wrote in message

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:37:18 GMT, "Gilligan" wrote:

In your heart, you know he's right!

In your guts you know he's nuts!

Use your head; you know he's dead.

Max

"John Cairns" wrote

With the blessing of just about every Republican in the US. ......

This is simply not true. I helped in Nixon's campaign and most Republicans
and cross-over voters hoped and expected him to get us out of "LBJ's War"
ASAP. Most turned on him when he failed to do so.

Bush supporters can't see the irony here. But you are right about one
thing,
a true conservative like Goldwater would never approve of the military
adventurism or fiscal irresponsibility that the Bush neocons so heartily
approve of.

True, but that cost Goldwater the election. When asked about 'nam,
Goldwater *honestly* replied that, as senator, he lacked all of the facts
needed to make a firm decision "but I'll tell you one thing - I'll either
get out or go in and win". LBJ seizd on that, branded Goldwater a warmonger
and vowed "I'll never send your sons to die in Vietnam!" Lies have trumped
honesty ever since.

"Maxprop" wrote
Are you referring to *America entering the war?* The French had been
there
for some time before we got involved. It was already a shooting conflict
by
the time JFK sent "advisors" to Vietnam.

Nope. The French had admitted defeat and left. There was no significant
shooting until the South Vietnamese Government refused to abide by the
agreement and hold reunification elections.

"Maxprop" wrote
Are you referring to *America entering the war?* The French had been
there
for some time before we got involved. It was already a shooting conflict
by
the time JFK sent "advisors" to Vietnam.



Vito wrote:
Nope.

???


... The French had admitted defeat and left.

True, but...

... There was no significant
shooting

bull****, unless by "no significant shooting" you choose to ignore the
thousands of North Vietnamese shooting at South Vietnamese people, and
occasionally vice versa.

Read the Vietnamese gov't's own version of history, they will tell you
that they had a significant cadre infiltrated "freedom fighters" into
South Viet Nam, where they took over isolated villages (peacefully of
course), recruited Viet Cong fifth-columnists, and disrupted as much of
the country's normal activities as they could, including murdering gov't
officials.

... until the South Vietnamese Government refused to abide by the
agreement and hold reunification elections.

yeah yeah, you will not ever grasp the fact of this matter, will you?
I've already worn out two sledgehammers trying to drive it in.

DSK

OzOne wrote:
OK, I went hunting....found this.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...nam/index.html

Thanks Oz1, that's a pretty good link.

A slightly different perspective is that of the Vietnamese people... in
their opinion, the Viet Nam War started in the 1790s when the first
French military officers intervened on behalf of rench missionaries.
Armed resistnace against the foreigners began immediately and didn't
stop until the Americans left 220 years later.

A historical parallel is their heroic wars of independence against the
Chinese, which were quite protracted... hundreds of years. It is this
tradition that Ho Chi Mihn capitalized on to inspire people to join his
party... of course, he concealed his intention to form a repressive &
dictatorial gov't from all but a chosen few.

Originally, Viet Nam was two or three different countries, with
different ethnicities, different folk ways, even different languages in
the beginning (google up "Champa"). In partitioning Viet Nam, the Geneva
Convention was really following a good historical precedent.

BTW the Viet Nam War is really ancient history. My wife & I eat dinner
in a great Vietnamese restaurant; a while ago we were discussing food &
culture & language with the waitress and she enthusiastically told us
about their New Year holiday traditions. My wife said, "I've never heard
of that" and I teasingly said, "Yes, you have, I'll explain later." When
we were driving home she asked about it, and I said one word... Tet.

Regards
Doug King

OzOne wrote:
You see there was an attack prior to the one you mention which
occurred the next day



DD730 wrote:
No, there wasn't. It was an invention after the only "incident" was
discredited.

Can you provide some references other than your say-so?

My understanding was that the illusory attacks were in the context of an
ongoing operation, and that US forces had come under fire from North
Vietnamese forces several times.

DSK

"Vito" wrote in message

Nope. The French had admitted defeat and left.

Now there's a revelation of major proportion! :-)))))))))

Max

OzOne wrote in message

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:29:09 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message

Nope, AFAIK Johnson DID start the war.

Are you referring to *America entering the war?* The French had been
there
for some time before we got involved. It was already a shooting conflict
by
the time JFK sent "advisors" to Vietnam.

Actually the French had bailed out.

I wasn't implying that they were still in VN. But looking back at my
statement, I also failed to mention they had cut and run.

Of course we did the same thing in '75.

Max

OzOne wrote in message ...
On 9 Nov 2004 09:24:08 -0600, Dave scribbled
thusly:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:19:43 +1100, OzOne said:

Yep, Dave, you apparently don't have any clue!

So, Oz, you also think Johnson started the Vietnam war?

Nope, AFAIK Johnson DID start the war.

Kennedy had about 16,000 military advisors in Vietnam when he was
assasinated.

I suppose it depends on your point of view. I view it as a continuation
of
the war between NV and the French dating from the partition of the
country
after WWII. I recall seeing the newsreels in the theater when I was a kid
showing the fighting, and later the defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu
(sp?). It was Eisenhower who coined, or at least popularized, the
so-called
domino theory. He was the first to put U.S. troops in, though supposedly
as
"advisers." The U.S. involvement increased under Kennedy, and, as you
say,
massively increased under Johnson. But saying Johnson "started" the war
is a
bit like saying WWII started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.


Of course, I was looking at the chain of events from a US perspective
....It wasn't a war until we got involved... ;-)


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

OzOne wrote
I suppose it depends on your point of view. I view it as a continuation
of
the war between NV and the French dating from the partition of the
country
after WWII. ....

Not really.

Of course, I was looking at the chain of events from a US perspective
....It wasn't a war until we got involved... ;-)

We were involved in WW2 when Ho & co helped rescue US airmen and later when
Ho begged Truman and Ike to help him keep France out. Ho'd seen both western
and communist "democracies" and knew that people lived better in the former.
OTOH we had left his country to France. So after beating France they
decided to briefly partition the country north and south, then after a time
let the people choose in a reunification election. Ike saw the opportunity
to influence that choice by pouring assistance into the south so that, come
elections, the south would be rich and the north still poor. Might have
worked except that Diem and the old French collaborators diverted all our
aid into personal accounts and set up a Catholic regime similar to Saddams
baathists (remember buddists burning?). Ike left that problem for JFK who
dawdled til it was too late for Ike's plan to work. There was little or no
fighting during that period (except in the south when villages tried to
elect non-catholic leaders) because both sides assumed they'd win the
election.