martillo@ihuxu.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo) (06/05/84)
In view of Communist tendency to slaughter the local peasantry for lack of progressivism (To be Remembered Forever -- Lev Kopelev -- and Eleni -- Nicholas Gage), I am somewhat stunned that people would seriously assign the USA sole responsibility for 2,000,000 Vietnamese deaths. The USA is responsible for running the war incompetently and for gutlessly abondoning the Vietnamese to communist barbarism.
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (06/05/84)
>From: martillo@ihuxu.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo) > >In view of Communist tendency to slaughter the local peasantry for lack of >progressivism I am somewhat stunned that people would seriously assign >the USA sole responsibility for 2,000,000 Vietnamese deaths. The USA is >responsible for running the war incompetently and for gutlessly abondoning >the Vietnamese to communist barbarism. This kind of statement is born out of ignorance. Does this person know what the treaty obligations of the U.S. are to Vietnam as a result of the settlement? Does he know how many the U.S. has kept? Does he know the state of Vietnam when the U.S. was done, in the words of a U.S. general, "bombing them back to the Stone Age" and defoliating their country with carcinogens? "Running the war incompetently"? Are you kidding? How about "criminally"? How about "without any regard for the future of our allies or enemies"? It shakes my belief in human reason that years after the war has ended, and the overwhelming balance of evidence has shown the dirtiness of U.S. behavior in the war, people still refuse to admit that war was wrong. Period. Not "misguided". Not "mismanaged". Wrong. Mike Kelly
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (06/06/84)
-- >> ...I am somewhat stunned that people would seriously assign >> the USA sole responsibility for 2,000,000 Vietnamese deaths. >> The USA is responsible for running the war incompetently and >> for gutlessly abondoning the Vietnamese to communist barbarism. I'll buy the "incompetently run", but this statement makes it sound like the US could easily have won in Vietnam, if only it had really wanted to. Well, we could have turned it into a parking lot, but I doubt we could have won. It's not like we didn't try, either. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 06 Jun 84 [18 Prairial An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
tac@teldata.UUCP () (06/08/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice) >> From: ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) >> Subject: Re: Communist Attrocities in Vietnam >> -- >> >> ...I am somewhat stunned that people would seriously assign >> >> the USA sole responsibility for 2,000,000 Vietnamese deaths. >> >> The USA is responsible for running the war incompetently and >> >> for gutlessly abondoning the Vietnamese to communist barbarism. >> >> I'll buy the "incompetently run", but this statement makes it sound >> like the US could easily have won in Vietnam, if only it had really >> wanted to. Well, we could have turned it into a parking lot, but >> I doubt we could have won. It's not like we didn't try, either. >> -- >> *** *** >> JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** >> ****** ****** 06 Jun 84 [18 Prairial An CXCII] >> ken perlow ***** ***** >> (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** >> ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** *** >> Obviously the term "won" would have to be defined. The North Vietnamese might have been less eager to fight a war on their own soil, however, and the main cry of incompetance comes from trying to fight a ground war where you will not cross an imaginary line. (Now don't take this to imply that I said we never went over that line, that is not what I said!) The truely unfortunate thing is that we did not try to win, Ken, we tried to maintain. There was what amounted to a civil war being fought. When you fight the entire war in half of the country that is NOT trying to win. Ah, the (not so) fond memories talk of the Vietnam Police Action brings back. As a question that sticks in my mind, for any of those out there who might have an answer, try this: If what the US did in Vietnam was so bad, why are there so many Vietnamese boat people today? From the Soapbox of Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac} A War A Day Keeps The Population At Bay. :-) <--Hey, really! DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of everyone who matters, but not necessarily anyone you know, and most certainly not my employers!
scw@cepu.UUCP (06/08/84)
Ken Perlow states that we couldn't have won in Vietnam.
Ken, pardon my French but, that's *Bullshit*. We \*W O N*/ the Military war.
Each and every battle we won, after the Tet offensive the Viet-Cong
did not exsist (what passed for Viet-Cong were mostly North Vietnamese) as
a military force (much to the joy of Hanoi). Anywhere our troops wanted
to go, they went (some times they had to fight to get there, but they
always got there).
What we lost was the political war, a failure of courage on the part of our
leaders. Mainly because they tried to win the war cheaply instead of trying to
just win.
To our great shame, we abandoned our allies for the sake of a few Million $
in ammo and equipment when they were \*QUITE*/ capable of holding on and
eventually winning. Contrary to popular belief Saigon did not fall to an
army of barefoot, black suited gurellias, but to a MODERN mechanized army
with more tanks that the German army that beat France in 1940 and more trucks
than George Patton had under him (III US ARMY) in WWII!!!
--
Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology)
uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw
ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"crm@rti.UUCP (06/09/84)
You are right. there are those among us who refuse to admit that the "war was wrong." Including me. The problem is that no-one has ever talked about the strategic reasons why we might have preferred that Indochina didn't become controlled by essentially hostile other countries. Had we won the Indochina war, there might very well have been SIX MILLION FEWER D FEWER DEATHS in Cambodia, and Thailand, a peaceful country itself, would not be fighting a prepetual border war against people FROM OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY ATTEMPTING CONQUEST BY FORCE. The chance to prevent this is in itself sufficient moral justification for the war.
lmaher@uokvax.UUCP (06/09/84)
#R:ihuxu:-32500:uokvax:5000090:000:591 uokvax!lmaher Jun 8 21:41:00 1984 An interesting question, Mike. What makes a war wrong? Are you familiar with Just War Theory, and if so would you care to enlighten the net? Or are you using some other standard? We studied Just War Theory in my International Relations Simulations class; some consider it to be nearly useless because in the real world, when it is used, it can be twisted into justifying (or not justifying) nearly anything. I can even dig out my notes on the other theories of Morality in War, if anyone's interested. Carl (formerly uok!crigney) ..!ctvax!uokvax!lmaher ..!duke!uok!uokvax!lmaher
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (06/11/84)
-- >> Ken Perlow states that we couldn't have won in Vietnam. >> Ken, pardon my French but, that's *Bullshit*. >> We \*W O N*/ the Military war. >> Each and every battle we won, after the Tet offensive >> the Viet-Cong did not exsist (what passed for Viet-Cong >> were mostly North Vietnamese) as a military force (much >> to the joy of Hanoi). Anywhere our troops wanted >> to go, they went (some times they had to fight to get there, >> but they always got there). That's a fascinating definition of "winning", Steve. We could go anywhere we wanted, except we sometimes had to fight. Enertain us some more, why don't you, with a definition of "losing." >> What we lost was the political war, a failure of courage on >> the part of our leaders. Mainly because they tried to win the >> war cheaply instead of trying to just win... >> Stephen C. Woods How soon we forget--unless you're too young to remember. See, back in '54 the French lost the Battle of Dien Bien Phu to the Viet Minh. In the partition of Indo-China that followed the French withdrawal, there was (note the absence of directional prefix word) Vietnam, and in an election the Vietnamese elected their hero, Ho Chi Minh. At some point here, the CIA intervened, and set up a good puppet, Ngo Dinh Diem, in the south. We partitioned Vietnam because we didn't like who they elected. Of course, a lot of Vietnamese didn't much care for who we installed, so we had to keep propping up the regime. From the word go, the government in the south was as ruthless and autocratic as that in the north. How could we win this "political war"? What choice did the south offer the Vietnamese? It sure wasn't freedom, except maybe freedom to starve. Aren't people funny sometimes? When they get hungry enough, Communism seems downright attractive. Now note that I am not defending the practices of North Vietnam, not in '54, not in '75, not now. But what we were fighting for over there was a myth--the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was also pure myth. It was, well, what it was comes out best in the chorus to Phil Ochs's "Send the Marines": For might makes right, Until they've seen the light. They've got to be protected, All their rights respected, Until someone we like can be elected. The members of the Corps All hate the thought of war. They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means. We've got to let them really know That we support the status quo. They love us everywhere we go, So when in doubt, send the Marines! But dream on if you wish, Steve. If you're young enough, you might be lucky enough to be cannon fodder for America's next grand experiment at being cops of the world. I'm too old to be drafted now, but I'll march again like I did then to get you home in one piece. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 10 Jun 84 [22 Prairial An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (06/12/84)
> >From: tac@teldata.UUCP () > > As a question that sticks in my mind, for any of those out there who might >have an answer, try this: > > If what the US did in Vietnam was so bad, why are there > so many Vietnamese boat people today? Because "we" left Vietnam in such a bad state and have steadfastly refused to do anything to change that, treaty obligations be damned. Not only is the U.S. government content in not helping Vietnam, but it has gone out of its way to make life very difficult for the new government. Imagine coming to power in a country devasted by twenty-five years of war, with thousands of maimed and extremely ill people, huge sectors of land ruined with defoliants and bomb craters, the national treasury bankrupt - and have the most powerful nation in the world as your number one international enemy. That's the situation Vietnam faced in 1973. The boat people are also a result of rather draconian "re-education" camps established by the Vietnamese government (which are soon to be closed, by the way.) Certainly Vietnam deserves criticism for human rights violations. But the U.S. government tends to take a very biased view of human rights, as everyone probably knows. In any event, there's always the question of how to deal with human rights violations. Personally, I think you give needed economic aid and use the resulting leverage to argue for changes. I don't believe in military aid except under the most drastic circumstances (i.e. a foreign attack on the territory of a nation.) Mike Kelly
grw@fortune.UUCP (Glenn Wichman) (06/12/84)
bip. Just to get people started again: I don't think there's such a thing as "winning" a war. I think it's a bad choice of words. You can start a war, you can end a war, quit a war, and even lose a war. But you can't win a war. -Glenn
mwm@ea.UUCP (06/13/84)
#R:ihuxu:-32500:ea:10100051:000:348 ea!mwm Jun 12 18:11:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / ihuxq!ken / 10:20 pm Jun 10, 1984 */ Aren't people funny sometimes? When they get hungry enough, Communism seems downright attractive. ken perlow ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken /* ---------- */ When people are hungry enough, *anything* that gets them fed is downright attractive. Including capitalism, communism and slavery. <mike
grw@fortune.UUCP (Glenn Wichman) (06/13/84)
bip. "Send the Marines" is by Tom Lehrer, not Phil Ochs. -Glenn
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (06/13/84)
--
YES, I *KNOW* "Send the Marines" was written by Tom Lehrer.
But somehow, Phi Ochs's name just popped out of the ol' keyboard.
Would that he himself could come back to life and do the same.
My heretofore dusty mailbox thanks all who sent me notes about the
mistaken attribution. Just making sure you were awake. I wasn't.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 12 Jun 84 [24 Prairial An CXCII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (06/15/84)
<...> >We \*W O N*/ the Military war. Your way, yes. Which seems to have nothing to do with reality. >Each and every battle we won, after the Tet offensive the >Viet-Cong did not exsist.... The Viet-Cong never existed. That was an American invention. Perhaps you mean the Viet Minh? THAT were the Vietnamese that once fought the French oppressors and after that the US. >Anywhere our troops wanted to go, they went.... Only to get their asses blown off. 40000 hits. >What we lost was the political war, a failure of courage on >the part of our leaders. A victory for common sense of common people. >Mainly because they tried to win the war cheaply.... How much did it cost the US taxpayers? >Contrary to popular belief Saigon did not fall to an army of >barefoot, black suited gurellias, but to a MODERN mechanized army Thought you said you "WON" that war. BTW, the word is "guerilla". -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (06/16/84)
-- [>> > == my stuff; >> == Steve Woods's reply] >> >How soon we forget--unless you're too young to remember. See, back in >> >'54 the French lost the Battle of Dien Bien Phu to the Viet Minh... >> I'm more than old enough to remember, I served 2 tours in Vietnam, as a >> rifleman in the Marines... >> >But dream on if you wish, Steve. If you're young enough, you might be >> >lucky enough to be cannon fodder for America's next grand >> >experiment at being cops of the world. I'm too old to be drafted now, >> >but I'll march again like I did then to get you home in one piece. >> I'm rather too old now, being an infantryman is for younger, nimbler >> folks than I. BUT I'd much, much rather that I go and fight again >> (old and fat as I am) elsewhere that to have my children or >> grandchildren have to fight >> in the streets of Los Angeles because we missed a clean shot at stopping >> someone early on. Remember what happened when Germany marched into >> Austria, if France/GB had shown some gumption and called Hitlers bluff >> (and bluff it was) he would have marched right back out again. I don't >> forget the lessons of history, tyranny must be met and fought at every >> step along the way. If that means that we must use lesser tyrants to >> fight the greater, then so be it. At some point in time the lesser >> tyrants will be the next target. >> -- >> Stephen C. Woods Steve Woods mentioned that the government of South Vietnam seemed to be popular, and that my allusions to starvation were ridiculous. My picture of the corrupt and totalitarian regime in South Vietnam, along with really abject squalor, came from friends who were over there. But then, the only thing they were fighting for was to save their asses. I guess there's a difference of perspective. Ah, the "domino theory". For you young 'uns, that's the notion that if we don't fight 'em there (wherever "there" is), next thing you know, they'll be at the Golden Gate, and good ol' Pleasantville, USA will get overrun, and renamed "Stalinville", and the cute kid with the lemonade stand will be able to sell only one kind--PINK! Well, I don't buy it (the theory or the lemonade). I do know about Hitler, though. When I told my draft board I thought I would have fought in WW II, they denied me a CO. But that's another story. Anyway, I disagree with Steve on the correct answers to the lessons of history, but the man has certainly paid his tuition. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 16 Jun 84 [28 Prairial An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
crm@rti.UUCP (06/18/84)
recall that the original domino theory was that, if we didn't save Viet Nam from the communists, that Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and on would go next. Check who is running Cambodia (kampuchea) and Laos now. Check who is coming across the border in droves, pushing starved villager before them, in Thailand. Check out how many Thais are coming to the US, and why (some at least will tell you that they don't want to be killed when Thailand falls) and why the Thai government is lots less friendly than it was before (to the US). Tell me again that the 'domino theory' isn't valid. Grumpily... Charlie Martin (mcnc!rti!crm)
scw@cepu.UUCP (06/18/84)
In article <1007@ihuxq.UUCP> ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) writes: >[many many lines of old, older, oldest postings deleted] >Steve Woods mentioned that the government of South Vietnam seemed >to be popular, and that my allusions to starvation were ridiculous. >My picture of the corrupt and totalitarian regime in South Vietnam, >along with really abject squalor, came from friends who were over >there. But then, the only thing they were fighting for was to save >their asses. I guess there's a difference of perspective. Abject poverty is strictly relative. When I went to Vietnam in 1966 (my first tour) I found the country to appear to be Dirt poor. No electricity, running water, flush toilets, you know really Bad NEWS. After I had been there a while I realized that these people really didn't have it that bad, this is not to say that they had it good but they didn't have it bad. They had plenty to eat, good houses (warm and dry), some (not a lot, but some) money to spend, they seemed glad to see us especially at night when the VC were out and about. When I went to there for my second tour things had changed, unfortunatly I didn't get back to the same are to see a direct comparison. All the warm/dry houses were gone (remember I'm not talking about Saigon or Da-Nang or even the District capitols, but the little hamlets/villiages out in the bush) there we almost no draft animals, very little food (enough to survive on but that's about it), very few people (the area that I was in had been fought over *VERY* heavily the year before). The people did seem even more glad to see us (and the Vietnamese Scout with us said that they were [PS, I do <well did> speak Vietnamese]), all in all I'd say that being fought over for 2.5 years hadn't done the country any good. > >Ah, the "domino theory". For you young 'uns, that's the notion that >if we don't fight 'em there (wherever "there" is), next thing you >know, they'll be at the Golden Gate, and good ol' Pleasantville, USA >will get overrun, and renamed "Stalinville", and the cute kid with >the lemonade stand will be able to sell only one kind--PINK! Ken, tell it to the Camboidians and the Thais. > >Well, I don't buy it (the theory or the lemonade). I do know about >Hitler, though. When I told my draft board I thought I would have >fought in WW II, they denied me a CO. But that's another story. >Anyway, I disagree with Steve on the correct answers to the lessons >of history, but the man has certainly paid his tuition. [That I did, very expensive too]. My brother is of the same mind as you, so am I actually, it's just that my definition of a 'just war' is different from yours. -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"
lmaher@uokvax.UUCP (06/19/84)
#R:ihuxu:-32500:uokvax:5000097:000:2760 uokvax!lmaher Jun 18 22:22:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.politics / ihuxq!ken / 3:18 am Jun 16, 1984 */ >> in the streets of Los Angeles because we missed a clean shot at stopping >> someone early on. Remember what happened when Germany marched into >> Austria, if France/GB had shown some gumption and called Hitlers bluff >> (and bluff it was) he would have marched right back out again. I don't >> forget the lessons of history, tyranny must be met and fought at every >> step along the way. If that means that we must use lesser tyrants to >> fight the greater, then so be it. At some point in time the lesser >> tyrants will be the next target. >> -- >> Stephen C. Woods > Ah, the "domino theory". For you young 'uns, that's the notion that > if we don't fight 'em there (wherever "there" is), next thing you > know, they'll be at the Golden Gate, and good ol' Pleasantville, USA > will get overrun, and renamed "Stalinville", and the cute kid with... > ken perlow ***** ***** /* ---------- */ The U.S. has never been in any danger of invasion (I think this was discussed a few months ago), except by Mexico or Canada, whose armies are insignificant. Everyone else would have to cross an Ocean to do so, and no one except the U.S. has the power projection capability (read that as "carriers, transport, and amphibious assault craft") to stage a trans-oceanic invasion. But the world is more interdependent than it once was, and the U.S. could not stand isolated against the entire world. If Western Europe were in the Soviet Bloc, for example, the balance of power would be tipped too far over. So the U.S. has a vital interest in maintaining Western Europe's freedom. The arguments for intervention outside Europe (and Japan and Israel) are on softer ground. A book by the Boston Studies Group, _Winding Down_, argued that the U.S. should strip itself of its third world interventionist capability, so that it couldn't be tempted to play global policeman. By so doing, the defense of the U.S. itself and its vital allies could be improved, while drastically reducing the cost. If anyone would like to discuss the actual proposals made, I'll post them to the net - quite short. I approve of Stephen's suggestion to aid lesser evils against greater evils, then turn on the lesser evils. Anyone who believes that loyalty should override national interests should re-read their Machiavelli, a much-maligned and brilliant political analyst. And I disapprove of ken's trivialization and distortion of the domino theory, although not of ken himself. (i.e. I'm kicking the ball, not the player.) Carl (formerly uok!crigney) ..!ctvax!uokvax!lmaher ..!duke!uok!uokvax!lmaher
ix652@sdccs6.UUCP (06/19/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dcdwest.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sdccs6.UUCP Message-ID: <1555@sdccs6.UUCP> Date: Tue, 19-Jun-84 16:46:30 PDT ttrocities in Vietnam Organization: U.C. San Diego, Computer Center Lines: 14 I'm sure that Vietnam was a lot poorer toward the end of the war than it was at the beginning. Only thing is: are you sure that having more bombs dropped on it than Europe did in WWII mightn'd have been the reason, rather than "communist aggression"? Also, sometimes I find it a little difficult to understand why what Japan did in WWII was so bad that they deserved to get two atom bombs dropped on them, while what the US did in Vietnam was "noble and just"... Mark Johnson Linguistics, UCSD. ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdamos!mark
ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL) (06/21/84)
Specifically, this is to Ken Perlow re the Domino Theory and his "I don't buy it (the theory)" I've my opinions on Viet-Nam, just as everyone else in the country seems to; and I'm sure mine are as strong as any you may have. (I just missed being there by 1 year, and had many friends on both sides of the fence). But I'm only posting here to answer Ken's scornful spurning of the Domino Theory: as much as I hate to admit that the crowd that ran that war were right about anything, in this, they were right. Look at what happened in surrounding countries after the collapse of Saigon... I just wish we (the USA) could have found some acceptable way to be on the same side as Ho Chi Minh. Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz