From: scw@ada.seas.ucla.edu (Stephen C Woods)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:39:46 GMT
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles

In article <1992Sep30.053341.10600@den.mmc.com> whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer) writes:
>
>You are correct about that, but fact is we lost an unjust war.

Please define a just war.  We were invited in by the Goverment of South
Vietnam.  This Govt. was under attack by a combined force of internal
rebellion (the NLF) and external invasion (the NVA).

>|> What I am talking about is the %(##!&^ Press.
>
>You have any idea of the value of a free %<##!&^ Press?

Yes I do, but not when it's busy grinding some made-in-Moscow axe.

>|> How many times in Vietnam did the press come in and accompany soldiers on
>|>_patrol_!

>Not enough times. If I'm to support something as important as that I want
>and deserve all the information that can be provided.

Too damn many times, the only thing that they were interested in was
pictures of dead/dying/wounded US troops so that they could put more
blood on the screen that the other networks.  Usually they managed to get
theselves lifted out begore night fall so that they could go back to
<pick you favorite rear area> and have some cold ones (when the didn't become
heat casualties).

>|> Look at how the Tet offensive was reported.  Tet, a major victory for the US
>|> was reported as a crippling defeat by one certain reporter whose name I need
>|> not mention.
>
>I call the loss of a provincial capital defeat. That we destroyed it to get
>it back is another. (Hue)

Oh clueless one, have you read Gen. Giap's autobiography?  Before you open your
mouth on this subject you really should read it.  Giap states that the Tet
Offensive on 1968 was 'a complete military Disaster', and goes on to say that
the NLF had completly missjudged the situation, when they expected to be met
with open arms as 'rescuers' they were met with at best sullen indifrence and
more commonly with hostility (he implies that they were perhaps taking their
own propaganda to seriously).

>
>|> We were dealing with a fanatical enemy.  In order to defeat such an enemy,
>|> you must break their fanaticism.  This was never done.
>
>They were not fanatics. They were painfully aware of the power we possessed
>and realized that if they died trying to kick us out, it was a better death
>than the one to be had as a helpless victim. That is real commitment, not
>lip service. To the Vietnamese we must have seemed like the fanatics.


One man's fanatic is another's Hero.  I have the greatest respect for my former
enemies, they, for the most part, fought a brave and honest fight.  For their
leaders I have less respect.  For our political leaders who  got us into the war
and then tried to win the war cheaply (in many different ways) I have nothing
but contempt.  For some I have hatred and am waiting untile they go to their
just rewards that I may stand in line with my comrads one more time.

>|> All they had to do was selectively fire their cameras.
>
>That reminds me [...] of carnage they'd never support it
>again. I want the whole fraud exposed.

Sounds like a lot of BS to me, have you ever seen guncamera footage, Fooy.

>|> The US could not have occupied North Vietnam until we broke their
>|>spirit.  Thisis what has been done in all the successful occupations
>|>of modern history.
>
>What successful occupations? Poland? Germany? Afghanistan? India?
>Namimbia? France? Manchuria? Palestine? I know, Ohio! Now that one was
>successful.

Uhm.. let's see Germany, yep that seems to have worked quite well, Japan
yep that worked too.
BTW there never was any plan to occupy the North, there weren't even any
staff studies for invading the north (although there were a whole slew
of major raid plans made).

>Face it, when one nation sends troops to force anything down the
>throats [...] quit. Each time you kill one, you make
>more.

Hm... perhaps you should summon up the sprits of Napolean and Alexander
to debate that.  We'll let the Carthageans(SP?) be the jury.  The history of
the world is full of succesful conquests, the defenders don't have any edge.

>The press is not reason the US pulled out, we as a nation could no longer
>live a lie in the face of over whelming facts. TO OUR CREDIT, TOO!

Actually what happened wast that the media decided that they would emphasize
certian aspects of the war, and ignore others (all in the name of higher
ratings).


>  Lucky Rich Whitmeyer                DRAFT-LOTO # 269  1971    

Lucky Steve Woods  USMC 1966-1971

-- 
-----
Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (310)-825-8614
UUCP: ...{ibmsupt,ncar!cepu}!ollie}!scw  Internet:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU