HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: watanabe@sunflower.cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:11:26 GMT

mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:

>Sounds to me like you haven't looked at what caused the US to have problems.
>It directly links in to why we had so easy a time with Iraq.  No, I am not
>talking about a military reason, anyone who bothers to check their facts
>realizes that the US did not lose any major battle in all of vietnam.  
>What I am talking about is the %(##!&^ Press.

I don't think you can simplify the problem to:

	"We won in Iraq because we controlled the press"
	"We lost in Vietnam because we didn't control the press"

There are a large number of factors that were different between
Vietnam and Iraq, i.e. open desert warfare vs. jungle warfare, 
guerilla warfare vs. textbook battle, highly motivated, trained,
and skilled enemy vs. poorly motivated, badly trained, and unskilled
enemy, isolated, surrounded enemy cutoff from supply lines, vs.
enemy right next to secure supplies (i.e. Communist China for North
Vietnamese Army, and North Vietnam for the Viet Cong).

Other factors: attack in overwhelming strength vs. war of attrition,
clear objectives vs. unclear ones, highly trained, highly motivated
professional all-volunteer force vs. vs. poorly trained, poorly
motivated army of short-timers and draftees, fighting a war legally
declared by Congress and supported by UN vs fighting an illegal war,
..

I think any of the latter factors would be more significant in
determining why we were unsuccessful in Vietnam and successful
in Iraq. Still, I think it was the combination of all of the
latter factors, not any single one of them that was responsible
for the difference. Blaming the loss of the war on the press is
hardly fair.

-Larry Watanabe
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject:  Did We Misplace the Parameters First?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:15:19 GMT

glenn@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu (Glenn A. Adams) writes:
] In article <24SEP199201043297@summa.tamu.edu> rtb3270@summa.tamu.edu writes:
] >
] >Many people know about the '68 Tet Offensive,
] >and many historians, and enthusiasts know that the only real damage
] >done by this offensive was psychological to the public.
] 
] So... I suppose that the many South Vietnamese civilians whose lives and/or
] property was lost in the '68 Tet was not "real damage," but merely
] psychological?

Oh, But this is Amusing.

The NLF infrastructure trashed itself during the Tet Offensive,
and this allowed for Further interference by the NVA and the
Main Line Communists to Take over the Opposition to the Gov't
of South Vietnam.

It also developed the sort of problems about defining what
'winning' really means and what the role of the news media
is all about.

Who can forget the battle of Khe Sahn, and how the media
spent all its time comparing it to Dien Bien Phu, without
recognizing that unlike the French - the americans had
Camp Carroll down the Road, and B-52's all over the place
to provide fire support.

{ worth noting, also, that the NVA chewed up three divisions
learning that classical set piece battles without air support
are NOT a viable option. [ its safe to admit things like this,
as even the NVA high command is willing to admit their tactical
errors now.... ] }

Also worth noting, and often over looked, was the success of
the USMC's CAC/CAP programs that did NOT lose a hamlet to
NLF/NVA operations.... { cf. Col. Corson's book: "the Betrayal" }

Or are we going to maintain this discussion on a 
purely Ideological Correct Interpretation of the
Marxist_Lenninist_Maoist interpretation of Historical Dialectics?


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: khanh kim nguyen <knguyen@emr.ca>
Subject: Re: How could the United States have won?
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6F0D24D04012259@knguyen.emr.ca>
X-Xxdate: Thu, 1 Oct 92 16:05:33 GMT
Organization: emr
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:41:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.142421.19188@vexcel.com> Dean Alaska,
dean@vexcel.com writes:

>I think it is generally believed that Castro never intended to have a
>western-style democracy in Cuba.  He used the US.  Supporters of Ho like
>to point to his declaration that is modeled after the US Declaration of
>Independence, while others point to his training in communist countries.
>We will never know for sure what kind of country Vietnam would have
>been if the French had not returned.  I don't believe that it would
>have been a social democracy but I also believe that it would have
>been very independent of the USSR, in spite of his training. 

------------
Didn't you see all declarations of independence of communist countries
like
Vietnam ? Ho-chi-Minh, basing US declaration of Independence, put down on 
his.  Castro maybe do the same thing. It is no surprise. It does not mean
that they are going to accept your democracy. Nope ! 

The first and most important task of Ho-chi-Minh is how he can gather of 
types of people aroud him. Being oppressed by Frech, they feel those words
moral and logical. Castro would use the same tactics. That is what we 
called brainwashed.

Yes, *human being* is born to be free and equal; every country has its 
right to be free and independent;.....

After taking the power, they are the boss of their country; the country is
independent. But, freedom becomes dictatorship; equality becomes 
unequality. Did you see my point ? They, from this to another would-to-be
communist leaders, tell lie skillfully. How do those ordinary people can
guess what they will end up with. Our two generations are told lie

The whole beutiful words from them are just lie. What you called reforms,
sometimes loose sometimes tight, is just one goal to ease the resentment
of their own people. 

Again, don't trust what they say, but watch what they did.
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: drk@m.cs.uiuc.edu (David Kohr)
Subject: Domino Effect (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana,  IL
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:55:39 GMT

In article <5961@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
(Markus Stumptner) writes:
>the way in which they actually (if unintentionally) set up Cambodia so that
>the Domino Effect worked in that one instance can only be called classic.
>-- 
>Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at

Which "they" are you referring to?

In any case, my point is that the original US objective of avoiding the
Domino Effect was largely successful in the sense that the governments of
the large majority of the countries which mattered the most economically to
the US and its allies in Southeast Asia (such as Thailand, Singapore,
Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia) did not fall to popular (read
"Communist")  insurgencies (despite the presence of insurgencies in many of
them at the time).
-- 
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: gerth@watson.ibm.com (John Gerth)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 03:30:53 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Oct1.234404.7583@ntmtv> harthc@ntmtv.UUCP (Howard Hart) writes:
>
>Salami. The press had everything to do with the American people turning
>against the war. Do you really think enough people gave a shit about
>a war fought 6000 miles away, in which we lost all of maybe 50,000 
>servicemen over the entire 10+ years? Hell, we loose that many people 
>on the freeways every YEAR (men, women and children, not soldiers) 
>not including walking wounded and no one's screaming to outlaw cars. 
>There had to be some other impetus and the press, for good or bad, 
>was it.
>
Continuing in the established vein "Pastrami".

As to the comparison with the highway death toll, I seem to remember
that at the time this was actually used the other way 'round in radio
spots urging highway safety, e.g. "More people are killed each and every
year in highway accidents than in the whole Vietnam War".  Anyway, the
comparison is bogus to begin with (see Mark Twain's 19th century essay
on the dangers of sleeping, i.e. "more people die in their sleep every
year than in all the railway accidents, murders, ....")

What's interesting to me is that everyone knows that this is a controversial	issue even though the official position of the legal government of the
United States was that we had won the war and negotiated a "peace with honor".
Why is there any doubt about the position of the American people since,
the press notwithstanding, they had clearly demonstrated their opinion
in 1972 by electing the government which produced the peace with honor
in an overwhelming landslide against an opponent whose prinicpal issue
was "peace"(presumably 'without honor')?

Why aren't we happy with the official record?

What are the visible traces of the immense power which forced
this landslide government to cravenly abandon its electoral mandate?

I submit that the we know we lost the war as Americans (and 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),
because we know that our government lied to us, and we know that we 
supported it even after we suspected it was lying to us, and we feel so
guilty that even two decades later we agonize over the missing and the
dead who we've never brought home.

And we did this as a society, but not, for the most part, as individuals.
But all of us must shoulder the responsibility for the actions of the few
because we elected the few, believed the few, followed the few, and thereby
deputized the few in our name.  Where we failed, we failed together.

We can take some comfort in the recent triumphs of freedom.  We know that
those who served did so in the service of freedom.  Many of us are less
sure about those who led....so...
 Let us resolve then, not to revisit the past unless we focus on the future.





    


-- 
John Gerth	 gerth@watson.ibm.com		(914) 784-7639
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: harthc@ntmtv.UUCP (Howard Hart)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:20:25 GMT

>>In article <1992Oct1.234404.7583@ntmtv> harthc@ntmtv.UUCP (Howard Hart) writes:
>>
>>Salami. The press had everything to do with the American people turning
>>against the war. Do you really think enough people gave a shit about
>>a war fought 6000 miles away, in which we lost all of maybe 50,000 
>>servicemen over the entire 10+ years?
>>
>
>Continuing in the established vein "Pastrami".

>As to the comparison with the highway death toll, I seem to remember
>that at the time this was actually used the other way 'round in radio
>spots urging highway safety, e.g. "More people are killed each and every
>year in highway accidents than in the whole Vietnam War".  Anyway, the
>comparison is bogus to begin with (see Mark Twain's 19th century essay
>on the dangers of sleeping, i.e. "more people die in their sleep every
>year than in all the railway accidents, murders, ....")

(I think were on Pimento loaf now.)

Ahhh, but in Mark Twain's time, no one was splashing instant images of 
people dying in their sleep nightly into your local living rooms. The
American people currently and for the last 30+ years have gotten their
truths from Television. Nothing is real in the rest of the world 
until you see it on Television (shades of Videodrome!! a great if slightly
warped movie, I might add). The incredible interest and resources
brought to bear in the Baby Jessica rescue, the trapped whales in 
Alaska, and many other instances too numerous to count were
provided as a direct result of Television and the press. Since the
American attention span is so short, these images had to be continuously
thrown into our living rooms to maintain any level of interest, just
as the personal images of men dying horribly in Vietnam had to be
continuously reinforced to maintain the public interest in getting us out
of there. That interest translated into votes, protests, etc. all as
a result of the press. and TV.

>I submit that the we know we lost the war as Americans (and 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),
>etc.......................

Well said, no arguments here. My only point is the press was the 
primary motivater behind the ending of the war. Personally, I 
don't think anyone won. We lost thousands of men for nothing,
and the Viet Cong ended up occupying a blasted, devastated
country, with an economy that still hasn't recovered. Not much of 
a trade-off, was it.

Howard Hart



Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer 865-8497)
Subject: Re: That picture (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Originator: whitmeye@surf
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:48:25 GMT


In article <1992Oct2.175439.11565@access.digex.com>, dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep30.192358.1227@lgc.com> tuan@lgc.com (Tuan Nguyen) writes:
|> >
|> >It could be possible that the executed was a VC terrorist who had just
|> >massacred the family of one of General Loan's men.
|> 
|> The photographer later commented that he thought a major problem with
|> the picture was that it did not show the context of the action.  The
|> VC terrorist had just massacred either a friend of the family of a 
|> friend of General Loan.  (This is written up in one of the Life
|> Magazine collections where the picture is reprinted.  Although I
|> realize that most of the Life "best of" books seem to have that 
|> picture...)
|> 
|> Joe Dzikiewicz
|> 
I think the biggest problem with that film was that it was possible
to see whose side was doing what. As a 'small taste' of war it needed
no comment. Raw violence. Reality intruding into daily half-speed life.

Something the military definately wanted excluded from Dessert Storm.
War is ugly, nobody wants something that ugly. So make it over in an
image more palatable, less distrubing.
 
As for the context of the photo, I remember being absolutely aware that
this General was in the middle a battle, and he had the bastard who
killed someone dear to him. Very clearly I remember the context. I think
the press did their job without bias. That time for sure.

Within that context of captor/captive relationship, the problem is one
of summary execution of POW's. We as a nation hoped our men were not being
treated that way. Since some, we knew were, it was frightening. To those
ready to do so, it proved their point on immorality and all that stuff.

A very powerful movie, the still photo lacks a lot.
I wish I'd never seen it, but you can't un-ring a bell.

Rich Whitmeyer                Views expressed are solely my own.
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: harthc@ntmtv.UUCP (Howard Hart)
Subject: Re: VC strength after Tet
Keywords: Tet
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:27:59 GMT

In article <6291@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, cwvst+@pitt.edu (Charles W Van Keuren) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep24.145633.13933@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jbc4m@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (John B. Carr) writes:
|> >
|> >territory.  In addition, in a modern revolution, the doctrine is to
|> >remove (imprison, exile, or execute) most of the revolutionaries after
|> >the success of the revolution.  Finally there is some evidence that
|> >
|> The comment about the "removal" of the revolutionaries is interesting and     
|> logical, but I've never read any academic or anecodotal evidence of it?
|> 

Heard a great story about Stalin and his old buddy Trotsky. Seems they
had a slight falling out (Stalin didn't like the idea of a cult of
personality based on Trotsky, or maybe he just didn't like his shoes).
Trotsky high-tailed it to Mexico city where he figured he was 
relatively safe, but somehow someone changed his mind (literally)
when they ice-picked him through the back of the skull. 

The way my old history teacher put it, the moral of the story is, you have 
to know how to pick your friends if you're going to be successful in life.
(Round of laughter, drum roll, take my wife, please....).

(Don't know if it's true or not, but it did make a good story...)


Howard Hart
From: secrist@kxovax.enet.dec.com (Strong datatypes for weak minds.)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Why didn't anyone learn from the French experience ?
Date: 27 Sep 92 03:21:46 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


After footing much of the monetary bill for the French for so long,
why does it seem we learned so little from the French experience ?

Regards,
rcs

Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: The Dangerous Question
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:27:34 GMT


Recently the San Jose Mercury ran a Page One Article about
the UN Peace Keeping Troops in Cambodia finding  fighting
force of some 200 Montangyards, and about 200+ women and
children deep in the jungles near the Vietnamese border.

These fighters had maintained their promise to the US
government to carry on the fight in the Highlands, rather
than come down, in 1975, to defend Saigon.

This fighting force was still awaiting orders from the
head of the Montagyard command, which they would never
recieve, as that man was killed by the Khmer Rouge.

Some of the Special Forces folks here in the USA are
lobbying to bring our loyal allies home to the USA
for all that they have done.


Which brings us to the nasty question....

Is the war over? Or is it that the cultural myopia
of american has once again ruled that its not a 
war until we arrive, and its over when we leave....

Or even more dangerous, when we are the rallying point
of a people's armed revolutionary struggle against
a centralist government of 'The People' can we continue
to call it 'victory' as long as there is someone in
the bush struggling, as was the case after Tet?


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: dchapman@well.sf.ca.us (Dave Chapman)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:30:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.235117.24552@fy.chalmers.se> jacob@fy.chalmers.se (Jacob Hallen) writes:
>In article <24SEP199201043297@summa.tamu.edu> rtb3270@summa.tamu.edu writes:
>>From my professor's argument, WE did not lose
>>the war.
>
>The object of military actions is to break the enemys' will to fight. This
>is in no way limited to the troops, it applies to the entire society.

The objective of military action is to support political goals.

It is useful to remember the context of the early vietnam war.  Communism
was still in its expansionist phase, especially in Asia.  There was fear
that a communist indochina would support guerillas in adjacent countries,
especially Thailand, Indonesia, and the Phillippines (sort of adjacent).

Despite the failure to prevent indochina from going communist, we were
successful in preventing these countries from being infiltrated.
The long-term strategy was to maintain a cold war with the communists
until their economies collapsed.  This stategy worked.

Strictly speaking, we lost the vietnam war, in that our immediate political
objectives were frustrated.  It is useful to remember that vietnam is only
one piece of the cold war, which we won.

The decision to support the french re-colonialization in 1946 was made
because of european politics.  The decision to intervene in 1960 was made
in the context of the cold war.  In both cases, vietnam itself was not
given the attention it deserved.

In 1942-1945, Ho Chi Minh was out fighting japan, and being supplied
with arms by the united states.  If we had insisted that france give
vietnam its independance (we got the germans out of paris, now you get
your troops out of hanoi), Ho would have become another Tito.  If
we had cut a deal with them in 1961, we could have still achived a
non-aligned vietnam, I think.  This did not happen, and you know the rest.

-dave
From: drk@m.cs.uiuc.edu (David Kohr)
Subject: Re: Elections
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana,  IL
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:28:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.185227.27293@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean
Alaska) writes:
>Actually, the elections were cancelled because the US knew that Ho
>would win.  The west claimed that this was because the north had
>more population, but Ho's status from victory over the French
>should have been enough.

Does anyone have a reference regarding the sizes of the populations of the
North and South?  I have one (G. Herring, _America's Longest War_,
somewhere between p. 40 and p. 60 off the top of my head) that puts it at
about 15 M. for the North and 10 or 12 for the South, but there is no
source listed for these figures.
-- 
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: goose@camelot.bradley.edu (Bradley Riley)
Subject: Elections
Organization: Bradley University
Date:  1 Oct 92 03:28:08 GMT

	I can slightly remember reading about an election held in Vietnam
to see who the population supported.  I believe Ho won but the US said that
the elections were corrupted.  Any info out there.  Sounds really fishy to
me.  Did the US renigged on our policy of the power of the people.
	(I would look it back up in a history book but the ones I read
	 are all biased-  How about rewriting the history books and only
	 including facts   ie Indians massacured - Calvary attacked  re-
	 written as Calvary massacured little children and women, Native
	 Americans defended)

About the reasons US lost.  Well there are many but there is an easy answer.

	Look at how Desert Storm was ran.  Commander in Chief said, " I want
Kuwait free" 
	Then Powell said, "Schwarzkoff, I want you to liberate Kuwait by 
using these means"
and then Schwarzkoff ran the show - NOT LBJ.  

	Easy answer.

Besides, after so much occupation, why wouldn't the Vietnam people want to fightfor their freedom to chose what they want.
They had to be skilled.



As for the press, the first time live coverage , as in the same or next day, 
brought the cruelities of war right into the home.  People cannot function
very well in war.  Nor can the people at home.  War is an atrocity.  Nothing
is great about it.  As being in the Reserves, we know it the best.  We are
carefull of gun-ho people.  We believe in living for our country, kindof
pointless to die.  But we know that we can.  But the bottom line is,
WAR IS HORRIBLE.
Another thing about the press.  I've watched the debriefings by Schwarzkoff
on CNN.  Then I saw news media.  The threw everything out of context.
I saw numerous MISSQOUTES in various papers.  From then on, I have never been
able to believe anything in the media.  I can't even make solid judgements
on Clinton nor Bush because I don't know what is fiction from myth.  Only
delving into the bills and other materials can I make a judgement.
SAD!!!!  VERY SAD!!!  Free speech.  Not my version.


--
and if i should falter
would you open your arms out to me
we can make love not war
and live at peace with our hearts
		A little respect                  Bradley A. Riley
	        Erasure-the innocents	 	  goose@camelot.bradley.edu