If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message ... Ed Rasimus wrote: Peace talks between representatives from United States, South Vietnam, North Vietnam and the NLF began in Paris in January, 1969. Wow. I had no idea SVN and NVN ever had a dialogue. Do you know if this arragement continued in 1972 because *every* book on the conflict I have says NVN (and Le Duc Tho in particular) refused to even talk with SVN reps because they claimed their government was illegal? According to the readings, Thieu was informed about negotiations directly from Kissenger. If there were SVN reps in Paris, why would Thieu not get the info from them? But, while our mistakes can be analyzed, it still remains difficult to envision what the world would look like with regard to communism had we not "contained" and demonstrated a resolve to resist expansionism--as flawed as we now seem to view the policy. Very interesting "what if?". With 20/20 hindsight it appears the communist spread in SE Asia was never going to be greater than Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, but what about communist expansion elsewhere like South or Central America? Would Che and his Cuban buddies have had more success in spreading revolution if it appeared to the world that the U.S. was not committed to fighting it? I am not sure your 20/20 hindsight is all that accurate in this case in terms of the observation that the spread was "never going to be greater than Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam". Had there been zero opposition offered in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, can you be assured that other surrounding nations would not have subsequently and quickly come under the gun? Thailand, Burma (I think that is what it was called then, in the pre-Myanmar days...), the PI, Malaysia, etc.? This was an era when Mao was even flirting around with some involvement in the Congo, IIRC; I doubt he would have ignored his own backyard if he detected a complete and utter vacuum in terms of US willingness to offer opposition. Maybe the reason those nations did not face more substantial (or in the Malay case, significantly strengthened) communist threats than they in the end had to actually contend with was because we made the effort to stabilize the Vietnamese situation as we did--who knows? The sixties saw us (read large--the Brits did their share of countering communist moves during this period, IIRC, especially in Malaya) face insurgencies around the world; US "advisors" were apparently involved in helping combat this threat in a fair number of spots outside Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos. ISTR US special forces (and CIA) assets (to include B-26K COIN aircraft) were active in Africa, as well as being involved in supporting the Bolivians' ultimatelly successful hunt for Che Guevera; I believe there was also US covert support being provided to the PI government in their fight against their own communist insurgency. Brooks Really no answer to those questions, but interesting historic speculation. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
regrettably, political discussions are difficult with a president
that, by his own admission "doesnt do nuance". [sigh] GWB is a good candidate to be a student of yours. Ed Rasimus wrote in message . .. As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and nuanced. |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
sounds alot like the current administration:
there are WMDs. repeat, ad inifinitum. iraq has links to al qaeda. repeat, ad inifinitum. the list goes on, ad infinitum. Ed Rasimus wrote in message . .. You're apparently a graduate of the Joseph Goebbels School of Debate. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Ignore refutation. State as fact without support. Keep the sound bite short and eventually it will be accepted as true. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
I tend to despise
those who exaggerate their military record. I support the many groups who work hard to unmask the poseurs and wannabes. then you should also consider despising GWB to the same degree. i should hope that being elected to the white house doesnt give him a free pass in this regard. some things should be absolute, no? As we've often addressed here, a war of the magnitude of WW II required an incredible amount of manpower. A lot of that was in a supporting role. My father, for a poor example, served for four years, drafted as I was being born to function only in a stateside support role as he was both too old and medically unfit for forward duty. But, he served and rose to tech sergeant in the Army Air Corps at Keesler AFB and then Santa Rosa Air Base. McGovern did not go to any great lengths to highlight his WW II service during the 1972 campaign. He ran as a staunchly pacifist, anti-war candidate. He ran on his liberal background as Senator from SD. He misread the mood of the electorate and while he appealed to the core of his party, he didn't transfer is appeal to the moderate, unaffiliated voters and certainly didn't draw from the right. McGovern used his GI Bill well. Nixon "used slush funds" in his political role, appropriately if not in consonance with what you might have chosen him to do. He made his reputation in early political development as an anti-communist. There's no relationship between McGovern's education and Nixon's job funding. It's a red herring. By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the dodger. By 1972 we were four years into the Nixon policy of "Vietnamization". We were down to less than one quarter of the troops in-country in SEA. We were sitting at the peace table in Paris with SVN, NVN and the VC. We were actively engaged in diplomatic negotiations with China and "peace was at hand". Hardly a "warrior" positioning. There was never a mention of McGovern as a "dodger." There was plenty of McGovern posturing as a pacifist and unilateral disarmer. I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you described. I think you fabricated it. I can remember the '72 election. Given that you were only 14 or 15 years old in 1972, it's amazing you're able to recall the campaign tactics for that election (not that I do). I was thirty and flying my second tour at Korat in the F-4E, going to NVN most every day. I had a vested interest in the campaign. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
I tend to despise
those who exaggerate their military record. I support the many groups who work hard to unmask the poseurs and wannabes. then you should also consider despising GWB to the same degree. i should hope that being elected to the white house doesnt give him a free pass in this regard. some things should be absolute, no? As we've often addressed here, a war of the magnitude of WW II required an incredible amount of manpower. A lot of that was in a supporting role. My father, for a poor example, served for four years, drafted as I was being born to function only in a stateside support role as he was both too old and medically unfit for forward duty. But, he served and rose to tech sergeant in the Army Air Corps at Keesler AFB and then Santa Rosa Air Base. McGovern did not go to any great lengths to highlight his WW II service during the 1972 campaign. He ran as a staunchly pacifist, anti-war candidate. He ran on his liberal background as Senator from SD. He misread the mood of the electorate and while he appealed to the core of his party, he didn't transfer is appeal to the moderate, unaffiliated voters and certainly didn't draw from the right. McGovern used his GI Bill well. Nixon "used slush funds" in his political role, appropriately if not in consonance with what you might have chosen him to do. He made his reputation in early political development as an anti-communist. There's no relationship between McGovern's education and Nixon's job funding. It's a red herring. By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the dodger. By 1972 we were four years into the Nixon policy of "Vietnamization". We were down to less than one quarter of the troops in-country in SEA. We were sitting at the peace table in Paris with SVN, NVN and the VC. We were actively engaged in diplomatic negotiations with China and "peace was at hand". Hardly a "warrior" positioning. There was never a mention of McGovern as a "dodger." There was plenty of McGovern posturing as a pacifist and unilateral disarmer. I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you described. I think you fabricated it. I can remember the '72 election. Given that you were only 14 or 15 years old in 1972, it's amazing you're able to recall the campaign tactics for that election (not that I do). I was thirty and flying my second tour at Korat in the F-4E, going to NVN most every day. I had a vested interest in the campaign. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
"Jarg" wrote in message ...
And has anyone else noticed the increased use of the term "neocon" by the desperate left to describe anyone they don't like, which in my opinion is an example of the prejudicial language fallacy. Jarg perhaps the liberals have come up w/ an opposite equivalent to, well, "liberals". "neocons" works. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
"BUFDRVR" wrote:
Brett wrote: The peace accords were signed by: FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: William P. Rogers Secretary of State FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF VIET-NAM: Tran Van Lam Minister for Foreign Affairs FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF VIET-NAM: Nguyen Duy Trinh Minister for Foreign Affairs FOR THE PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH VIET-NAM: Nguyen Thi Binh Minister for Foreign Affairs Excellent, but now I'm confused, particularly by the book "Crosswinds" by Earl H. Tippford which states; "That Washington and Hanoi had reached this stage was significant. Saigon had been left out and President Thieu had substantial objections to to what Washington had negotiated in his interest, and in his stead". So what gives? Were the SNV signatures on the Peace Accord just window dressing? The Opinion Journals comments a short time after Thieu death of natural causes: http://www.opinionjournal.com/column...y/?id=95001257 |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
From: (w.a. manning) Date: 6/28/2004 10:07 PM Pacific Standard Time hen you should also consider despising GWB to the same degree. i should hope that being elected to the white house doesnt give him a free pass in this regard. some things should be absolute, no The SCOTUS just kicked him in the ass 8 to 1. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On 28 Jun 2004 22:56:48 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote: By 1972, the table was most assuredly round and all four parties were involved in the negotiation. According to several books I've read, only the NVN and US were in Paris...at least at the peace accords. As has been earlier mentioned here, one of the stumbling blocks was the unwillingness of Diem regime to concede some of the points agreed to beween the US and NVN. Ed, Ngo Dihn Diem was killed in 1963, the SVN President in 1972 was Nguyen Van Thieu whom the North refused to negotiate with since they claimed his regime was illegitimate. Encroaching senility. Meant Thieu. His representative was Le Duc Tho. You should have quit when you were ahead, Ed. Look below, or read it and weep: "Le Duc Tho was born in Nam Ha province, Vietnam on 14th October, 1911. As a young man he became involved in radical politics and in 1930 helped establish the Indochinese Communist Party. He campaigned against French rule in Vietnam and was twice imprisoned for his political activities (1930-36 and 1939-44). In 1945 Le Duc Tho returned to Hanoi and joined with Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap in establishing the Vietnam Revolutionary League (Vietminh). Until 1954 he was Vietminh's leader in South Vietnam. A member of the Politburo of the Vietnam Workers' Party, he had responsibility for organizing the rebellion against the government of South Vietnam. Peace talks between representatives from United States, South Vietnam, North Vietnam and the NLF began in Paris in January, 1969. Le Duc Tho served as special adviser to the North Vietnamese delegation. He eventually became North Vietnamese leader in these talks." George Z. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
I am not sure your 20/20 hindsight is all that accurate in this case in terms of the observation that the spread was "never going to be greater than Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam". I base this on the fact that, at least in SE Asia, it appears these different communist elements not only were not capable of cooperating, but in fact conducted operations against one and other. Vietnam invaded Cambodia in '79, in response China invade Vietnam. Although the Chinese military action was short lived (1 month?), Vietnam and China continued to have border skirmishes as late as the late 80s. China's relatonship with Cambodia has been hot & cold as well. Really, the only two communist nations in the region to get along were Vietnam and Laos. Seems to me you need strong alliances to spread any ideology and I'm not sure these SE Asian nations had that ability. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
30 Jan 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 31st 04 03:55 AM |
11 Nov 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | November 11th 03 11:58 PM |
04 Oct 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 4th 03 07:51 PM |
FS: Aviation History Books | Neil Cournoyer | Military Aviation | 0 | August 26th 03 08:32 PM |
07 Aug 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 8th 03 02:51 AM |