HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: SCTC
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:45:14 GMT

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

>>... the US did not lose any major battle in all of vietnam.  
>>What I am talking about is the %(##!&^ Press.

And watanabe@sunflower.cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe) writes:

>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"

I'm racking my brain for the bibliographic citation of a book I just
finished about the Gulf War, "On Strategy II: A Critical Analysis of
the Gulf War" by some retired colonel who is a fan of Clauswitz (sp?).

The author's earlier book "On Strategy" was a Clauswitzian analysis of
Vietnam; the book I read was 25% Gulf War, 25% older military history,
and 50% Vietnam War.

Clauswitz is cited as saying that victory requires three ingredients
(sorry, I don't have the book handy, or I'd list them specifically).
The first two are familiar sounding military and leadership qualities
that I forget the exact wording of. The third requirement is the
support of the warring people.

The author argues that it was an overt policy on the part of the US
government to downplay the war and not campaign for popular support of
it. Johnson, in particular, wanted to focus on domestic issues while
supporting the traditional anti-Communist activities quietly in the
background. The author talks a lot about how this was related to a
paralysis in military leadership brought about by The Bomb and its
effect on military thinking. "Counter insurgency" was seen as the
practical alternative to "real wars" and that's how US involvement
began.

So, I don't think it's reasonable to blame The Press as if it's a
monolithic, conspiratorial monster. If it's a monster it's more like
an anthill gone crazy than Godzilla. As any Presidential candidate
can tell you, a free press is pretty hard to control, from within
or from without. Even with its flexible, market oriented approach
to The Truth, I prefer a free press over something "tamer."
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 03:57:19 GMT

In article <5373@gold.gvg.tek.com> mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
>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.
------------
Why is the goal immoral ? Is that because of the way of involvement or
because of the failure of an operation ?
After relaxing for a few years to prepare, communists finish their dream to
take over South Vietnam under something called independence, liberation. At
the same time Laos and, later Kampuchea are *liberated*. Ho-chi-Minh has
set the goal to unite Laos, Kampuchea and Vietnam under *Indochina communist
party*. South Vietnam, although poor and misgoverned, still fight communists
of North Vietnam which is backed by the whole bloc of united communist country,
to the end with or without the help from US. Without your help, we will
be *liberated* sooner. That is the goal and reason to defend our way of living :free to live the way we want. We don't care who Karl Marx or Lenin are. As an
ordinary citizen, I would like to go everywhere I want like you in US; to
chat with some friends at a cafe kiosk at the corner without fear of being
watched like you in US. Is that too much for me ? Now, back there in VN, we
must be careful to say, to travel at ease.
 
Now, I just ask you why you call that fight is immoral.
--------

>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.
--------
Yes, to your interest, America should not jump into that mess. To your
interest, you help a little Kuwait to secure the oil line. That is pratical
thinking.
If I were American, I would think the same.
Xref: sparky alt.war.vietnam:98 soc.veterans:1076
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:55:01 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

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.  
>--
>Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
>Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science
	<PD.92Oct6023521@horus.sics.se> <1992Oct6.215501.12886@vexcel.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:09:17 GMT

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.  

I agree. Trying to save the Vietnamese people from the tyrrany of
communism was a good thing, but the US failed to help the Vietnamese
to establish a democracy.
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: khanh kim nguyen <knguyen@emr.ca>
Subject: Re: What Did We Lose?
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6EDE795DA052259@knguyen.emr.ca>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 29 Sep 92 10:59:33 GMT
Organization: emr
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:56:07 GMT

In article <28SEP199211203886@rose.uib.no> Jan O Jacobsen,
soajj@rose.uib.no writes:
>Vietnam in Cambodia and so on. You just can't kill the people's will to
>national independence, without killing them all. The Americans for sure
>tried that sometimes (My Lai etc), but thanks to the press the American
>people learned about it. Then they said no. To blame the press for
>losing the war is therefore in some sense correct. Hitler would
>probably not have been so *sucsessfull* in his war of extermination 
>against the European judes, if Germany had had a free press......
--------
About the press ?
Free speech is one of the basics of democracy. It must be accompanied by 
integrity, truth and fairness. Why does some of us condemn them ? Did 
they act with truly professionalism ? Did they report what behind the 
scene at My-lai or why an police officer shot a terrorist who, a moment 
before, threw a grenade in the protesting crowd ? You would see on the 
newspaper the pictures with not much comments.
Everybody knows that if they tell the whole truth, they won't sell papers
too much or be put aside by true-loving-peace people back at home. They
report, 
take picture of  killing some Vietcongs disguised as ordinary people. In
Tet 
Offensive, Vietcong and NVA  killed almost 3000 people in the center of 
Hue, hundred of people in every big cities. In my home town, Mytho which 
is 80 km south of Saigon, on the 3rd day of New Year Day, more than 2/3 of
the town was in disaster; walking on the street, I still see people died 
here and there such as a pregnant woman died rigth on a three-wheel cart,
probably she could not run fast when Vietcong fire like hell in the town;
they often use people as their shield. Did they report compassionately 
those scene ?
Vietcong usually use mortars to scare any people moving on roads among 
cities. They kill civilians every day. My cousin sister have been killed 
in one of between-city roads among her husband and two kids( 2 and 3 years
old) while I have been waiting for her for a reunion. The list of their 
victim is never ending.
Communists are the most to be scared of free press, not our society.
While doing
biased reporting, they kill soldiers before they go to the battlefield.
They
don't know that, after taking power in Saigon, communist papers praise
them
for helping to win the war. In communist mind, they laugh at some foreing
reporters. A ha ! Life is sometimes just a play on theater.
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: danderso@nmsu.edu (David Anderson)
Subject: Great non-fiction book regarding Vietnam
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: alt.war.vietnam
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:55:28 GMT


I just began reading this group and noticed that there were people
posting the names of good books about the conflict in Vietnam.  A
book which I would highly recommend to everyone is, INTO THE MOUTH OF
THE CAT.  It is the account of Capt. Lance Peter Sijan (USAF) whose
F-4 went down over North Vietnam because one of the bombs didn't fall.
It recounts his struggle for freedom from the NVN and also the cruelty
with which American POWs were treated.  It is an excellent book.  It
is published by the Association of Graduates from the Air Force
Academy. (I'm not sure who else prints this book)

David Anderson
danderso@nmsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen)
Subject: Re: How could the United States have won?
Keywords: books
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:26:35 GMT

In article <1a0b0mINNm3k@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aryeh@cash.ucsc.edu (Aryeh Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.151424.22364@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>Although I'm obviously just speculating, I think that by the time of
>>the partition it may have been too late.  If the US had not assisted
>>France after WWII and let the younger Ho Chi Minh take over, I
>>would guess that the resulting leftist regime would have been much
>>more moderate and certainly less dependent on the Soviets.  Then
>>they might have "migrated" towards more pluralism at an early date.
>>Note that most of the surviving communist regimes today tend to be the ones
>>that the US fought most strongly - Vietnam, Cuba and N Korea.
>
>I remember seeing in "Vietnam: A Television History", aired on PBS about 5 
>years ago, that the OSS was training Ho's troops, to help resist the Japanese 
>in WWII.  Ho matter of fact went so far to use the US Declaration of 
>Independance as a Model for his.  Ho many times sigted the US as a very good 
>friend of vietnam. But under the marshal plan the state dept. decided that 
>helping France regain it's colonies was more importand then helping a very 
>good friend in a then little understood region.  I also seem to recall that 
>Castro had a very similor experenince in the early days of his war against the 
>Cuban Goverment.   I should also note that the early CIA was in favor of 
>befriending Ho.

--------
You don't see that Ho and Castro are the same type ? Ho befriends like that
many times with France, US and vietnamese nationalist parties which try
kick France out of Vietnam. Ho betrays them all. To nationalist leaders, he
kills them all. In early days when Viet-Minh (arly name for Ho army) takes
the power in North Vietnam, Ho and his politburo make a swift revolution
about land and private properties including rice fields. A lot of landlords
are beheaded. Do you know who of them are ? They are the parents of Truong
Chinh who is the head of politburo.
Do you know that those guys who are set up by Hanoi to create an army we
know *Mat Tran Giai Phong Mien Nam*.On surface, this army is composed only
by South Vietnamese people who stand up against South Vietnam army and US,  
but almost all of them are North Vietnamese. After taking the power in
Saigon, these guys set up a goverment which look like the South Vietnam
are liberated by only South Vietnamese revolutioaries. Where are they now ?
Oh ho ? they are dismissed skillfully and live with a small pension !
You see ! Naive people are we, not they !
know as Mat Tra Giai Phong Mien Nam
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer 865-8497)
Subject: Re: Book on  My Lai
Originator: whitmeye@surf
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:07:50 GMT


In article <1992Oct5.164833.18413@HQ.Ileaf.COM>, raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka) writes:
|> 
|> I have finished reading "Four Hours in My Lai" 
|> by Michael Bilton and Kevin Sim
|> published 1992 by  Viking Penguin
|> 
(some deletion)
|> 
|> Now, this book makes the other books and the movies seem like a
|> deception. It is not hard for me to say I feel decieved, because
|> my feelings are very real. People can disagree with my statements,
|> and opinions, but not with my feelings.

Yeah sure they can and probably will disagree with your feelings.
There are loads of people out there who will feel threatened by your
convictions. Not that I do, but I thought a warning couldn't hurt.
 
|> My opinion of Gen Colin Powell has to be rethought, as do my opinions
|> of Al Hague, Henry Kissinger.

Keep on re-thinking. There's more to these jokers than meets the eye.
  
|> it is easy to see how both the Army and Nixon were concerned for their
|> images, but now maybe I have explained better why I wrote in my opening
|> that I feel decieved.

Pentagon Papers will make you feel violated
 
|> I already stated my disgust for the word "non-combantant", I also would
|> like to share my disgust for the word "gook". The use of terms like this
|> to try and dehumanize others is wrong. What these words do however is
|> express an ignorance and hatred, that is; Racism.

If killing people is wrong, and your job is killing people, then you could
quit your job, or change the job description. Umm, I kill gooks, not people. 
Dehumanizing is the key. You can see it on this net right now, the first
case that comes to my mind is the folks who use the phrase "ECO-HOBBIT".
 
|> In closing I am very glad that I purchased and read this book to the end.
|> The emotions and feelings aroused casued me to write this, I hope that
|> in sharing I can now go on from here a little wiser and confident that
|> I can still take people at their word, not be suspicious of them.

Best of luck to ya bro. 

|> Back to life,
|>christopher raczka

I have not read this book, thanks for the info.

Rich Whitmeyer                Views expressed are solely my own.
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Subject: That picture (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:54:39 GMT

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

Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science
	<PD.92Oct6023954@horus.sics.se> <1992Oct6.220030.13035@vexcel.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:19:32 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:
>>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?.

I was referring to the restrictions on the targeting in the bombing
campaigns. An invasion of the north would probably not have been
practical.

>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.

By the time the US pulled out, the Viet-Cong had ceased to be a force
to reckon with. The North Vietnamese regular army did the fighting in
the south for the rest of the war.
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Vietnam Causes (was Re: Did we lose?) 
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:06:27 CDT

In article <9210060620.AA07433@ermintrude.teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au> agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Zoz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.105750.203@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>|> In article <5373@gold.gvg.tek.com> mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
>|> >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
>
>Rubber, for one. American tyre companies had huge rubber plantations etc.
>in Vietnam.
>-- 
Uh, just so you know, rubber has been sythetically made since WWII.  Any
rubber plantations in existance by the late 50's were simply anachronisms,
somthing like a shop turning out riding spurs by the hundred.
:)M^2
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: jmars@mta.ca (Jennifer K. Mars)
Subject: Books on Vietnam - _Dispatches_
Reply-To: jmars@mta.ca
Organization: Mount Allison U, Sackville, N.B. Canada 
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:57:09 GMT

	Hi! I'm enrolled in an American Lit, class and we're currently
studying _Dispatches_ by Michael Herr.  I was very pleased to see
it mentioned in this group, and I was wondering if anyone out there
could help me with a question I've been grappling with.  Since
I'm university aged, I wasn't around for the day-today news
coverage of the Vietnam war, and Herr's book seems to walk the line
between journalism and fiction.  Does anyone have any thoughtsd
about whether the book is structured around presenting an accurate
representation of what the war was _really_ like or whether its
goal is somewhat more biased.?  I'm unclear as to how the news
coverage at the time presented the information/human side
of the war.

				Thanks,
					J. Mars
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Merits of the Free Press
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:04:17 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

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.

>				Yngve Larsson
>
>--
>Yngve Larsson                               UUCP: ...mcvax!enea!liuida!yla
>Dept of CIS                                       Internet: yla@ida.liu.se
>Linkoping University, Sweden                          Phone: +46-13-281949


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: VC strength after Tet
Date: 27 Sep 92 04:22:34 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1686DBB99.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.145633.13933@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>jbc4m@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (John B. Carr) writes:
> 
>>
>>        As I was watching the special on LBJ on PBS last night, I was
>>reminded of a theory we developed in a class on the American
>>experience in Vietnam.  From reading reports of NLF (or VC, whichever
>>you prefer) activity, especially in the Delta and around Saigon, it
>>appeared that the NLF had really shot their wad during Tet.  The rate
>>of insurgent activity was MUCH lower in the reports we read and the
>>ratio of NVA to NLF troops faced by US and ARVN forces greatly
>>increased.  In short there did not appear to be a whole lot of NLF
>>troops left after Tet.
>>
>>        Is this the general consensus, or were we reading the wrong
>>books ?
>>
>Yes. The VC was wiped out as a fighting force during Tet. This is well
>known. The names of some VC battalions were kept after Tet but the battalions
>themselves were made up entirely of NVA regulars. Tet was a tremendous
>military setback for the North but a propoganda windfall because of the
>way it was reported.
> 
>     --mike

While Tet may not have ended up as a tactical victory for the VC, it had
the effect it did on the US because it demonstrated that the evaluations
of the war by the US military were totally off.  The south and the US
were supposed to be near winning the war.  While the communists didn't
_hold_ territory after Tet, they did capture a large amount of territory
that they shouldn't have been able to, according to US military reports.
The fact that the US military had totally misrepresented the condition
of the enemy is what had such a large effect.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam