Could the Press Grow a Spine?

"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"

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.

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.

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

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

"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.

"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

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

"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.

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"