
known that but could not find a way out.>
>
>-- 
>
>		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)


Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen)
Subject: Re: Is communism immoral? (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:17:12 GMT

In article <PD.92Oct9151843@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.150407.26258@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>>If we define communist loosely to mean well to the left of the US, then
>>we have
>
>That is certainly a very strange definition of communist.
--------
It beats me. Can the the first poster say more ?
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:03:59 GMT

dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>supporting nationalist causes.  Most of the politicians in the South
>(at least the ones the US permitted to have power) were not involved
>in fighting the French.  I think its reasonable for people to use that
>as a big part of a litmus test for its leaders.  
Do you know what happened to most of the anti-French nationalists?
Hint: read my previous post.
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:36:25 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1992Oct9.051326.13271@emr1.emr.ca> knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.215501.12886@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>In article <PD.92Oct6023521@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>>>In article <5373@gold.gvg.tek.com> mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
>>>
>>>>The war was lost precisely because its goals were immoral, and the
>>>>men who led that war were also immoral.
>>>
>>>What's immoral about fighting communism?
>>
>>It isn't enough to be fighting a "bad" enemy.  You must be fighting for
>>a "good" ally, at least for a democratic country.  The South Vietnamese
>>government didn't fit that bill.  
>-----------
>What is your bill ? How many items are there ? Let put it on the table.
>If you decide not to help anybody, do not move. If you did, go and help with
>all your might and never regret. One step forward, two steps backward. Two
>steps forward, three steps backward, and run away.
>I am waiting for all items in your bill.

How about a government that represents its people, is not a puppet to the
desires of a distant foreign power.  One that has some credibility by
supporting nationalist causes.  Most of the politicians in the South
(at least the ones the US permitted to have power) were not involved
in fighting the French.  I think its reasonable for people to use that
as a big part of a litmus test for its leaders.  The fact that this
litmus test led to support of communism is truely unfortunate, but the
fault for that lies with the colonialists.  From what I have read
(Karnow), the tiny Christian segment of the south which controlled
the government was not responsive to the huge majority of Buddhists.
The fact the large segments of the southern population supported
communist insurgency demonstrates this.

I would agree that one should not support a policy unless he is
willing to do so whole-heartedly, but this is usually an ideal for a
pluralistic society.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 10 Oct 92 23:58:19 GMT

tthiel@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel) writes:

>Also remember that Ho Chi Minh was our good buddy and ally when he was
>fighting the Japanese.  But as soon as he got uppity about throwing out
>FRENCH COLONIAL OCCUPIERS we demonized him.  So much for our support of
>freedom and democracy.  There's alot of racism in this too.
>-Terry

Let's not be so simplistic. There was a big time gap. In between, Ho
signed a peace treaty with the returning French, turned around and
massacred the Vietnamese nationalists and aligned himself with Mao 
who also helped the North Koreans. This was hardly surprising since
he had been a committed communists since the 1920's. 
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: drk@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu (Dave Kohr)
Subject: Re: Is communism immoral? (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Organization: CS Dept., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:44:14 GMT

In article <PD.92Oct9151643@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
writes:
>I am not sure that it is correct to call Sweden a socialist country.

Compared to the United States, it is definitely more socialist.  Many
right-wingers in the US would probably regard it as communist, in fact
(improperly so, I think).

>We have free enterprise and capitalism, but the taxes are very high
>and large portion of the economy is controlled by the government. It
>is a strange mixture.
>
>Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se

The US economic system has essentially the same features, but in lesser
degree.  Both should really be regarded as basically "mixed" economies
IMHO.

There are many degrees of "socialism", no country is purely "socialist" or
"capitalist".
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Morality of communism (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:27:54 GMT
Organization: SCTC

dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:

>I have long thought that the problem with communism is that it is based on
>a utopian ideal: mainly, that people are willing to work for the good of all.
>On the other hand, the successes of capitalism are due to the fact that it is
>based on a cynical ideal: that people will work for their own good.  

Pardon me from inserting a possibly neutral remark into what could turn
into an entertaining moral shouting match, but...

A friend recently pointed out to me an interesting difference between
what passes for capitalism and what passes for communism: the capitalist
societies tend to have economies that are heavily decentralized while
the communist societies have very centralized economies. 

According to traditional organizational dogma, centralization is more
"efficient" but in practice centralized organizations tend to be rigid
and quite slow to respond to changes. Thus, the theoretical efficiency
is only achievable in a rigid, unchanging environment. Perhaps this is
the "real world" phenomenon that leads communist societies into the
totalitarian mold.

Rick.
smith@sctc.com          Arden Hills, Minnesota
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Subject: Morality of communism (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:10:35 GMT

In article <SMITTIE.92Oct6125519@tui.csulb.edu> smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:
>
>What's moral about it? Communism has been elevated to a level such that we
>think of it as the culmination of all things evil. Communism is simply a form
>of government. There is nothing inherently good or evil about communism. The
>human rights violations of the former Soviet Union and China are not instrinsic
>to communism, they are the result of human greed for power.
>

Along this line...

I have long thought that the problem with communism is that it is based on
a utopian ideal: mainly, that people are willing to work for the good of all.
On the other hand, the successes of capitalism are due to the fact that it is
based on a cynical ideal: that people will work for their own good.  

"From each according to his ability: to each according to his needs."
That line captures the spirit of communism.  It also captures part of the
spirit of Christianity.

Alas, utopias don't work in the real world.

Joe Dzikiewicz
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: nguyen@turing.scs.carleton.ca (H.H. Nguyen)
Subject: Re: VN pronunciation (was spelling of Ho's name)
Organization:  Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:20:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.043742.27719@m.cs.uiuc.edu> drk@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu (Dave Kohr) writes:
>
>I have a silly Vietnamese pronunciation question: does adding the "h"
>change the pronunciation from something like "min" to "ming", as I have
>been lead to believe?  Does this rule hold for other Vietnamese names
>ending in "nh"?  (There seem to be a lot of them.)
>-- 
>Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
>                   "One either has none or not enough."

	
	No, this is not a silly question at all !  And yes, it seems
to me that the "h" ending has the effect of prolonging the pronunciation
of the "i" vowel.  However, we don't seem to have "ming" in Vietnamese.
The "Ming" Dynasty in China is pronounced, written as "Minh" in 
Vietnamese !

	Yes, the "rule" seems to hold for other Vietnamese names too.
For example, "An" vs "Anh," "Can" vs "Canh," etc. However, "Canh" is
pronounced slightly different from "Cang," and similarly for "Lan,"
"Lanh," and "Lang" !

	I've kept using the verb "seem."  This is because the "rule"
sounds right to me, but I have no linguistic background, training
to be more positive.

	H.H. Nguyen
From: drk@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu (Dave Kohr)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Domino Effect (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Date: 10 Oct 92 04:33:09 GMT
Organization: CS Dept., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

In article <81165@ut-emx.uucp> wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:
>You forgot to add one major component to defeating a giant capitalist
>power: 
>
>Another great power sympathetic to your "popular" cause to supply your
>fighters with massive amounts of military supplies.
>
>Patrick Chester

I've heard this argument before, but I've also heard that for much of the
war the NLF supplied itself mostly with weapons stolen or captured from GVN
troops (this in F. FitzGerald's _Fire in the Lake_), and that Ho didn't get
a particularly warm welcome in Moscow, at least not initially.  Does anyone
have any substantive evidence to support this claim?
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Subject: Re: Is communism immoral? (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science
	<1992Sep30.124440.28171@doug.cae.wisc.edu><5373@gold.gvg.tek.com><PD.92Oct6023
	521@horus.sics.se><SMITTIE.92Oct6125519@tui.csulb.edu><PD.92Oct7040559@horus.s
	ics.se><SMITTIE.92Oct7113241@beach.csulb.edu><PD.92Oct8034807@horus.sics.se>
	<SMITTIE.92Oct8125402@wren.csulb.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:20:30 GMT

In article <SMITTIE.92Oct8125402@wren.csulb.edu> smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:

>>They are preoccupied with the distribution of other peoples wealth and not
>>interested in how to generate more wealth.

>This is not necessarily immoral. Unpopular, yes. Inherently wrong or immoral,
>no.

Oh, yes is is very immoral. It is theft. I consider stealing immoral.
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 00:53:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.173411.19140@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <92Oct10.200351edt.47892@neat.cs.toronto.edu> quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) writes:
>>dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>
>>>supporting nationalist causes.  Most of the politicians in the South
>>>(at least the ones the US permitted to have power) were not involved
>>>in fighting the French.  I think its reasonable for people to use that
>>>as a big part of a litmus test for its leaders.  
>>Do you know what happened to most of the anti-French nationalists?
>>Hint: read my previous post.
>
>
>
>I have never read that this happened, but assuming you are correct, it
>is a good reason _not_ to support Ho, but not necessarily a good reason
>to support Diem or Thieu (sp?).
>-- 
-------------
- Alas, Karnow's book is so shallow about this period of struggle. All our
history book has stated about another side of Ho-Chi-Minh to demonish his
old allies.
-we are looking to the events of the past with live documents. Do you know
how many Vietnamese in VN and now in US with disillusion about Ho are buried
in deep sorrow; they try to write or even co-write about their experience
with communist VN. To know how the real side of communist you can read #The
Vietnamese Gulag* by a communist sympathizer Doan Van Toai.                 
- it is true that there is no reason at all to support Thieu. To me, I have
no option at all but while living under that regime, I have to put the
priority to crush communist first.  

-it s true that
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: tuan@lgc.com (Tuan Nguyen)
Subject: Re: Is communism immoral? (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Organization: Landmark Graphics Corporation
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:22:36 GMT

>would have won a general election had the US not intervened. Ho Chi Min
							      ^^^^^^^^^^
I thought I could ignore it.  But after many occasions where the man's
name was misspelled in this group, I have to do this.

It's Ho Chi Minh (yes, with an "h" at the end).

Tuan Nguyen



Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer 865-8497)
Subject: Re: North Vietnam
Originator: whitmeye@surf
Keywords: Invasion
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:05:25 GMT


In article <1992Oct14.173801.18675@emr1.emr.ca>, knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen) writes:
|> 
|> - During the partition (1953). Lots of Nort Vietnamese (most of them are        christians who are against atheism) went south. Some South Vietnamese going
|> north are almost peasants and students who were told that after 2 or 3 years
|> of training they would go home to create pockets of revolution.
|> 
|> -In our Vietnamese history book, under Tran dynasty, we have a very smart and
|> decisive general called Ly-Thuong-Kiet who invaded two south provinces of
|> China. The reason is those two areas have been captured long time before by
|> former Chinese dynasties
|> 
|> -Alas, if Democrats (in accordance with those hippies taken LSD or marijuana)
|> had had your idea they would not block or cut aid from Mr. Nixon's budget, thoseAmerican soldiers would have more arms and more people, Hanoi could not hang
|> any longer and South Vietnamese soldiers could be lost so heavily (from 3 to
|> four generals having committed suicide for not to surrender as ordered by
|> the bastard general D.V.M)
|> budget for aid of Mr. Nixon
|> against atheism) 

As I remember, at the end, as the tanks raced down Rt 1, stopping only to
allow fuel supplies to catch up, the biggest obstacle was the junk left on
the road. Like US supplied M-16s, US supplied uniforms, Jeeps etc etc.
You name it, if it was green, the US paid for it. I also remember hearing,
at the time, about Billions of dollars worth of arms being delivered just in
time to become property of the folks it'd been sent to kill.
I'm sure to hear loads of corrections from all, but at the close of 1975,
didn't Vietnam have the FORTH largest Air Force in the world?.
My point, Vietnam got plenty, it got from the US enough to re-fight both
sides of the European theater of WWII!
If that wasn't enough to get the job done...

Rich Whitmeyer                Views expressed are solely my own.

ps, They didn't have the pilots, but man did they ever have planes.
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com (Barone)
Subject: Re: Limited War (III)
Organization: Raytheon Submarine Signal Division, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:38:55 GMT

In article <Bvvu98.F6M@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry
Jewell) writes:
> 2.  Another restriction was that the US did not invade Laos in order
> to effectively cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail.  General Westmoreland ...
> wanted to mount a corps-size invasion.  ...the supply requirement for
> the first week of an invasion of Laos would be 16,500 tons, or 2,350
> tons/day.  ... The airstrip at Khe Sanh could handle 300 tons/day. The
> rest would have to come to the staging area via Route 9 from the east
> and south.  Route 9 between Khe Sanh and Ca Lu was a dirt road on
> which a truck could not turn around.

Why wasn't Route 9 built up?  SeaBees in WWII made some amazing 
accomplishments (under enemy fire, no less!) in order to have front
line airfields.  Since Westmoreland knew (or suspected) that NVN
expected an invasion, it wasn't like the element of surprise would
be lost when the dirt road was turned into an "Interstate".  Sabotage
may have slowed down its construction but the road could have been
built.  It seems that a serious attempt to invade Laos would have
required Route 9's upgrade.  If the NVN had their best waiting, well,
isn't that what the US wanted - to draw out their forces in pitched
battle?
-- 
Joe Barone
m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com
Gentlemen!  You can't fight in here!  This is the War Room!
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Subject: Re: Is communism immoral? (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science
	<1992Oct8.150407.26258@vexcel.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:18:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.150407.26258@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>If we define communist loosely to mean well to the left of the US, then
>we have

That is certainly a very strange definition of communist.
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Is communism immoral? (was Re: Did We Lose?)
From: smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:54:06 GMT
 <1992Sep30.124440.28171@doug.cae.wisc.edu><5373@gold.gvg.tek.com><PD.92Oct6023
 521@horus.sics.se><SMITTIE.92Oct6125519@tui.csulb.edu><PD.92Oct7040559@horus.s
 ics.se><SMITTIE.92Oct7113241@beach.csulb.edu><PD.92Oct8034807@horus.sics.se>
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

>They are preoccupied with the distribution of other peoples wealth and not
>interested in how to generate more wealth.

This is not necessarily immoral. Unpopular, yes. Inherently wrong or immoral,
no.


>I agree that nobody has the right to take away the results of a free election.
>However, no communist government has ever been elected in a free election.

Mao probably would have been elected had the US allowed elections to take
place in China. The Soviet Union backed leader in North Korea quite possibly
would have won a general election had the US not intervened. Ho Chi Min
definitely would have been elected had the US allowed the elections to take
place. So, while your statement is true, that is due to the direct mitigation
by US military.

smittie
--
___________________________________________________________________________
GEnie, MCI, AOL:Smittie   All of these accounts except MCI will die on or
smittie@beach.csulb.edu   about Dec 31. UNIX will be forwarded for 2 weeks.
___________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Merits of the Free Press
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:41:31 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1992Oct9.054048.14643@emr1.emr.ca> knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.220417.13193@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.102350.10360@ida.liu.se> yngla@ida.liu.se (Yngve Larsson) writes:
>>>One may have many opinions about the relative merits of a free press, and
>>>in general I think the press is a slandering, opinionated hypocrite.
>>>
>>>The press (reporters and editors) selects the message to be published, and 
>>>they are very rarely have any knowledge about what they are printing. Thus,
>>>the information becomes garbled, biased and incomplete.
>>>
>>>On the sublect of the Vietnam War however, consider this:
>>>
>>>
>>>	If there had been any resemblence of a free press in
>>>	North Vietnam, there would not have been a Vietnam War.
>>>
>>>Of cause, NV was/is a ultra-totalitarian state able to completetly control
>>>the opinions of the people. They probably won because of this.
>>>
>>>comments?
>>>
>>Despite the totalitarian nature of N Vietnam, they had credibility
>>from beating the French.  This, combined with the new colonialists
>>(the US) _may_ have been enough to provide support for the
>>government in the north, despite their despotic nature.
>-------------
>Totalitarian nature ? Credibility ? They must go hand in hand. Do you know
>totalitarianism means ? No rival parties, no saying no. In US, people can
>say no to the draft like Mr. Clint.....; in NVN, you have no right to say
>no. That is why NVN army have burnt a lot their young men, but they still have
>more in stock,. From this point, to the world outside, NVN has *credibility*.
>Is this another bitterness : to create *credibility*, North Vietnam    or
>any other communist countries abuses their citizens to solidate their
>*totalitarian nature*.>
>>
>>-- 
>>
>>		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)

Many totalitarian regimes have had support and credibility from their
people, at least for a while.  The existence of a large and distant
enemy helps such regimes preserve this credibility.  Many people will
support a bad native government in the face of an attack by a foreign
power.  The nature of totalitarian regimes is that they usually _need_
such an enemy to deflect opposition.  The US provided such an enemy,
and continues to do so, at a lesser level, for other despots like
Castro.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)