HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aec6699@rigel.tamu.edu (CAMPBELL, ANGELA EVETTE)
Subject: Re: North Vietnam
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Invasion
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:58:00 GMT

> 
>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

Several things while I await larry's reply to my previous email messages.
Summers resoning behind our not invading (although he was mostly
concerned with Cambodia and the like) was that LBJ wanted to keep the
war costs down and the war effort low profile.  LBJ wanted to be the
great domestic president, not the one that got us stuck in a quagmire.
Invading would have required more man power and money then he wanted
to divert from his great social programs.

On the subject of China, I've already informed Larry once that before
French holds in vietnam the Chinese had a *long* history of being there.
They also had later conflicts and skirmishes on the border with vietnam.

Regardless of which, I feel that China would have felt much like the 
Soviet Union felt about border/buffer states after world war II and the
US felt about, say, Cuba.  No one wants a major foreign power sitting
on their doorstep.  Especially someone with nuclear capabilities and the
means to deliver them.
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: I think the term is 'cinemographic license'
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:55:14 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

eesnyder@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Eric E. Snyder) writes:
] 
] I was watching _Deer Hunter_ the other night and was predictably
] horrified at the Russian Roulette scenes in the picture.  How common
] was this practice during the war, both in terms of gambling and as
] treatment of POWs.  Did this sort of thing happen often or is it 
] just a Hollywood fabrication?


what you have is a 'symbol' being taken far too literally.

As many will advise you, it was a case that going into 
the bush was a gamble. The war was a war against bobby_traps
more than a war against the opposing troops.

It is a means of providing a 'conceptual framework' within
which to address the 'psychological' factors that complicated
the war, its prosecution, and the gamble of making one's
365 days, and a wake up....

ciao
drieux

ps: the line "charlie don't surf" from 'apocalypse now'
ranks in a similar set of 'cinemographic symbols' not to
be confused with the actual war effort itself....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

ME? engage in Hyperbole?
I have rarely been more than a first Order Function!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer)
Subject: Re: North Vietnam
Originator: whitmeye@surf
Keywords: Invasion partition
Organization: MMAG VAFB
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:59:37 GMT


In article <1992Oct14.030840.27424@emr1.emr.ca>, knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen) writes:
|>
|> >|> Does anyone have an idea why the United States or South Vietnam did not 
|> >|> invade North Vietnam?
|> >
|> >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.
|> --------
|> 
|> 
|> Can you clarify why you say "...the lie of two Vietnams..."

I'll try...
I see the partition of Vietnam as an act of foreign intervention in a
Nation's civil war. Done to prevent a loss, not secure a victory, this
intervention prolonged a nation's agony and embroiled a large part of the
world's peoples in idealogical debate.

I see the artificial division and subsequent creation of two governments
as a lie, such as the lie of two Germany's. There was only ever one
Germany, that some of Germany was occupied by troops and forced to be a
separate country, is a fact. That there were two Germany's, was a lie.
One that time has proven so.

The flaw my view has, as I see, is that the longer a lie like that
continues, the more the lie becomes moot. Korea was Korea once. Then
partition. The people of Korea have been divided a long time, and have in
this time, begun to become different culturally. Yet still, they speak of
re-unification. I see that as becuase, two Koreas is a lie, also.

I chose that phrase, because I believe it places the correct importance
on what the Vietnam war was, before the U.S. mutated the conditions to
justify it's participation, ie: we were invited.

I'm certain there are differences between the people of the northern
provinces and those of the south. There may even be differences noticable
to Vietnamese of those who live in the center portion. Step across the
border to Cambodia and make those comparisions, and Vietnam becomes one
people. As is the case today, regardless of politics, one nation.

So now, it's your turn. I look forward to your response.

Rich Whitmeyer                Views expressed are solely my own.
 
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: scw@ada.seas.ucla.edu (Stephen C Woods)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:53:02 GMT
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles

In article <1992Sep30.124440.28171@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>
[...]
>press reported things in such a one sided manner.  For an excellant example,
>there was a leader of the VC who was captured (I believe this was around the
>Tet offensive).  He was bound and blindfolded.  A South Vietnamese soldier
>berated him about how this VC had killed his family, etc.  He pulls his
>sidearm and points it at the VC, but doesn't fire.  Next day, the press
>shows this beatiful picture of a South Vietnamese soldier executing a POW.


Actually the shot that you are thinking of happend in this way.

Gen <sorry, the name escapes me> the Commander of the Vietnamese National
Police was in Siagon during the Tet offensive.  A captured VC was brought
to him, the VC was his (personal Friend/Secretary/Field Asst/Lover?. [the exact
relationship escapes me, they were quite close]).  There were several news
people standing there (a film crew and 2 or three still photogs., I seen both
still and file of the event).  Gen <X> talked (loudly, they were at the edge
of a major firefight that the time) to the fellow for a few seconds, shouted
at him twice, and pulled out his sidearm (a Smith .38 Chief Special) and shot
him through the head.  Gen <X> was shot through the spine several hours later
leading an assult on a Machine gun position.  As far as I know he is still alive
and living in Southern California.

-- 
-----
Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (310)-825-8614
UUCP: ...{ibmsupt,ncar!cepu}!ollie}!scw  Internet:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: drk@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu (Dave Kohr)
Subject: Re: Is communism immoral? (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Organization: CS Dept., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:57:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.170417.14437@b8.b8.ingr.com> larry@b8.b8.ingr.com
(Larry Billings) writes:
>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.
>
>Larry Billings

Time for a reality check.  SVN did not *exist* 20 years before the US "got
involved", the US was very much involved *before* it was created (due to
the partitioning of the country in, I think, 1954).  Remember which foreign
"non-combatant" power was paying for such a large part of the French phase
of the war?

As for communism being "forced on [SVN] by the military might of the
North", the NLF (composed mostly of Southerners, mind you, although its
highest level of leadership was ultimately in Hanoi) had sufficient
*political* support in the South by the late 1950's that they controlled
most of the countryside (remember that the US cancelled the planned
elections [in 1956?], because it was believed that Ho would win).  The NLF
did not officially adopt violent means of resistance against the GVN until
I think 1959, and then only in response to attacks against their membership
by the ARVN.

I apologize in advance if I was off by a few years on some of the dates.
-- 
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: knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:26:57 GMT

In article <SMITTIE.92Oct6125519@tui.csulb.edu> smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:
>>What's immoral about fighting communism?
>
>What's moral about it? Communism has been elevated to a level such that we
>think of it as the culmination of all things evil. Communism is simply a form
>of government. There is nothing inherently good or evil about communism. The
>human rights violations of the former Soviet Union and China are not instrinsic
>to communism, they are the result of human greed for power.
>
>Trying to find a moral cause in war seems a rather odd endeavour to me. I think
>the fundamental error committed by first France and then perpetuate by the US
>was to try and force the installation of a government against the wishes of the
>local population. Had they been given the chance, the Vietnamese people would
>have veto in the Ho Chi Min government. The US government cancelled the
>elections because they knew they would lose. So in fact the US chose to force
>upon a people, a government they did not want. That is probably within
>someone's definition of immoral.
>
>I further agree with a previous post stating that our true mission soon became
>killing. Body counts instituted a macabre kind of scoring for a game that we
>knew we couldn't win given the political climate at home.
>smittie
-------------
Nope. Communism is not a government, it's a gathering of people of the same
class where every person must be equal. The communism is the highest state
in four states the communist movement set up. The 1st state : a swift          
revolution to wipe out all capitalist remnants; you can see it in 1917 in
Soviets, in 1975 in Kampuchea. The 2nd state : preparation for socialist
society to introduce socialism. The 3rd state : true socialism. The 4th state :
communism. The latter is the what you hear about and capitalist countries
hate the most.
In order to to get it, they have to organize poor people (majority) around
before taking the power. So, all the believing people have existed before
they set up government. Their government look like ours, but from top to
bottom must mingle together at what cost to become a unique class towards
communism.
You see, election or not is not their concern. What they concern is how to
gather the poor, unlucky majority and doctrinate them before election. The
goal does not stop there as democratic society does; it continues the four
paths as I show you.
How do I know this ? I have stayed there and re-educated . If you don't
believe what I said, go and ask experienced profs in history or living
in exile profs.
US Administration maybe know that; they must do something you and people
at home don't know. If they try to explain to you, you would be skeptical
and require proof.
US uses force upon VN people ? Nope. They influence us but not govern us.The    death of our 1st president is the proof.
Again the 1st posting is not the creed you base on to get the truth.
As I try to explain to you about communism above, youwould be scared to know
how naive we are.
From: Smith@biotec.arizona.edu (Roger A smith)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: North Vietnam
Keywords: Invasion
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:44:09 GMT
Organization: ARL/Biotechnology

Does anyone have an idea why the United States or South Vietnam did not 
invade North Vietnam?
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: harthc@ntmtv.UUCP (Howard Hart)
Subject: Re: Morality of communism (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:42:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.222754.10532@sctc.com>, smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith) writes:
|> dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
|> 
|> >I have long thought that the problem with communism is that it is based on
|> >a utopian ideal: mainly, that people are willing to work for the good of |> |> >all.

Morality of communism? You might as well discuss the morality of
Jaberwockies. There is no such animal, any more than there's such
a thing as a purely capitalist country, or a pure democracy (last
I heard we (the US) was a sort-of democracy that got some capitalism
thrown in that was later thoroughly blended with a good dose of
socialism from FDR). I think the Evil Empires Reagan and his predecessors
were referring to were Stalinism, HoChiMinism, PolPotism and a
number of other sometimes radical offshoots of the communist ideal.

-- 
Howard Hart
ntmtv!harthc@ames.arc.nasa.gov
DISCLAIMER: Northern Telecom obviously doesn't hold these views, but then
again, I never asked...
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 23:05:57 GMT

In article <9210060620.AA07433@ermintrude.teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au>,
agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Zoz) writes:
|>> 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.

	Actually, as has already been pointed out, American rubber has been
mostly synthetic since WWII.  Also, I believe that the major holder of
rubber plantations in Vietnam from 1950-1975 was Michelin, a French
company.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 John Carr                           UNIX Support Specialist
 jbc4m@virginia.edu                  Academic Computing, Gilmer Hall
 804/982-4710                        University of Virginia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Is communism immoral? (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:04:07 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <PD.92Oct8034807@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>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.

If we define communist loosely to mean well to the left of the US, then
we have

	Chile 	(Allende; overthrown in 1973)
	Honduras (overthrown in 1954?)
	Iran 	(overthrown in early 1950's)
	there are others but the quality of their elections is
		controversial so I won't bring them up

>--
>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: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Is communism immoral? (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:29:36 CDT

Uh, quick note, communism is an economic system (as oppossed to capitalism)
and is not necessarily a form of government.  Communism is merely a form
of socialism, and as Sweden has proved, socialism can be beneficial, and
made to work.  I know that communism is idealized socialism and includes
ideas for government, but a direct democracy with communism (as I remember)
is not immpossible.  Improbable maybe, but not impossible.  Besides, didn't
a group of American colonists have a communistic society around the
1600's?  It wasn't labeled as such, but it had a lot of the feel of communism,
and was closer than any other examples I have seen in the world today.
:)M^2

Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:47:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.102916.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) 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?
>
>You're assuming that fighting communism was the goal of the war.
>If you evaluate the war effort by its deeds, rather than by its words,
>the goal was to kill more people than the other guy.  It was more of a
>utilitarian/rationalist goal than a moral one.
>
>Fighting communism IS a moral good, but doing it in the way the U.S. did it
>in Vietnam was hardly moral, IMHO.
-----------
I cannot buy it. No assumption at all to get rid of them. It's crystal clear.
How do you evaluate * the goal was to kill more people than the other guy* ?
or just  a easy-to-say observation on a cozy chair ?
If so, why not ? In order to get back slipping-away freedom, we have to 
sacrifice at all cost, If you look at the way Khmer Rouge in Kampuchia who
gets anything under their control by killing almost million people, you
would know that , in order to get what you believe in, you have to pay a dear
price.
What way do you suggest to fight them ? Peaceful negotiation : naive, we are
invaded and in a weaker position. Using US aircrafts to make all-out bombing
Hanoi : international pressure forbid to do that. Giving away one part of
the north tip close to parallel 17 : we did, but they would like to get more
and use that part as a spring to to invade deeper. Shaking hands between
two vietnamese fellows :  they only accept this if you share the power with
them; it is a suicidal. 
Utilitarian/rationalist goal ? Communists use them to invade us. Why, in that
sense, if possible, to use them to fight back. Why ? We know that when we
lose, we will lose all. 
This is the fierce fight, not an argument in an office. We are like hurt   
animals which have no choice to fight before the last breath.
You don't agree with the way US did and base on that to tone down the goal
we follow. I agree partly with you about some miscalculation while pursuing
that goal, but the goal is just and moral, 
 
C
C
      
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie)
Subject: Re: Is communism immoral? (was Re: Did We Lose?)
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
	<1992Oct9.170417.14437@b8.b8.ingr.com>
	<1992Oct11.163036.14822@emr1.emr.ca>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:55:15 GMT

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.

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: tthiel@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:23:04 GMT

smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:
>>What's immoral about fighting communism?
>of government. There is nothing inherently good or evil about communism. The
>human rights violations of the former Soviet Union and China are not instrinsic
>to communism, they are the result of human greed for power.
>Trying to find a moral cause in war seems a rather odd endeavour to me. I think
>the fundamental error committed by first France and then perpetuate by the US
>was to try and force the installation of a government against the wishes of the
>local population. Had they been given the chance, the Vietnamese people would
>have veto in the Ho Chi Min government. The US government cancelled the
>elections because they knew they would lose. So in fact the US chose to force
>upon a people, a government they did not want. That is probably within
>someone's definition of immoral.
Also remember that Ho Chi Minh was our good buddy and ally when he was
fighting the Japanese.  But as soon as he got uppity about throwing out
FRENCH COLONIAL OCCUPIERS we demonized him.  So much for our support of
freedom and democracy.  There's alot of racism in this too.
-Terry
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Morality of communism (was Re: Did We Lose?)
From: smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:13:08 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

>Alas, utopias don't work in the real world.

I largely agree with the rest of this post. However,  in the end, where
communism works or not is a problem for those countries that elect to apply it.


A point that I think US government chose to ignore is that Ho Chi Min and his
followers were first and foremost nationalists. We will never know for sure but
I a far more realistic policy would have been to recognize the nationalist
movement for what it was. By honoring and supporting the nationalist movement
and leaving the issue of communism for later discussion we would have gain
significant influence with Ho Chi Min and his government. That influence may
have proved far more effective in achieving any philanthopic/human rights
goals.

Had the US taken a similiar stance with China, Korea, and the Philippines I
think that the interests of those living in those countries would have been far
better served. Of course, in the case of the Philippines the US probably would
not have acquired nearly as much money, but that is a matter for another
newsgroup.

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