Could the Press Grow a Spine?

In message qd0Dc.117009$0y.58857@attbi_s03, Mike Dargan
writes
Can anyone remember the 1972 election? During WWII Richard Nixon ran a
Navy fruit drink stand at some South Pacific backwater supply base
while George McGovern was leading groups of B24s in daylight attacks on
Nazi Europe.

I'm hardly a Nixon fan - but bug juice doesn't make and serve itself,
and recruits don't get a lot of say where they serve. I'll offer myself
as an example: fit and fairly smart, I'm also badly short-sighted, a
fact that modern contact lenses let me mostly ignore. Would I be a
coward if, sent to the USAAF, I ended up ground crew rather than a
fighter pilot? You go where the needs of the Service dictate - that's
still true now - and you do the job you're given as best you can.


If there's evidence that Nixon used undue influence to get himself a
cushty job, then by all means show it. If all you can say is that he
went where he was sent and might have sighed with relief... too bad.

They're trying to pull the same trick in 2004.

The US electorate will decide, and only the results are my problem. You
picked the candidates, you choose the winner, you live with the
results..

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

We were sitting at the peace table in Paris with SVN, NVN and the VC.

Minor correction Ed, but I'm 99.9% sure there were no SVN or VC representatives
in Paris. But your point was well made.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 28 Jun 2004 22:08:28 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

We were sitting at the peace table in Paris with SVN, NVN and the VC.

Minor correction Ed, but I'm 99.9% sure there were no SVN or VC representatives
in Paris. But your point was well made.

The "shape of the table" was a huge issue in '70, '71--the idea being
that a four-sided table would give equal voice to the SVN and VC in
the negotiations. By 1972, the table was most assuredly round and all
four parties were involved in the negotiation.

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. This led to the suspension of talks in
April, then Linebacker, then more talks, then agreement in principle
(light at the end of the tunnel), suspension of ops in October of '72,
then Linebacker II, conclusion, POWs home by mid-March '73.

Ohh, that's right. Linebacker II was a failure. Forgot for a moment.
Sorry, bout that.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

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. Thieu was notified of agreements in Paris by Henry Kissinger
who travelled from Paris to Saigon. He did have issues with many of the
agreements, but was not in Paris. As far as I can tell from the dozen or so
books I've read on the SE Asia conflict, the SVN and the VC were not in Paris,
in fact the NVN argued until the very end that the VC were not North supported
or affiliated. NVN claimed the battles in SVN were part of a civil war that
both the U.S. and the North should stay out of.

Ohh, that's right. Linebacker II was a failure.

Ahh...now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was a failure.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

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.

Yeah, it was Diem who was brother-in-law to Madame Nhu, the "Dragon
Lady". By late '72, of course we were getting ready to see a
merry-go-round of regime changes in SVN, including "Big Minh" who
engineered a coup in '63 to oust Diem, then somehow managed to keep a
position in the Army until eventually rising to the presidency just in
time to oversee the collapse and turn-over in '75.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:23:24 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Encroaching senility. Meant Thieu. His representative was Le Duc Tho.

Omigod....stop me before I kill again. Tho was the NVN delegate. I'm
becoming a blithering idiot. (Stop right now, all of you with the
confirmation postings....I don't need the reinforcement.)

But, here's a googled up quote on the participants:

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.


The real stumbling block at the outset was the legitimacy of the NLF
to participate in the talks. With the initial meetings coming shortly
after Tet '68, it seems in retrospect that the NLF was a reasonable
player for the discussions.

The errors of diplomacy, understanding of the Vietnamese culture, the
relationship with the PRC and USSR, the low probability of the nuclear
escalation, etc. etc. all seem so clear in the light of forty years of
settling since the end of hostilities.

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.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"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.

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

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?

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"

The US electorate will decide, and only the results are my problem. You
picked the candidates, you choose the winner, you live with the
results..

As a British thinker said long time ago "Democracy is the art of keeping masses
outside of decision making process"
If its an art then surely US is the Beethoven of this art.

Just remember what happened to Perot,Buchanan and Dean.

US electorate is only allowed to rubber stamp some body elses decision.

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?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"