"DSK" wrote
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.

First, the Viet Cong didn't need to infiltrate because many never left. They
controlled both the Mecong Delta region AND the North when the country was
partitioned. Those who'd whipped France simply hid their weapons awaiting
the election. Then Diem & Co set up a government similar to Saddam's
Baathists. Only family were allowed any national authority and only
Catholics were allowed to hold even local village offices. If an "isolated
village" of Buddists elected a Buddist leader Diem sent a squad to kill the
electee and install a Catholic. That led some Viet Cong to dig up their guns
and indeed disrupt Diem's plans by murdering those appointed 'Government
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?

That's because your "facts" are in fact faith-based and without foundation -
except of course in Diem's notes (c:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Vito" wrote in message

Nope. The French had admitted defeat and left.

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

But you'd be amazed how many doubt it happened.

Vito wrote:
First, the Viet Cong didn't need to infiltrate because many never left.


I guess that explains why, according to Viet Nam's own version of
events, they sent 10,000+ infiltrators to the South.



.... They
controlled both the Mecong Delta region AND the North when the country was
partitioned.

No they didn't. Ho Chi Mihn's gov't didn't even 'control' all of the
North, there were serious revolts & uprisings against him right through
the 1950s and most of the 1960s too.


... Those who'd whipped France simply hid their weapons awaiting
the election.

With orders to disrupt same, since it was obvious that nobody... nobody
at all... was going to vote to "unite" under Ho's gov't.


... Then Diem & Co set up a government similar to Saddam's
Baathists. Only family were allowed any national authority and only
Catholics were allowed to hold even local village offices.

While I'm not going to claim the Diem gov't wasn't corrupt & ineffective
at the end, it certainly didn't start out that way. Diem began
appointing his family only after a few years of "disloyalty" by others.
I don't know where you get the idea that only Catholics could hold
office, there weren't enough Catholics in the country.


Diem won a legitimate election as Prime Minister, then engineered a
gov't changeover that left him with more power and the emporer with
less, then engineered another election.

Of course, according to your version of "history" this never happened.

... If an "isolated
village" of Buddists elected a Buddist leader Diem sent a squad to kill the
electee and install a Catholic.

???

Funny how I've never heard anything about that.

....That led some Viet Cong to dig up their guns
and indeed disrupt Diem's plans by murdering those appointed 'Government
Officials'.

Yeah, somewhere between a thousand and ten thousand.


... 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?


That's because your "facts" are in fact faith-based and without foundation -
except of course in Diem's notes (c:

Funny thing about that... my facts are from people who were there when
it all happened. Your version seems to be free-form pro-communist
fantasy... except that even the communists don't make some of the claims
that you do.

DSK

DD730 wrote:
Proving a negative is always difficult.

Yep. That's why it's convenient to make such claims. one thing that Vito
doesn't understand, if you're going to substitute fantasy for history,
then you have to choose a version that isn't directly contradicted by
reliable witnesses. Choose something that has no witnesses, instead!


... I suppose you'll have to interview
those who were there. I haven't done any research to see if anyone has done
so. At the time it was the talk of WestPac. All anyone saw was "blips" on
the radar screens.

In the second attack, yes.


... Even at the time, no one could "prove" that no
gunboats were out there, nor could they prove that there were. The
concluding "scuttlebutt" was that it was bogus, but a lot of careers were on
the line.

Right. And that's how a lot of policy gets started, unfortunately.

Anyway, having read quite a lot about the whole affair, it has been
pretty consistently said that the Tonkin Gulf incident was part of an
ongoing operation, that the North Vietnamese had fired on U.S. forces
several times during the course of it.

DSK

OzOne wrote:

On 8 Nov 2004 17:51:11 -0600, Dave scribbled
thusly:


On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 09:19:45 +1100, OzOne said:


Here's a man who doesn't know his history.


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.
Johnson ordered a retaliatory attack after torpedo boats attacked the
Ticonderoga, and two other US vessels, the names of which escape me
atm, while they were providing radar tracking for Sth Viet forces and
on station in the Tonkin.
The war progressed rapidly from that point in August '64.

There were actually some secret bombing raids under Pres Johnson prior
to that, flown by US military pilots in old US aircraft, but these did
not amount to a commitment to war.

That didn't come until Jan '65 then Feb '65 when the US launched its
first bombing strikes but without any official declaration of war.
IIRC Johnson said something like "I've had enough of this crap" before
ordering the attack.

Oz, the US doesn't declare war on other countries. It just invades or
topples their government. Now, what did happen to Chile's elected
government in September...?

Cheers

"DSK" wrote in message
news
Vito wrote:
First, the Viet Cong didn't need to infiltrate because many never left.

I guess that explains why, according to Viet Nam's own version of
events, they sent 10,000+ infiltrators to the South.

When you say "Viet Nam's version" do you mean Diem's version or Ho's
version?

.... They
controlled both the Mecong Delta region AND the North when the country
was
partitioned.

No they didn't. Ho Chi Mihn's gov't didn't even 'control' all of the
North, there were serious revolts & uprisings against him right through
the 1950s and most of the 1960s too.

Which were quickly and savagely put down. I call that "control". YMMV


... Those who'd whipped France simply hid their weapons awaiting
the election.

With orders to disrupt same, since it was obvious that nobody... nobody
at all... was going to vote to "unite" under Ho's gov't.

On the contrary. Given a choice between Diem and Diem's Catholics CIA polls
showed commies by a landslide. That's why we got involved militarily - to
buy time to turn that around.


... Then Diem & Co set up a government similar to Saddam's
Baathists. Only family were allowed any national authority and only
Catholics were allowed to hold even local village offices.

While I'm not going to claim the Diem gov't wasn't corrupt & ineffective
at the end, it certainly didn't start out that way.

Oh?
Diem began appointing his family only after a few years of "disloyalty" by
others.

Yup they were so 'disloyal' that some wanted a say in the government and
others a cut of the US money.

I don't know where you get the idea that only Catholics could hold
office, there weren't enough Catholics in the country.

Sue their were. It wasn't so much a religious thing as a cultural one.
Catholics reflected the French values of the old colonial regime but, like
people outside the family, Buddists couldn't be trusted to support Diem.


Diem won a legitimate election as Prime Minister, then engineered a
gov't changeover that left him with more power and the emporer with
less, then engineered another election.

Of course, according to your version of "history" this never happened.

In my version Diem's election was less than legitimate. Hitler was elected
too - the same way.

... If an "isolated
village" of Buddists elected a Buddist leader Diem sent a squad to kill
the
electee and install a Catholic.

I got it from some SEALs who were there to terrorize the Cong - but you know
how them sailors lie (c:

....That led some Viet Cong to dig up their guns
and indeed disrupt Diem's plans by murdering those appointed 'Government
Officials'.

Yeah, somewhere between a thousand and ten thousand.

'bout right.


... 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?


That's because your "facts" are in fact faith-based and without
foundation -
except of course in Diem's notes (c:

Funny thing about that... my facts are from people who were there when
it all happened.

Sure - and unbiased as well (c: Per ozzies post
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...ndex-1945.html

The Geneva Accords divide Vietnam in half at the 17th parallel, with Ho Chi
Minh's Communists ceded the North, while Bao Dai's regime is granted the
South. The accords also provide for elections to be held in all of Vietnam
within two years to reunify the country. The U.S. opposes the unifying
elections, fearing a likely victory by Ho Chi Minh. .....

In the South, Bao Dai has installed Ngo Dinh Diem as his prime minister. The
U.S. now pins its hopes on anti-Communist Diem for a democratic South
Vietnam .....

The deadline passes for the unifying elections set by the Geneva Conference.
Diem, backed by the U.S., had refused to participate.

Vito wrote:
When you say "Viet Nam's version" do you mean Diem's version or Ho's
version?

The version taught in current gov't schools, which would be distantly
related to Ho's version.



.... They
controlled both the Mecong Delta region AND the North when the country

was

partitioned.

No they didn't. Ho Chi Mihn's gov't didn't even 'control' all of the
North, there were serious revolts & uprisings against him right through
the 1950s and most of the 1960s too.


Which were quickly and savagely put down. I call that "control". YMMV

Then why did the tax revolt in Nge Ahn province, Ho's hometown, take
over 18 months to regain "control" as defined by collecting taxes? Why
was mutiny one of the most persistant problems in the NVA, complained of
over and over in official reports?




... Those who'd whipped France simply hid their weapons awaiting
the election.

With orders to disrupt same, since it was obvious that nobody... nobody
at all... was going to vote to "unite" under Ho's gov't.


On the contrary. Given a choice between Diem and Diem's Catholics CIA polls
showed commies by a landslide. That's why we got involved militarily - to
buy time to turn that around.

You're dreaming. I'm obviously not going to be able to wake you up.

However, answer this question please... if the people in South Viet Nam
were truly going to vote to join North Viet Nam under Ho Chi Mihn, then
how come millions and millions of refugees left the North and came
South, and how come the North was adamant that these people not be
allowed to vote?

DSK

"Vito" wrote in message

"Maxprop" wrote in message

"Vito" wrote in message

Nope. The French had admitted defeat and left.

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

But you'd be amazed how many doubt it happened.

Really? Whom? French folks?

News to moi.

Max

DD730 wrote:
My conclusions are based on being there, speaking with those who were there,
and reading reams and reams of real time traffic from and to the principals.
Your's are based on other sources, so we'll probably never agree. But with
your Naval experience, you know how actions and how they are reported in
public differ.

Oh yeah. Big difference.


... More often than not, there is little resemblance. I have
read a number of "histories" of the war in the Gulf of Tonkin that make me
wonder where the hell I really was in 1965. Certainly my experiences don't
mesh with their "history."

Yes, but remember that it's not all due to malice or deliberate
falsification. Sometimes stories are "edited" all out of recognition
just because of column space constraints. Then of course there is the
natural human tendency to highlight favorable aspects and diminish (or
leave out) unfavorable ones.

But I'm uneasy with the claim that the whole action (or series of
actions) before the thunderstorm indcident were falsified. A CO or
battle group commander would be setting himself up for big trouble
falsifying reports on that scale, and it would be too easy to check
up... for example, if it was claimed to be in action & shooting at
hostiles, it would be easy to explain no damage the the ship ("they
missed, we didn't") but what about your weapons inventory? The Navy
keeps careful track of it's shells. Even with great political favoritism
it would be potential big trouble to falsify document like that.

Regards
Doug King

The SEAL were under CIA so not all their boat movements were coordinated
with the Navy as they normally would be so some unID'd blips were likely
them banging on the NVA base to elicit a run on the DDs, also the SEALs
Funero radars looked alot like Styx targeting radars on Komar/ Ossa boats
and caused no end of confusion.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
DD730 wrote:
Proving a negative is always difficult.

Yep. That's why it's convenient to make such claims. one thing that Vito
doesn't understand, if you're going to substitute fantasy for history,
then you have to choose a version that isn't directly contradicted by
reliable witnesses. Choose something that has no witnesses, instead!


... I suppose you'll have to interview
those who were there. I haven't done any research to see if anyone has
done
so. At the time it was the talk of WestPac. All anyone saw was "blips"
on
the radar screens.

In the second attack, yes.


... Even at the time, no one could "prove" that no
gunboats were out there, nor could they prove that there were. The
concluding "scuttlebutt" was that it was bogus, but a lot of careers
were on
the line.

Right. And that's how a lot of policy gets started, unfortunately.

Anyway, having read quite a lot about the whole affair, it has been
pretty consistently said that the Tonkin Gulf incident was part of an
ongoing operation, that the North Vietnamese had fired on U.S. forces
several times during the course of it.

DSK