HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu (Monte Olsen)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:28:02 GMT
Organization: OSU Extension Service
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6FB567F4203A70D@reynolde-mac.ads.orst.edu>
X-Xxdate: Fri, 9 Oct 92 15:32:15 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9

In article <SMITTIE.92Oct9102319@beach.csulb.edu> Smittie,
smittie@beach.csulb.edu writes:
>Yes, there are occasions when it probably would be
stealing. But that all
>depends on the situation. In cases such the Philippines
and most of South
>America it might also be considered returning stolen
property.
>
>I envy your black and white world, sir. It must make life
much easier.
>
>smittie

Smittie,
Are you kidding? Who's world is black and white? Your self
rightousness is incredible, but I dealt with that for too
long when I got back and am choosing right now not to do
it again. This thread is getting my blood boiling.
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:51:46 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <PD.92Oct7040917@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) 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.  
>
>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.

What I really meant with the statement, "at least for a democratic country"
is that democracies are more limited in the kinds of wars they can wage than
are totalitarian governments.  In any case, we seem to be in agreement.
>--
>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
Subject: Re: Is communism immoral? (was Re: Did We Lose?)
From: smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:19:00 GMT
 <PD.92Oct8034807@horus.sics.se><SMITTIE.92Oct8125402@wren.csulb.edu> <1992Oct8.232236.17085@lgc.com>
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

My apologies. Thank you for correcting me.

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: knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 06:24:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.141954.9276@m.cs.uiuc.edu> tthiel@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel) writes:
>What a silly argument.  We sent a bunch of people to another country for
>reasons which were not supported by the Vietnamese or American people.
>We got a lot of people killed for nothing, the people we fought now run
>the country, and we lost a lot of prestige at home and in the international
>arena.  We lost the war.  Get over it.
---------
You got it wrong.
Not all Vietnamese are communists. In NVN, not all are party members, In SVN,
not all are VC.
In SVN, the situation is this : VC is in the dark; they mingle with the whole
population. During the night, few snippers can make alert for the whole
brigade. Every pocket of only three VC at four directions, they can fire
only one rocket to the post and go home to sleep as innocent peasants; at
the post, there are a lot of deaths. The guerilla war does not need a lot
of people; this makes people feel that they have batallion and batallion.
In the countryside, with a few men, they can control villages and villages.
Few years before the end of the war, and when US retreats, NVN throws all
regular army to the South. They don't need to keep these in NVN because
they are sure that no one dare to put feet on that land.
In US, people are tired of a long, long war. Illusion about a near victory,
agony about losing dear relatives make them change their mind. Practicality
has replaced principle of freedom. This change of heart has created deep
criticism at all mishap and made a mountain out of a mole. Some stupid act
of action in wartime has been transpired into a crime of the century. Checking
and scrutinizing their government and SVN is sped up. The press, like kites
flying in the direction of wind, represents their people to help getting
their men back home.
At home, as human being who often complaints somebody else more than himself,
the Vets again must confront with angry and ignorance

by practicality.
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Is communism immoral? (was Re: Did We Lose?)
From: smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:23:22 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><S
 MITTIE.92Oct8125402@wren.csulb.edu><PD.92Oct9152030@horus.sics.se>
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

>Oh, yes is is very immoral. It is theft. I consider stealing immoral.

Yes, there are occasions when it probably would be stealing. But that all
depends on the situation. In cases such the Philippines and most of South
America it might also be considered returning stolen property.

I envy your black and white world, sir. It must make life much easier.

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: knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen)
Subject: Re: North Vietnam
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:40:47 GMT

In article <SMITTIE.92Oct16110545@beach.csulb.edu> smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:
>>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.
>
>This is exactly it. The puppet government set up by the French and propped up
>later by the US, was never very secure in its hold on the South. Ho
>sympathizers were numerous and a real threat to the security of the puppet
>regime. Little wonder that regime wasn't anxious to wander into the lion's den
>when its own home was within paw's reach.
>
---------------

Reading and checking more :

- It was exactly in 1950, the communist "puppet" Ho-chi-Minh declared himself 
as head of The Democratic Republic of Vietnam. This was "propped up" by 
recognition of the big boss Soviets, Mao of China, Tito of Yugoslavia. At the
same time, Mao began to provide modern weapons to the Vietminh.

-In June of 1950, "puppet" of Mao, North Korea invaded South Korea. Truman,
under United Nations auspices committed US troops to help his "puppet" South
Korea. Again, that little regime of "dictator" Pak must be very fragile and
got protection from US, Canada troops.

-On the other side, US and Britain recognized Bao-Dai and set up defence 
against
the invasion of communists.

-Ho's sympathizers are numerous ? How much ? or just basing on a group of 
communist Vietminh ? You got wrong estimation. After an internal purge, lots
of not-communist guerillas return to Ngo-dinh-Diem regime; reason ?they find
no reason to continue fighting when French has gone. Do you get it ?

Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: Is communism immoral? (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:38:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.172936.16740@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>Uh, quick note, communism is an economic system (as oppossed to capitalism)
>and is not necessarily a form of government.  

 [Since this has wandered completely away from the charter, I'll keep
this short.]
 Communism is to Government (note the capital G) what atheism is to Relgion,
namely, a variation on the theme.
 Communism's aim was the destruction of Government (the famous "withering
away of the State".)
 Until this happened, the powers of the State had to be assumed by the
Party, as trustee for the people, and viola! a new government.

Larry J
-- 
#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: 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 15:51:10 GMT

In article <PD.92Oct9151643@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.172936.16740@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>
>>Uh, quick note, communism is an economic system (as oppossed to capitalism)
>>and is not necessarily a form of government.  
>
>Yeah, show me a democratic communist country, and I might believe you.
>
>>Communism is merely a form of socialism, and as Sweden has proved,
>>socialism can be beneficial, and made to work.
>
>Ha! Sweden is currently plagued by the worst economic troubles since
>the thirties. This is after mismanagement of the economy by the Social
>Democrats during the eighties. (The Social Democrats have ruled this
>country since 1933, with the exception of the years 1976 through
>1982. They lost the election last year, and a coalition government of
>non-socialist parties was formed).
>I am not sure that it is correct to call Sweden a socialist country.
>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.
>
----------
Your country is basically a democratic and free one. With that essential core,
you don't need to wonder about socialism. As the first poster said, it is
a form of economic system which can amalgamate with different political and
social systems. So, according to your country's situation, your people, not
a group of hoodlums, feel good to set up an arrangement of that mixture.
As you stated, the mixture has lasted almost for 50 years. The mixture has
turned out to be good and right decision. After 1982, another government,
through the Swedish ballots, had a mandate to change to another mixture to
fit with a new era.
You can be proud about that, certainly because your country still hangs on
with democratic process to solve problems.
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Castro and other despots (was Re: Merits of the Free Press)
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:46:58 GMT
 <1992Oct7.223457.3190@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1992Oct9.054048.14643@emr1.emr.ca> <BvvKqu.4y7@news.orst.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

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.

But U.S. policy right now IS to ignore Castro, so Dean is merely
naming the "Establishment" position.  And yes, it is a short-
sighted view (the government's, not Dean's).

This isn't terribly relevant to alt.war.vietnam, but recently I've
been thinking about what to do with Castro.  It's the same type of
question we are asking about North Korea and Vietnam.

My theory is, we should NOT demonize him (as all previous Administrations
have tended to do), but trade with him.  Instead of high-flown hostile
rhetoric that galvanizes the country against the U.S., take a gentler tone,
promoting the advantages of democracy/capitalism all the while.  Do you
think this would be effective?

I watched a TV documentary about Cubans who commute to the Guantanamo Bay
base from the surrounding base.  Although they thought of themselves as
Cubans thru-and-thru, they praised the Americans on the base as fair
employers, nice guys.  Quite a contrast to how most of the Vietnamese in
SVN regarded their American bosses.

I'd do anything to get rid of the "damn yanqui" image the U.S. has earned
over the years.  I think a more open policy might do it.
-- 
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: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:00:00 GMT

In article <BvrFI1.LBM@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
>
>  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.
>

Are you saying then that the US did not win the American Revolution 
militarily?

Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Is communism immoral? (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:43:03 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

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

Yes it is.  I should have said well to the left.  I certainly didn't
intend to include social democratic countries in Europe.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu (Monte Olsen)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Merits of the Free Press
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:20:42 GMT
Organization: OSU Extension Service
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6FB54C69D01A70D@reynolde-mac.ads.orst.edu>
X-Xxdate: Fri, 9 Oct 92 15:24:54 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9

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
From: jackm@cats.ucsc.edu (Jack Mallory)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Russian Roulette
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:54:28 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsco.ucsc.edu


Can anyone provide a single non-anecdotal reference (written, 
validated by more than the original claimant, in *any* way
verifiable) instance of American POW's being forced to play
Russian Roulette by VC/NVA during the war?  Not, "friend of a
friend" stuff, or "I read it in a book somewhere," but a 
something with some form of documentation to it.  Something
written by the POW to whom it happened, or who observed it
happen?  I think this is one of those Vietnam war stories,
the equivalent of "Urban Myths" in their continued spread in
the absence of any evidence.

Jack Mallory
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: North Vietnam
Keywords: Invasion
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:42:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.051846.2479@den.mmc.com>, whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer) writes:
> 
> 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. 

I believe that a lot of the problem had to do more with what happened in 
Korea (the chinese swarming across the border), and the fear that it might
happen again.  One book I read expressed this view, and said that he didn't
think there was much danger of that happening.  He had studied the Korean
war and the history of Korea as it raelated to China and felt that China
feared invasion of their country because they had been invaded from there
many times.  Since China hadn't been invaded from Vietnam and since they
have a natural boundry (Mountain Range), they would not have interfered.
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.

Larry Billings
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.sics.se>
	<SMITTIE.92Oct7113241@beach.csulb.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:48:07 GMT

In article <SMITTIE.92Oct7113241@beach.csulb.edu> smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:

>>To set up a communist government you have to abandon human rights.

>Again, I don't see this as inherently true. Repeatedly the practice, yes.

Yes, you should look at the track record of communism. Not a pretty picture.
Communists are immoral. They are preoccupied with the distribution of
other peoples wealth and not interested in how to generate more
wealth.

>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.

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.
--
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: Russian Roulette
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 03:04:21 GMT

In article <1bn354INN8qb@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> jackm@cats.ucsc.edu (Jack Mallory) writes:
>
>Can anyone provide a single non-anecdotal reference (written, 
>validated by more than the original claimant, in *any* way
>verifiable) instance of American POW's being forced to play
>Russian Roulette by VC/NVA during the war?  Not, "friend of a
>friend" stuff, or "I read it in a book somewhere," but a 
>something with some form of documentation to it.  Something
>written by the POW to whom it happened, or who observed it
>happen?  I think this is one of those Vietnam war stories,
>the equivalent of "Urban Myths" in their continued spread in
>the absence of any evidence.
>
-------------

I, like you, have read news, seen documentary films about POW. I
just tell my instinct reasoning.

- why not ? US army is their biggest obstacle of NVN. Beacause of
this army, Ho cannot hang on to see his dream come through. He
and successors have burnt ten times more kids from 12-25.

-US army has obstructed every possible way they can to topple
South Vietnam which has smaller population.

-US is no doubt their biggest enemy. When getting POW, they almost
killed them all if not just because they have to use them for 
another huge interest.

-"Russian Roulette by VC/NVA during the war" or among other tricks
are out of questioning.

-Evidence or not, True or false. All you only can get the right
answer when Russia, while waiting for money from IMF, can leak for 
us drop by drop. These tactics you did see somewhere else, right !
It's what VN is doing now.
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:14:13 GMT

In article <Bvt2w2.7sE@access.digex.com> dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
>In article <BvrFI1.LBM@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
>>  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.
>Are you saying then that the US did not win the American Revolution 
>militarily?


I think that logically follows from the original statement.  A country will
keep pouring troops into the meat grinder until the body politic no longer
thinks they can win (this was one reason AH kept the line about Secret
Weapons going right to the end, to offer hope.)

GB could have thrown more troops into the rebellious colonies, but only
at the cost of loses elsewhere.  Politically the war in NA was becoming
unpopular, and then it was lost, not later when the band played "The World
Turned Upside Down."

Larry J
-- 
#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