HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Reasons We should Have Kept Vietnam
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:46:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.055459.4075@den.mmc.com>, whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Oct10.203509.6375@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> 
> Serious question here.  
> 
> Just what were the French after?
> My guess is we wanted access to the mysterious wealth too.
> 
> Rich Whitmeyer                The lesser of two evils, is still evil.

I think the french were just tring to hold onto what they had left of their
empire.  A question of a similar nature, what did Britian fight over the
Faulklands for?  I've never heard of anything they produce that is really
irreplaceable.

Larry Billings

Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: jbc4m@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (John B. Carr)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Reply-To: jbc4m@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (John B. Carr)
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: all
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:54:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.192025.17678@ntmtv>, harthc@ntmtv.UUCP (Howard
Hart) writes:
|> 
|> Well said, no arguments here. My only point is the press was the 
|> primary motivater behind the ending of the war. 

	The press provided the information that motivated the US withdrawal,
the press did not cause the withdrawal.  They reported Tet incorrectly,
but they did so because they had been told by both the Kennedy and
Johnson White Houses and Pentagons that the war was being won and the
enemy was weak and would give up any day now.

	In the final analysis, the press really doesn't matter anyway because
there is just no way that the US was going to outlast the North.  We
weren't going to outlast them in the South, and we certainly weren't
going to go through the total mobilization that would have been
necessary to conquer the North, and even if we did, our occupation of
the North would never have lasted long enough.
  
|> 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.
|> 
	Well you're right about that part, except that there weren't many VC
(or NLF) left to occupy, they were mostly finished off during Tet. 
Northerners carried out the occupation for the most part, what
occupation was necessary, that is.

	Then again, a lot of Vietnamese are pretty happy that they are an
independent and united country for the first time in quite a while.
I think that the govt. they have right now sucks, but most of them
don't.  The most important thing for the average Vietnamese is that he
isn't being shot at, shelled, bombed, napalmed, or defoliated anymore,
by EITHER side.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 John Carr                           UNIX Support Specialist
 jbc4m@virginia.edu                  Academic Computing, Gilmer Hall
 804/982-4710                        University of Virginia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 14:13:14 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.
------------
That is the conflict in human thinking. Equality, freedom and profit are all
in his mind. Communism aims at equality and ignores the others. Although
communist countries have tried to adjust their ideology to fit with each
country, each era, each economic basis (agricultural, industrial), each
motive (independence in VN, class in USSR), and although in each of them
they correct their policy (not rigid as some thought) by conference of
party members (new policies are presented in this occasion), their effort
hangs on temporarily to keep building *the equality* with *iron hands*. This
is the core of immorality.
We need equality but we need freedom too. The unstability of communist
countries rooted from this. In USSR, more than 70 years passed by, ignoring
freedom but equality by using iron hands has wiped out many souls. This
would continue and continue long after communists take the power. It must
happen even in Cuba, in VN, in China right now and after and after.
Your words in the above last paragraph are no surprise because equality is
emboded in human being race already; but freedom and making profit are there
too. Our society has less equality, but with freedom to debate I am sure
we will get it with no *iron hands*. This is moral and right. The proof (as
ever) ? The collapse of USSR is the proof.

------------
>
>>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.
>
------------
My debating words above would be implemented here too. You don't need make
assumptions because with or without US intervention, they would be elected.
But why election ? It is not the essential standard in their struggle, but
it is ours.
Do yo get my point ?




  
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer)
Subject: Re: Reasons We should Have Kept Vietnam
Originator: whitmeye@surf
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:54:59 GMT


In article <1992Oct10.203509.6375@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|> agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Zoz) writes:
|> ] 
|> ] Rubber, for one. American tyre companies had huge rubber plantations etc.
|> ] in Vietnam.
|> 
|> 
|> funny, I had always heard it was becaus of the rice....
|> 
|> 
|> ciao
|> drieux
|> 
|> 
|> ps: how many tyres have been made of 'real rubber' since
|> WWII when the fall of the major rubber plantations to
|> the Japanese?????
|> 
|> Hum????
|> 
|> Why ever did the synthetic rubber think come about....
|> 
|> OOOPS... that History thing again....
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Modern Day Problems:
|> 
|> Don't Just Rock the Vote
|> Kick OUT THE JAMS!

Serious question here.  

Just what were the French after?
My guess is we wanted access to the mysterious wealth too.

Rich Whitmeyer                The lesser of two evils, is still evil.
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Castro and other despots (was Re: Merits of the Free Press)
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:56:34 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1992Oct11.154658.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>In article <BvvKqu.4y7@news.orst.edu>, Monte Olsen <olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu> writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.164131.3571@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com writes:
>>>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.
>> 
>> And, so what are you saying. That we need to ignore
>> Castro, and like a good little dog he'll go away? Don't
>> think so. That's an incredibly short-sighted view.
>
Is he going away now?  The "my country, right or wrong" attitude is not
unique to any country.  To the extent it exists in communist countries,
Us trade embargoes and similar policies help the dictators in those
countries.  Is it a coincidence that the stalinist regimes of
eastern Europe (that had relations with the west) fell just about as 
soon as the Soviet Union stopped enforcing its authority but the more 
distant communists countries that were the target of US containment
policies are still going strong?  China is an exception because it is
so big.

-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer 865-8497)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Merits of the Free Press
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:31:59 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Originator: whitmeye@surf


In article <BvvKqu.4y7@news.orst.edu>, Monte Olsen <olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu> writes:
|> In article <1992Oct9.164131.3571@vexcel.com> Dean Alaska,
|> dean@vexcel.com writes:
|> >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.
|> >--
|> 
|> And, so what are you saying. That we need to ignore
|> Castro, and like a good little dog he'll go away? Don't
|> think so. That's an incredibly short-sighted view.
|> 
|> Monte Olsen

I'd say so. Ignore Castro the way I ignore scientologists. I'd just as soon
smash their faces for the deeds they've done, but what a waste of time.
Ignore Castro, stop providing him with the stuff great 3 hr speeches are
made of. It might even be better to accept him, trade with Cuba. Really
get to know each other. Show the Cubans who we all are out here, if Cuba
sucks, the Cubans can fix it. If it doesn't, then leave them be, theyv'e
got the right, don't they? 
Take the longest sighted view. It matters not a hill of beans to the
US if mad-dog socialists control Cuba, or if power crazed monopoly-
capitalists control Cuba. We're still open for business, and let the
buyer beware.

Rich Whitmeyer            Views expressed are solely my own.
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:31:22 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <92Oct10.193933edt.47892@neat.cs.toronto.edu> quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) writes:
>dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>
>>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.  
>
>Like that of Kuwait? Or the British Empire? Or the French colonialists?

I never said these qualified, either.  I'mnot sure what you are referring to
with the British Empire.


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: North Vietnam
Keywords: Invasion
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:18:46 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Originator: whitmeye@surf


In article <Smith.21@biotec.arizona.edu>, Smith@biotec.arizona.edu (Roger A smith) writes:
|> Does anyone have an idea why the United States or South Vietnam did not 
|> invade North Vietnam?

I do have an "idea" on why the north half of Vietnam was not invaded.
I don't know the US government policy though.
With the partition of Vietnam, the population was divided too. The
folks who went south were happy to be in charge and away from those
who went north. Unification of Vietnam was not an issue, because we
were there to "protect our allie". If the world was to beleive the lie
of two Vietnams, then the sovereignty of both had to exist.
Besides, to those who ran the show and knew better, it would be folly to
invade and attempt to hold the entire country, when you didn't feel all
that secure about the half you had.
No doubt many more will provide ideas. Roger, great question.
What're your ideas?

Rich Whitmeyer            Views expressed are solely my own. 
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: mai@wolf.cs.washington.edu (Hung Mai)
Subject: Re: North Vietnam
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering Dept., Univ. of Washington, Seattle
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 05:36:44 GMT

Tuan Nguyen (tuan@lgc.com) wrote:
: In article <1992Oct13.164205.17916@b8.b8.ingr.com> larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:
: 
: >I think that we should have attacked NVM, smash their army, and leave.  We
: >did not need to try to hold the country, destroying their army would make
: >them spend time, money, and resources to rebuild both the army and the
: >countryside they fought in.
: >
: 
: Easier said.  How could one "smash" an army if it refuses to show up for
: the smashing?  The Chinese armies tried many times but came up empty every
: time in the last 2,000 years to "smash" the Vietnamese army.  After WWII,
: the French tried for 9 fruitless years to again "smash" the Vietnamese army.
: The very same mentality plagued the American invasion forces in South Vietnam.
: Foreign invaders hear and talk about "guerilla warfare" but don't really
: understand it until they step into the tar pit and struggle to get out.
: Besides, since the army comes from the people, one can't never destroy
: an army unless one destroys the whole population.
: 
: But military objectives achieved at tremendous political costs are never
: popular with politicians, especially American politicians.  They were
: already overwhelmed trying to correct their first mistake, which was to 
: send troops into South Vietnam.
: 
: >Larry Billings
: 
: Tuan Nguyen
: 

My two cents worth:

In geurilla warfare, the biggest advantage for the home team is the support and
morale of its people and soldiers.  Without this support, you're nothing.  If 
the US had truly wanted to win this war, why didn't it strike at the head of
the snake and 'smash' NVnam?  If you sufficiently disrupt the enemies home, his
workplace, and his backyard - and continue to do so until life is on the 
verge of being unbearable - then his morale will be destroyed also.  Granted, 
this would have meant an incredible sacrifice of lives and land, but didn't 
the the Allies lose many, many lives AND the war???  It wouldn't have been 
pretty but it would have been practical.

Michael Hung Mai
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam,soc.veterans
Subject: James Stockdale?
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:36:28 MST
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

Who is James Stockdale?  From the VP debate last night I gathered that
he is a former Vietnam POW and an academic, and is now running mate
of Ross Perot, and has precious little to recommend him for the
U.S. Presidency.

Was he ever famous during the war?  Did he serve with honor?  What
kind of a person is he?  I apologize for not knowing much about him,
but I figure now is the time to learn....
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

"[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_
"The President scores much better than Bill Clinton."
	-- Dan, comparing Bush's record of marital infidelity to Clinton's
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen)
Subject: About Castro and *Yankee, go home* from VN
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:59:41 GMT

Sorry for not a followw-up to the related subject. My phone has been cut
off by a coming phone call. Netter with related subject would know that
I woud like to debate about his suggestions.

- Why demolishing Castro ? We are trying to analyze the past in order to
learn lessons to win in the future with our just democracy.
Your Administration has exercised a new approach to win in Kuwait and got
reputation abroad. It did stick with UN resolution. Stick with the
international community to solve prolems globally.
- Cuba and VN or China sooner or later wil follow USSR's path. A huge Soviets
with colossal manpower and resources are candidate for a requirement to
create socalism and communism (any scholar knows about this). Its satellites,
economically speaking, could not afford for that goal and have to cling on
Soviets to survive. The cost of building communism are so severe that Soviets
can not stand it any longer. I don't mean about political view here.
 Cuba, under this sense of requirement, would depose communist leaders and
set up their own destiny with free election.
- Trade with Cuba ? The pretext said it all.
-Kind words from Cubans at US base ? If they need your money they never
say *Yankee, go home*
-*Yankee go home* from VN. Some US soldiers don't respect the people they
are going to help. VC sympathizers can discourage their good spirits. I
never heard about that shouting except in small demonstration mass being
infiltrated by VC; this is normal.
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:37:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.141954.9276@m.cs.uiuc.edu> tthiel@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel) writes:
>What a silly argument.

  That's what UseNet's for.

>We sent a bunch of people to another country for
>reasons which were not supported by the Vietnamese or American people.

 Hum, I think you are guilty of sweeping generalizations here.  All the 
people in both countries?  At which period?  Before Tet? After Tet?  During
the Christmas bombings?  While Haiphong was being mined?

>We got a lot of people killed for nothing,

 Thank yo for your opinion, I enjoy reading them, even when they're completely
off target.

> the people we fought now run
>the country, and we lost a lot of prestige at home and in the international
>arena.

  And a few years later we are once again the most powerful and dangerous
country in the world.

> We lost the war.

  We lost a phase of the war, because of mismanagement at levels rather high
in the political system.
  Reality check!  The military can only lose wars when out classed militarily
by the enemy.  Other wise the war will go on until all of one side is dead,
or the political climate demands an end.  We could have sterilized VN but
that's why political control of the military is both a blessing and a curse.


> Get over it.

  I smile when I think of the ever shrinking Communist world.  I hope they
get over it, too.

>-Terry

Larry J
SEA 13JAN70-12MAR72


-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Is communism immoral? (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:04:17 GMT

In article <SMITTIE.92Oct7113241@beach.csulb.edu>, smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:
> I still think that if, in a free election, the populace of any country chooses
> a Communist form of government it is not the United States' place to deny them
> their own wishes. I opened the can about Communism good or evil but I now
> realize that even if we determine Communism to be inherently evil and I am not
> at all sure that we then have the right to deny a  nation the option of
> choosing that form of government.
> 
> smittie
> -- 

How in the H*** can you say that SVN chose Communism?  It was forced on them 
by the military might of the North.  SVN had fought for, what was it, twenty
years before the US got involved.  That is the strangest way I have ever seen
of choosing something.  Hint: Going to war to prevent something is very much
"not choosing" that thing. While it may be true that most of the farmers out
tending their crops, didn't care who was in charge (as long as they left them
alone), most citizens of South Vietnam didn't want the Communist government
of North Vietnam running their country.  And make no mistake, that is who 
was financing and driving the war.  
The VC and NVA terrorized villages and made the populace scared to accept
anything from the government of SVN or the US.  I read about the US going
into villages and innoculating children against diseases, and the VC cutting
their arms off, to scare the villagers into obedience, and to get back to
the title of these postings, that sounds real moral to me.  NOT!!!
A lot of people still think that this was merely a civil war, if it ever was
it was only in the very begining, most of the time the US troops were over
there (fighting troops not advisers) the VC was highly ineffective, and was
being supplemented by the NVA troops.  For example, the 5th VC army operating
out of Cambodia to the west of Saigon, was over 90% NVA after 1968 or 1969.
The VC were poorly trained and seldom was a purely VC attack suscessful, the
NVA on the other hand was highly trained, (in some cases better than the US
1 year TAD troops) and they had a much higher suscess rate than the VC.  They 
were battle hardened and knew the jungle better, but still retreated to safe
(places where stupid Rules of Engagement didn't allow our troops to follow)
areas to rest and recouperate.

Larry Billings

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: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:37:28 GMT

In article <SMITTIE.92Oct16105513@beach.csulb.edu> smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:
>I never said South Vietnam chose Communism. I said that had an election been
>allowed in the late 1950s, North and South Vietnam would have elected Ho Chi
>Ming. They would have elected him not because he held Marxist views but because
>he was a Nationalist and a welcome change from imperialist rule of the French.
>

------------

That assumption is out of question.

-People in the South Vietnam have soon regcognized what a communist government 
was through his communist-style AGRARIAN REFORM, ERADICATION of RELIGION.
They were scared at what North vietnamese refugees told them (more than
million refugees; most are christian). They did feel something wrong with
what called communism. The matter is not with Marxsim, but with what this
is exercised. Reading documents will show you that he suddenly replaced
TRUONG-CHINH, first prime minister, by another, PHAM-VAN-DONG.

-In the South, to us, he was not a nationalist. The reason is when we 
regcognized that he was just a puppet of Soviets to exploit the credulity
of the populace setting up a scary style of regime.

-At first, he looks like a nationalist among other ones to fight imperialist
French. Until he annulled nationalists who don't agree with his doctrine in
order to reserve all credits for resistance, we no more call him nationalist.
In short, he is a tool of The Third International Communism. We did
recogize that, exept the North Vietnam populace who had no choice.

-The myth of a nationalist is a big misconception which, not only some naive
Vietnamese, intelligentsia abroad can not see it. I am trying to get more
evidence (not from communist sympatizer writers) to show you what he really
did in this fishy period of our history.
Newsgroups: alt.war