vietnam war question
z
more and more american troops are dying, (505 dead) and iraqi
civilians are dying as well, (10,000+ dead). My question is, back in
the 1960's in the vietnam war time, was the death toll like this? It
seems to me, more people are dead in the first 10 months of this iraq
war than in the first few years of vietnam. Am i right? When did the
vietnam death toll start to heat up? For those of you that lived
through it, is todays situtation like vietnam, with the mounting
casualties, and the worsening situation?
John Howells
I saw a statistic the other day: the 500 dead in the Iraq war equals
the number of US soldiers who died in Vietnam by the year 1965.
--
John Howells
how...@punkhart.com
http://www.punkhart.com
Melluh
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:26:24 GMT.
Lines: 20 lines used.
Writer:John Howells <how...@punkhart.com>.
>I saw a statistic the other day: the 500 dead in the Iraq war equals
>the number of US soldiers who died in Vietnam by the year 1965.
But what about the non-US soldier casualities?
Melluh
Johnny
to that there were only a few thousand US "advisors" (total over the
space of 4 years or so) that had served in Vietnam and who were
suffering those casualties. The numbers of troops on the ground,
therefore, are not comparable. By 1966 we had more than 300,000
troops in Vietnam, roughly 3 times what we have in Iraq now, and by
then casualties were in the several thousands per year, and would
remain there. Another difference that affects casualty nos.--ie, KIA
as opposed to WIA--is the introduction of body armor and the vast
improvements in emergency medical care. If the state of the latter
were now where it was in Vietnam, many of those currently wounded
would have been killed. Lastly, at least thus far, the nos. of the
opposition are much less in Iraq than in Vietnam. These are, as all
wars are, very different situations. None of that should be taken to
mean one thing or another regarding the morality of the war or the
competence with which it is being fought. Those judgments will have
to be made using other information and arguments. IMHO.
Jim Linwood
>>the number of US soldiers who died in Vietnam by the year 1965.
>
Both the pro and anti-war factions are throwing lots of dubious statistics up
in the air. Here's the Vietnam KIA figures from the creditable and impartial US
Army Center of Military History:
Army Casualties as of: KIA
1 Jan 1965 (from 1 Jan 1961) 179
1 Jul 1965 (from 1 Jan 1961) 322
1 Nov 1965 (from 1 Jan 1961) 508
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/237ADM.htm
That gives 329 army deaths from Jan-Nov 1965.The figure for 1966 when US
involvement began in earnest is around 6000.
JL
don freeman
> But what about the non-US soldier casualities?
Like the two or three million Vietnamese who perished, these are not
Americans, so Americans need not concern themselves with their deaths.
There are only 60,000 names on the Wall in Washington.
soybomb
John Howells
In Vietnam? I didn't see that statistic. I would guess it to be very
large, since the war had been going on long before our involvement.
Besides, the US is only concerned with itself, right?...
J Buck
Ok, THAT was fairly offensive...
Ken Wilson
Sure, if we cared at all it would have been fitting to have included,
alongside the names of our own dead, the names of the men who killed them.
And we would have made up a bunch of Vietnamese-sounding names for the ones
we don't have actual names for.
Ken
Steve Edwards
of US soldiers. But the slopes don't count, do they?
don freeman
> <There are only 60,000 names on the Wall in Washington>
>
> Ok, THAT was fairly offensive...
>
It was a very offensive war, much worse than the current one.
don freeman
> Sure, if we cared at all it would have been fitting to have included,
> alongside the names of our own dead, the names of the men who killed them.
>
I think that most of the Vietnamese that died in the American war there
were in a kind of My Lai-like situation.
Some of the actual soldiers that fought against the Americans would have
been included, of course, those that didn't survive.
J Buck
<Ok, THAT was fairly offensive...>
<It was a very offensive war, much worse than the current one>
Agreed, but what does that have to do with saying "only 60,000 names"?
don freeman
> Agreed, but what does that have to do with saying "only 60,000 names"?
>
because America, only had one-fiftieth the casulaties of the Vietnamese.
If America grieves so much over the 60.000 soldiers they sent to Vietnam
and who never returned, imagine how Vietnam feels about the three
million who died because the Americans came over to fight a war there.
J Buck
Vietnam and who never returned, imagine how Vietnam feels about the
three million who died because the Americans came over to fight a war
there>
I imagine it must really suck. What are we supposed to do? Tear down the
Veterans Wall or just extend it another half mile with 3 million
Vietnamese names?
Will Dockery
news:HojQb.246158$X%5.184176@pd7tw2no...
> Ken Wilson wrote:
>
> > Sure, if we cared at all it would have been fitting to have included,
> > alongside the names of our own dead, the names of the men who killed
them.
> >
>
> I think that most of the Vietnamese that died in the American war there
> were in a kind of My Lai-like situation.
Speaking of My Lai, William Calley's father in law, V. V. Vick, died the
other day. I think, though, that Calley and his wife already own V. V. Vick
Jewelers... which happens to be about two miles from where I sit...
Will
Fawn Greyhound Mp3:
http://www.lulu.com/content/26968
don freeman
> I imagine it must really suck. What are we supposed to do? Tear down the
> Veterans Wall or just extend it another half mile with 3 million
> Vietnamese names?
>
Something must be done to show Americans that other people's lives are
just as valuable as American lives
Ihurtez
to be limited to the field of medicine.
There will always be aberrations
like terrorist activities, but we don't
have to dance our ethics to that tune.
Johnny
I certainly agree that with that sentiment, but I find it
nearly-absurd to think any country would erect a monument to the dead
of a country they had been at war with. Not because they aren't worth
our consideration, but just because that's not part of our monument
culture. As it is, we are generally kept in the dark concerning nos.
of enemy/civilian casualties (the US does not tabulate these), images
even of the enemy combatant dead are heavily censored, and the
American dead/wounded--apart from bare statistics--are likewise kept
out of the news. One understands the various cultural or morale type
reasons for this, but one also laments the unrealistic assesment of
what war is about among the citizenry. All this serves to make war
more attractive, and as anyone who has seen it knows, it is hell.
Les Kanekuni
than we do. They acknowledge the tragedy of it and go on. They don't
flagellate themselves 30 years later nor do they build monument tombs
like our Vietnam War Memorial. Of course it was the American War to
them, just one in a series of wars of liberation. But I don't think
the Vietnamese have erected any memorials to American dead. We need to
acknowledge the mistake and go one, just as they have. No need for us
to put up a memorial listing all the Vietnamese dead, even if the
names could be accounted for (which isn't possible anyway), just learn
from their healing process.
J Buck
just as valuable as American lives>
Why?
don freeman
> Something must be done to show Americans that other people's lives are
> just as valuable as American lives>
>
> Why?
>
Because there is something very sick about the way America puts the
lives of its citizens above the lives of other human beings.
It's a blindness that causes war.
don freeman
>We need to acknowledge the mistake and go one, just as they have.
And when will America acknowledge that they made a "mistake" and waged a
horrible war against a country for the most absurd of reasons, resulting
in three million deaths?
J Buck
<Why?>
I *think* I understand what you're saying. I don't agree, but only as a
matter of degree. I don't think we should be nuking every Third World
country (or even a country we don't happen to like) into oblivion, but I
don't lose any sleep about lives lost by the enemy in a conflict. Go
ahead, call me a black-hearted son of a bitch. :) I know someone
will.
don freeman
>I don't lose any sleep about lives lost by the enemy in a conflict.
The enemy? Ever looked into the eyes of the enemy?
Someone who likes Bob Dylan should not be insensitive when people are
slaughtered.
If you can feel bad about the victims of the Sept 11 terrorism, surely
you can feel bad about the victims of the Cubana airliner bombing. How
about those victims of the death squads in El Salvador, like the nuns
who were murdered by the soldiers? The babies slaughtered at My Lai? You
feel nothing? Something has gone wrong with your feelings then.
Somebody oughta investigate soon.
J Buck
slaughtered>
Where is it written that we all have to have the exact same political
and/or world view? I'm sensitive to innocent civilians being
slaughtered. I'm just not gonna quitt my job and join the Peace Corps.
<If you can feel bad about the victims of the Sept 11 terrorism, surely
you can feel bad about the victims of the Cubana airliner bombing>
Surely you can't be serious. If you actually felt the same on both days,
I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion. Jesus, I
feel bad when an 80 year old woman gets run down by a drunk driver in my
little hometown. Do you?
<You feel nothing?>
I do. Just not nearly as much as you.
<Something has gone wrong with your feelings then. Somebody oughta
investigate soon>
Thank you very much for the psychoanalysis
Seth Kulick
: >We need to acknowledge the mistake and go one, just as they have.
: And when will America acknowledge that they made a "mistake" and waged a
: horrible war against a country for the most absurd of reasons, resulting
: in three million deaths?
As I recall, Jimmy Carter said that "the destruction was mutual".
Les Kanekuni
I think it's pretty well agreed on by everybody that the Vietnam War
was a "mistake," even McNamara uses that word in the new movie The Fog
Of War. If you're looking for some kind of official government
apology, that's a fruitless way to go. I don't think the Vietnamese
government is asking for an official apology, so why are you, Don?
don freeman
> government is asking for an official apology, so why are you, Don?
I think the Vietnamese goverment is asking for all the aid that was
promised in the peace treaty that the American gov't is wtihholding,
claiming that Vietnam is hiding the MIAs. The fact that there are so
many more Vietnamese MIAs seems lost on most Americans.
Vietnam is also asking for normal trading relations with America.
I would like Americans to acknowledge that they committed a horribly
tragic mistake in Vietnam so that there could be some hope that
"mistakes" like this would never happen again.
"in 1956, 80% of the
Vietnames people wouldn've voted for Ho Chi Minh
wrote Ike years later Mandate for Change
A bad guess in the Pentagon
And the Hawks were guessing all along"
-Allen Ginsberg, Witchita Vortex Sutra
frinjdwelr
> >I don't think the Vietnamese
> > government is asking for an official apology, so why are you, Don?
>
> I think the Vietnamese goverment is asking for all the aid that was
> promised in the peace treaty that the American gov't is wtihholding,
> claiming that Vietnam is hiding the MIAs. The fact that there are so
> many more Vietnamese MIAs seems lost on most Americans.
>
> Vietnam is also asking for normal trading relations with America.
>
> I would like Americans to acknowledge that they committed a horribly
> tragic mistake in Vietnam so that there could be some hope that
> "mistakes" like this would never happen again.
>
this same kind of horrible mistake as often as their citizens forget how bad
the last one was. It helps that this time no one is allowed to see the
casualties on the evening news. And no foreigners are going to put limits
on it's doing whatever it wants no matter how much they whine.
don freeman
>
> No, that would never work. The US government reserves the right to make
> this same kind of horrible mistake as often as their citizens forget how bad
> the last one was. It helps that this time no one is allowed to see the
> casualties on the evening news. And no foreigners are going to put limits
> on it's doing whatever it wants no matter how much they whine.
>
>
understood what they did wrong the first time?
Rib O'flavin
> But how can the citizens forget how bad the last one was when they never
> understood what they did wrong the first time?
>
Freeman, you're so full of shit it's unbelievable.
If the United States were to apologize to Vietnam, it would be meaningless.
The only people who could give any kind of legitimate apology are dead.
Stick to Canadian politics, there's plenty of wrongs that need to be righted
up there, and you obviously are uninformed when it comes to America. I do
think that the people of Canada should apologize for their continued abuse
and blatant discrimination of Canada's Native Peoples. You need to start
cleaning up your own house before you start pointing that white glove to the
South.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001798865_natives23.html
Saskatchewan case highlights police mistreatment of natives
By DeNeen L. Brown
The Washington Post
SASKATOON, Saskatchewan - Two white policemen picked up Darrell Night
outside his uncle's apartment one January day before dawn. There had been a
quarrel, and Night, who had been drinking, was shouting obscenities.
Night, a member of the Cree Nation, recalls thinking the cops were going to
throw him in the drunk tank, but they drove straight out of town. They took
him to an isolated spot outside Saskatoon.
"Get the (expletive) out of here, you (expletive) Indian," he recalled one
officer saying, and they slammed his face on the hood of the trunk, took off
his handcuffs and left him standing alone on a riverbank.
"I'll freeze out here," he yelled. "What's wrong with you guys?"
A voice echoed in the cold: "That's your (expletive) problem."
Night watched the car drive off, its lights trailing out of sight. The wind
was whipping on the night of Jan. 28, 2000, in Saskatchewan, where there can
be sudden blizzards and temperatures may drop to 40 degrees below zero. He
was wearing a T-shirt, jeans, a jeans jacket and running shoes.
"I thought I was dead, but something told me, don't give up," he recalled.
So Night started walking.
'Midnight blue tour'
Night said he would have been "one more dead Indian," a victim of what had
become known as the "midnight blue tour," a body found on the outskirts of
Saskatoon, with no witnesses and only a dead man's story to tell. But he
managed to walk several miles to a power station, where a watchman let him
in from the cold.
Night's account of his survival transfixed Saskatoon and opened a window on
what some have called the dark side of the city's police force, which may
have imposed its own death penalty on the wind-whipped prairie.
Over the years, at least five frozen bodies of aboriginal men have been
found in the same area. There were always rumors the police had dropped them
off, but there was nothing to prove it until Night made it back alive.
Many people were outraged, and Night began receiving death threats. Since
then, hundreds of other aboriginal people from across Canada have called the
Native Law Centre at the University of Saskatchewan to tell their own
stories of abuse.
"It's a very old practice to get rid of the Indian who was inebriated or
mad," said Sakej Henderson, the director of the Native Law Centre. "If it
wasn't for Darrell Night, we would still be muddling around. We knew the
people died suspiciously, but we could never get enough connecting evidence
to say why they died. But with Darrell Night, all of a sudden the pattern
was there. We could see it clear. Clear enough the province has said we need
an inquiry."
In Night's case, constables Dan Hatchen and Ken Munson were convicted of
unlawful confinement in September 2001 and sentenced to eight months in
prison. The maximum sentence for an unlawful confinement conviction is 10
years. They are now free, but they were fired.
Over dozens of years, native Canadians had complained of mistreatment by
some police officers.
About 75 percent of the male prison population and 90 percent of the female
prison population is aboriginal, according to government statistics.
Government commissions were set up to address these concerns. Henderson said
he thinks that as a result of these changes, certain police officers decided
to deal with "problem Indians" by their own methods.
"When we started correcting the problem by creating advocates for aboriginal
people," Henderson said, "the police started taking things into their own
hands, feeling they could just drop them off and not book them."
In 2001, the international human-rights organization Amnesty International
issued a report criticizing Canadian police for "patterns of police abuse
against First Nation (Aboriginal) men in Saskatoon." First Nation is the way
Canadian aboriginal people identify themselves.
"There were reports that members of Saskatoon City Police had for a number
of years had an unofficial policy of abandoning intoxicated or 'troublesome'
members of the indigenous community away from the population center of
Saskatoon, thereby placing them at great risk of dying of hypothermia during
the winter months," Amnesty International said.
Officers' testimony
During the trial of Hatchen and Munson, the officers testified that they
didn't break any laws and that Night was never assaulted. But individually,
they gave different accounts of what happened.
William Roe, Hatchen's attorney, said the officers' defense was that Night
asked to be dropped off on the edge of town.
"He was in the back of the police car," Roe said. "He was well-known to the
police who had dealt with him before. His line was, 'Look boys, drop me off
anywhere. Just don't take me in and charge me.' That was their defense in a
nutshell."
Why near the power plant? "My client's explanation was they decided to drop
him off, but he would have to walk a ways. That particular area just
happened to be where they were at the time."
Morris Bodnar, Munson's attorney, denied the drop-off was motivated by
racism. "There have been other individuals around Saskatchewan who said they
have been dropped off by different police forces," he said. "Some are
aboriginal. Some are not aboriginal. I have my doubts that race was a
factor."
Police Chief Russell Sabo apologized to the aboriginal justice-reform
commission in June, saying the two officers "failed to live up to their oath
of office." "I can assure you our department and the community of Saskatoon
have paid a heavy penalty," he said.
Sabo said in a recent televised interview that the abandonment of aboriginal
men by Saskatoon police "happened more than once, and we fully admit that
and, in fact, on behalf of the police department, I want to apologize. It's
quite conceivable there were other times. I think it's important we take
ownership when we do something wrong and correct the behavior."
Joe Cliburn
> It's a blindness that causes war.
I dunno if it *causes* war, but it does make it easier for the
Masters to sell (and prolong) the wars they decide will be
profitable.
Joe
--
In the Palm™ of some fool's hand.
- Bob Dylan
don freeman
> Stick to Canadian politics, there's plenty of wrongs that need to be righted
> up there, and you obviously are uninformed when it comes to America. I do
> think that the people of Canada should apologize for their continued abuse
> and blatant discrimination of Canada's Native Peoples.
Of course Canada has done plenty of evil and has much to apologize for.
But to tell me that because I am uninformed because I come from another
country is a very sad observation. What is it about some Americans that
they think the rest of the world doesn't matter. What a shock for
America to realize that, in the eyes of the world, it is is just
another country, and it has no business acting like it owns the world.
Three million dead in the Vietnam holocaust You need to wake up and face
that fact.
Rib O'flavin
> Of course Canada has done plenty of evil and has much to apologize for.
> But to tell me that because I am uninformed because I come from another
> country is a very sad observation. What is it about some Americans that
> they think the rest of the world doesn't matter. What a shock for
> America to realize that, in the eyes of the world, it is is just
> another country, and it has no business acting like it owns the world.
>
> Three million dead in the Vietnam holocaust You need to wake up and face
> that fact.
>
We woke up a long time ago; the majority did. The sad thing about war, the
sad thing about life and love and dreams and hopes, is that the past cannot
be undone. Some people wanna talk about the past, the dead, hopeless past;
I just wanna talk about the future.
Jim Kroger
In the civil war, 50,000 died in one week (Gettysburgh).
In Iraq, 500 in one year, it would have to last 100 years to equal
vietnam.
In article <dfed2584.04012...@posting.google.com>,
Malco...@aol.com (z) wrote:
> Hi, I was wondering, seeing as we have a worsening war in iraq, and
> more and more american troops are dying, (505 dead) and iraqi
> civilians are dying as well, (10,000+ dead). My question is, back in
> the 1960's in the vietnam war time, was the death toll like this? It
> seems to me, more people are dead in the first 10 months of this iraq
> war than in the first few years of vietnam. Am i right? When did the
> vietnam death toll start to heat up? For those of you that lived
> through it, is todays situtation like vietnam, with the mounting
> casualties, and the worsening situation?
Jim Kroger
In article <4011AA35...@xxxxspringmail.com>,
Steve Edwards <sedw...@xxxxspringmail.com> wrote:
> Millions of Vietnamese were killed in that war, versus tens of thousands
> of US soldiers. But the slopes don't count, do they?
billyi
THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING.
"Joe Cliburn" <jcli...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:BC39E...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net...
> don freeman wrote:
>
> > It's a blindness that causes war.
>
> I dunno if it *causes* war, but it does make it easier for the
> Masters to sell (and prolong) the wars they decide will be
> profitable.
>
> Joe
> --
> In the PalmT of some fool's hand.
> - Bob Dylan
J Buck
died in one week (Gettysburg)>
I took the liberty of capitalizing a couple of words in your post. As
horrible as Vietnam was, I think the Civil War (and Gettysburg in
particular) was more tragic. (Again, not to trivialize Vietnam)
J Buck
A steep hill. When covered with snow it's known as a 'ski slope'
J Buck
in THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING>
Can you elaborate? Thanks.
don freeman
> I took the liberty of capitalizing a couple of words in your post. As
> horrible as Vietnam was, I think the Civil War (and Gettysburg in
> particular) was more tragic. (Again, not to trivialize Vietnam)
>
As horrible the Civil War was, it was fought for an honoourable cause.
Why was the Vietnam war fought? To save the world from a political
system that American didn't like?
And what did stopping Vietnam from uniting under Ho Chi Minh have to do
with stopping the rest of the world from going Communist?
With the combination of a faulty reason and a false fear, America killed
three million people in a country on the other side of the world.
don freeman
> We woke up a long time ago; the majority did. The sad thing about war, the
> sad thing about life and love and dreams and hopes, is that the past cannot
> be undone. Some people wanna talk about the past, the dead, hopeless past;
> I just wanna talk about the future.
>
>
country did to Vietnam.
Most open minded people want to learn about the past so they can avoid
making the same mistakes in the future.
Rib O'flavin
>
> > We woke up a long time ago; the majority did. The sad thing about war,
the
> > sad thing about life and love and dreams and hopes, is that the past
cannot
> > be undone. Some people wanna talk about the past, the dead, hopeless
past;
> > I just wanna talk about the future.
> >
> >
> It doesn't sound to me like you've woken up at all about what your
> country did to Vietnam.
have a clue as to whether I fought in the war, protested against the war,
protested against the protesters, thought we should also attack Cambodia and
anywhere else the plotting communists lie in wait, or was even born at the
time. You like to make a lot of mis- or uninformed statements. You should
seek answers to your pent up hostility problems, they're bad for your
health.
>
> Most open minded people want to learn about the past so they can avoid
> making the same mistakes in the future.
>
dwelling upon.
Leave your stepping stones behind, something calls for you.
Forget the dead you've left, they will not follow you.
The vagabond who's rapping at your door
Is standing in the clothes that you once wore.
Strike another match, go start anew
And it's all over now, Baby Blue.
don freeman
> there's a big difference between learning from and
> dwelling upon.
>
I think the memory of Vietnam should be treated the same way as the
memory of the Holocaust. The idea is to keep the memory alive so that
the world can say Never Again.
I'd say that your hostility to me bringing up the three million
Vietnamese victims of a horribly misguided American foreign policy
reveals your attitude towards the Vietnam War.
billyi
"J Buck" <jbu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15774-40...@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net...
> <I like some of what T.H White writes of war ~ via the mouth of Merlyn ~
> in THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING>
>
> Can you elaborate? Thanks.
I can't elaborate too extensively ~ only because I'm still smack in the
middle of the book (but am loving every page of it...a welcome change from
Tolkien's rather plodding prose.....apologies in advance to Lovers of the
Ring).
But Merlyn...who lives backwards in time (going from present to past is the
way he lives his life)...often speaks of the futility of war, his repulsion
to the thought of "might equals right" and how it is ultimately a game
played for sport by leaders...all the while it is ordinary folk who get
killed and wounded.
These are thoughts/ideas that he tries to instill in a young King Arthur.
Reading my summary of Merlyn's take, I see that it comes off as very
simplistic (and then some...to say the least) ~ but, really, he is much more
eloquent (and has more depth) when one reads his thoughts on the matter
(which no doubt probably reflects T.H. White's thoughts on the matter more
than anyone's).
J Buck
Depends on which side you ask, doesn't it?
Joe Cliburn
> As horrible the Civil War was, it was fought for an honoourable
cause.
Right you are! The <insert expletive of choice> Yankees invaded
the South! ;-)
Unreconstructedly,
Joe
--
In the Palm™ of some fool's hand.
- Bob Dylan
Joe Cliburn
> What's a slope?
That slippery thing that America is on right now.
Joe Cliburn
> I like some of what T.H White writes of war ~ via the mouth of
Merlyn ~ in
> THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING.
Me, too.
Joe
--
In the Palm™ of some fool's hand.
- Bob Dylan
Joe Cliburn
> More than 50,000 americans died in vietnam.
>
> In the civil war, 50,000 died in one week (Gettysburgh).
What about Antietam? Bloodiest day in US history. And *all* the
casualties were Americans, which ought to please the US bashers
around here.
Joe Cliburn
Hitler.
Joe
--
In the Palm™ of some fool's hand.
- Bob Dylan
billyi
that was later published THE BOOK OF MERLYN?
I plan to read that as soon as I finish THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING...
"Joe Cliburn" <jcli...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:BC3B2...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net...
> Merlyn also had some less than complimentary things to say about
> Hitler.
>
> Joe
> --
> In the PalmT of some fool's hand.
> - Bob Dylan
don freeman
> Depends on which side you ask, doesn't it?
>
Nope, slavery is wrong, no ifs, ands nor buts.
J Buck
<Nope, slavery is wrong, no ifs, ands nor buts>
Just to play devils advocate, (should that be in caps?) the South would
say they were fighting for state's rights, also an honorable (to them,
anyway) cause
Dwolf0823
I know you're just playing devil's advocate, but I would argue that the
southerners who boil it down to states' rights are full of, umm, well, shit.
Slavery was a necessary and sufficient cause of the war; in other words, no
slavery, no war. If it was a matter of states' rights, it was a matter of
states' rights to maintain the "peculiar institution."
Interesting that these Southern battles over states' rights seem to always
involve denying civil rights and liberties to a discrete group of people. One
hundred years after the civil war, we saw another states' rights battle from
southern states, this one over the right to retain segregation. ("Lord, Lord,
they shot George Wallace down.") Call me cynical, but when I hear "states'
rights" originating from the South...
dsw
Will Dockery
Class, Caste, and Confederate Defeat in the Lower
Chattahoochee Valley
By David Williams
Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1998. $34.95
Reviewed by Thandeka
The importance of David Williams's new book, Rich
Man's War: Class, Caste, and Confederate Defeat in the
Lower Chattahoochee Valley, cannot be overestimated.
[...]
Williams accomplishes this stunning feat by studying
the socioeconomic factors in the South that led first
to the Civil War and then to the defeat of the
Confederacy, focusing primarily on the thriving
industrial center of Columbus, Georgia, and its
surrounding area, which by 1860 was producing almost a
quarter million cotton bales annually. During the
war, this area became a center for war-related
industries because it was deep in the southern
heartland, far from major theaters of combat; had rail
connections to every major city in the South; and was
at the head of navigation on the Chattahoochee River.
Williams, who grew up in the area, uses photographs
and family history in the book, as well as archival
material. The result is a vivid depiction of the life
and times of a people who called the Civil War "a rich
man's war and a poor man's fight."
Williams begins by retelling how the southern planter
class created the white race for purposes of class
exploitation. Until then in Colonial America,
people's race was defined by their class, and there
was no distinction in law or custom between European
and African servants, all of whom were known as
"slaves." Not surprisingly, these bondservants lived,
loved, worked, and rebelled against their upper-class
oppressors together.
[...]
But under the planters' new race laws, race was
defined by genealogy. Masters and servants who could
claim that all their ancestors came from Europe became
members of the white race. In truth, of course, the
"poor whites" continued to be viewed as an alien race
by the elite. As one Georgia planter wrote a friend,
"Not one in ten [poor whites] is. . . . a whit
superior to a negro." Privately called "white trash"
by the elite, the poor whites were publicly embraced
as racial kin by the planters, 3.7 percent of the
population who owned 58 percent of the region's slaves
and were dead set on keeping their exploited workers
divided by racial contempt. Because the antebellum
South's pervasive class exploitation depended on
fabricated white racial pride, any challenge to racial
solidarity among whites threatened to reveal the
hidden class system. Here lay the path to revolution.
Thus it's not surprising that writer Hinton Rowan
Helper's 1857 book The Impending Crisis of the South,
which exposed the race-class link, was publicly
burned; a Methodist minister spent a year in jail for
simply owning it; and three Southerners were hanged
for reading it. Here is some of what Helper said:
"The lords of the lash are not only absolute masters
of the blacks. . . . but they are also the oracles and
arbiters of all nonslaveholding whites, whose freedom
is merely nominal, and whose unparalleled illiteracy
and degradation is purposely and fiendishly
perpetuated." According to Williams, this work sold
more copies than any other nonfiction book of the era
and was called by one historian "the most important
single book, in terms of its political impact, that
has ever been published in the United States."
[...]
Having set the scene, Williams gives his account of
how most poorer southern whites dealt with the "rich
man's war." He begins this section of the book by
reminding us that Georgia's very decision to secede
from the Union was never put to a popular vote.
Rather, it was made by secession delegates, 87 percent
of them slaveholders in a state where only 37 percent
of the electorate owned slaves. These delegates knew
better than to heed antisecessionist delegates' plea
to submit the decision to the electorate for final
determination. After all, more than half the South's
white population, three-quarters of whom owned no
slaves, opposed secession.
Next Williams details the Confed-eracy's corrupt
impressment system. Georgia was one of the first
Confederate states to legislate the right to
confiscate, or impress, private property for the war.
Not surprisingly, corruption ran rampant among
impressment officers, of whom one Georgian said, "They
devastate the country as much as the enemy." Another
Georgian predicted that the widespread corruption
would "ultimately alienate the affections of the
people from the government." It did.
[...]
To add insult to injury, planters continued growing
cotton (rather than food) and traded with the North as
poorer whites and the army faced starvation. Williams
also tells us that all too often, funds that should
have been distributed to indigent families wound up in
the pockets of corrupt officials. Not surprisingly,
by 1863, food riots were breaking out all over the
South, led by the starving wives left behind as their
starving husbands, sons, and fathers died for the rich
men and their slaves.
And always, the racial degradation of the poor white
continued. As Williams reminds us, most of the South's
higher-ranking officers came from the slaveholding
class and treated those under their command like
slaves. One soldier thus complained in a letter home,
"A soldier is worse than any negro on [the]
Chattahoochee river. He has no privileges whatever.
He is under worse task-masters than any negro."
Soldiers were also punished like slaves, says
Williams: "whipped, tied up by the thumbs, bucked and
gagged, branded, or even shot."
[...]
Thus did the desertions begin. By September 1864, two
thirds of Confederate soldiers were absent without
leave. One hundred thousand went over to serve in the
Union armies. Thousands more formed anti-Confederate
guerrilla bands, of which one historian wrote that
they were "no longer committed to the Confederacy, not
quite committed to the Union that supplied them arms
and supplies, but fully committed to survival." These
bands, Williams tells us, "raided plantations,
attacked army supply depots, and drove off impressment
and conscription officers. . . . One Confederate
loyalist, a veteran of the Virginia campaigns, said he
felt more uneasy at home than he ever did when he
followed Stonewall Jackson against the Yankees."
Meanwhile, Williams writes, "One prominent antiwar
resident of Barbour County held a dinner honoring
fifty-seven local deserters. Though a subpoena was
issued against the host, the sheriff refused to
deliver it." The draft was by now difficult to
enforce, nor did disgrace attach to either desertion
or evasion. Indeed, Williams concludes that the
Confederacy would have collapsed from within if there
hadn't been a Union victory.
[...]
...the bands of poorer Southern whites who organized
against the Confederacy and who indeed were abused and
exploited by their overlords, first as wage-slaves and
then as canon fodder. Sadly, these Confederate
deserters never understood that not even the one thing
they held onto as their own—their self-image as
whites—actually belonged to them. Rather it was one
among many means used by rich men to exploit them.
The Rev. Thandeka is associate professor of theology
and culture at Meadville/Lombard Theological School.
"Dwolf0823" <dwol...@aol.commonstock> wrote in message
news:20040127075956...@mb-m07.aol.com...
J Buck
say they were fighting for state's rights, also an honorable (to them,
anyway) cause>
<I know you're just playing devil's advocate, but I would argue that the
southerners who boil it down to states' rights are full of, umm, well,
shit>
I agree. That's why I used the devils advocate qualifier :)
Will Dockery
There's more to it than "states' rights", as has come to light in recent
years:
Reviewed by Thandeka
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
they held onto as their own-their self-image as
whites-actually belonged to them. Rather it was one
Rib O'flavin
>
> > there's a big difference between learning from and
> > dwelling upon.
> >
>
> I think the memory of Vietnam should be treated the same way as the
> memory of the Holocaust. The idea is to keep the memory alive so that
> the world can say Never Again.
There are a pretty surprising percentage of people in this world who value
money a lot more than humanity. People kill each other for five bucks or
even a parking space; this isn't a kind world. While memorials might make
some people feel better, they don't have any affect on war, and I don't know
for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't been the cause of some
wars. When you get right down to the point, people don't care much about
the dead Vietnamese, or the dead Americans, Australians, French, or any dead
(or alive) person. You can build memorials, but in reality, this whole
world is a memorial to hate, misfortune and death. Which is strongest I
wonder, the force of love, or the force of hatred? The power of ignorance
usually overcomes the power of truth and justice, at least from what I've
seen. The future looks like a strong war front will be pushing a weaker
peace front right on outta here.
>
> I'd say that your hostility to me bringing up the three million
> Vietnamese victims of a horribly misguided American foreign policy
> reveals your attitude towards the Vietnam War.
>
I have no hostility toward you. I said you are "full of shit," and I know
that you know that you are full of shit. You don't believe these things you
're saying; in reality the Vietnam War doesn't mean any more to you than it
does to the average person
don freeman
> some people feel better, they don't have any affect on war
I'm not so sure that a good memorial might change people's consciousnesses.
The process of making an appropriate memorial in Germany for the
Holocaust is probelmatical but ultimately a very good thing, I think.
America needs a memorial to slavery and to the destruction of the
Indians nations. And I think, it would be appropriate to make a memorial
to the millions of Vietnamese who didn't have to die.
J Buck
hundred awards shows...they became absolutely meaningless.
Rib O'flavin
> I'm not so sure that a good memorial might change people's
consciousnesses.
>
Here's a memorial that apparently didn't have too much of an effect.
http://www.tfs.net/~tbutler/LibertyMemorial/source/pa090149.html
> The process of making an appropriate memorial in Germany for the
> Holocaust is probelmatical but ultimately a very good thing, I think.
>
> America needs a memorial to slavery and to the destruction of the
> Indians nations. And I think, it would be appropriate to make a memorial
> to the millions of Vietnamese who didn't have to die.
>
We do have these type of memorials:
http://www.kckcc.cc.ks.us/ss/q28.htm
They just don't seem to do any good. If we were to build another memorial,
I would suggest a big bronze parking meter, with President Bush emptying the
change out of it.
Rib O'flavin
humans alike, is starting to take the C out of KFC.
In Vietnam, the U.S. fast food chain known for its fried chicken said
Tuesday it had closed almost all its outlets while it switched to a fish
menu, as customers were unwilling to tuck in to chicken.
Eight KFC restaurants were shut Monday in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam's
commercial center, which has banned the sale of poultry and culled more than
two million chickens.
"It has been very hard for us," Nguyen Chi Kien, KFC's Vietnam deputy
country director, told Reuters.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=4218914&pageNumber=0
Joe Cliburn
The South considered its cause honorable, but until Lincoln
played the slavery card in 1863, the North wasn't sure. Up to
that point the war was fought over constitutional questions we
now call states' rights. For many Confederate soldiers, the issue
involved invasion of their homes by US troops.
Joe
--
In the Palm™ of some fool's hand.
- Bob Dylan
Johnny
Slavery, not states rights, was both the proximate and deep cause of
the war. There was no constitutional right to dissolve the Union.
Southerners could have invoked the natural right of revolution, but
they didn't because of the implications for a slave-holding society,
so they were hardly the heirs of the Revolutionary generation.
It was an article of faith among advocates of the Lost Cause school
that southern secession was a legitimate constitutional act and that
the North had no right to prevent the southern states from leaving the
Union. But as Charles B. Dew has shown in his remarkable book,
Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes
of the Civil War, the seceding states justified their action primarily
upon a starkly white supremacist ideology, arguing that Lincoln's
election would lead to racial equality, race war, and most
importantly, "racial amalgamation."
Perhaps the clearest case of Lost Cause revisionism is Alexander H.
Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy. After the war, he
produced a two-volume work entitled A Constitutional View of the Late
War Between the States in which he argued that southern secession was
constitutional. But on March 21, 1861, after seven states had formed
the southern Confederacy but before the bombardment of Fort Sumpter,
Stephens delivered a speech in Savannah in which he made the argument
that African slavery lay at the very foundation of southern society.
"Our new government," he said, "is founded upon exactly the opposite
ideas [from the claim that 'all men are created equal']; its
foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that
the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination
to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
In fact, what the southern protagonists in Gods and Generals claim to
be a second war of independence was the interruption of the
constitutional operation of republican government that substituted the
rule of the minority for that of the majority. As Lincoln said in his
July 4, 1861 address to Congress in special session, ballots were "the
rightful and peaceful successors to bullets" and that "when ballots
have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful
appeal back to bullets."
Thus the alleged right to break up the government when the minority
did not get its way was really nothing but political blackmail. The
attempted dissolution of the Union in 1860 and 1861 was the final act
in a drama that had been under way since the 1830s, only this time the
blackmailers' bluff was called.
In 1833, the minority threatened secession over the tariff. The
majority gave in. In 1835, it threatened secession if Congress did not
prohibit discussions of slavery during its own proceedings. The
majority gave in and passed a "Gag Rule." In 1850, the minority
threatened secession unless Congress forced the return of fugitive
slaves without a prior jury trial. The majority agreed to pass a
Fugitive Slave Act. In 1854 the minority threatened secession unless
the Missouri Compromise was repealed, opening Kansas to slavery.
Again, the majority acquiesced rather than see the Union smashed.
But the majority could only go so far in permitting minority blackmail
to override the constitutional will of the majority. At the Democratic
Convention in Charleston, held in April 1860, the majority finally
refused the blackmailers' demand — for a federal guarantee of slave
property in all US territories. The delegates from the deep south
walked out, splitting the Democratic party and ensuring that Lincoln
would be elected by a plurality.
The 1860 Democratic Convention gives the lie to an important part of
the Lost Cause school. First, the real "secession" was that of the
south from the Democratic party. The resulting split in the Democratic
party was instrumental in bringing about the election of Lincoln,
which the south then used as the excuse for smashing the Union. Second
and most important, the south's demand at Charleston, far from having
anything to do with states' rights, was instead a call for an
unprecedented expansion of federal power.
Dwolf0823
>This from National Review Online:
>
>Slavery, not states rights, was both the proximate and deep cause of
>the war
[snipped]
Thanks for posting that piece, Johnny, establishing the lie that this was a
"states' rights war" that people like Joe Cliburn still try to propagate.
Although federalism, and more to the point, the ability of the states to
"nullify" federal laws or federal court decisions that they did not like was an
issue in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, it was not a cause
of the civil war in the mid nineteenth century.
In addition to everything noted in the piece (e.g., the Missouri Compromise),
the civil war was precipitated by, among other things, the Dred Scott Supreme
Court decision and John Brown's failed attempt at abolitionist revolution, all
events that took place way before 1861, not to mention 1863, the moment in time
Joe points to as slavery becoming an issue in the war. The war might have been
about preventing the expansion, rather than abolishing, slavery until that
point, but it still came down to the slavery issue. Revisionist history at its
finest from Joe (well, not at its finest, certainly, but the word seemed to
fit).
Btw, Joe also asserted that the Confederate soldiers viewed the war as the
North invading their homes. First, the beginning of the war, at Fort Sumter,
was an act of aggression on the part of the Southern states (although
tactically forced by Lincoln). Second, had the South won the war, a war that
they were winnning for a couple of years, their soldiers would have been
"invading" northern homes.
The question of whether Lincoln acted constitutionally by preventing the
South's secession is an interesting one, but he acted as he did to preserve the
Union, and I for one am glad he did.
I'd like to see Joe justify the states' rights battles in the 20th century,
clearly over the right to maintain segregation and a caste system, as a battle
over the "constitutional" issue of "states' rights" as well.
Hey, Joe, read Artilce VI, section 2 of the Constitution (commonly referred to
as the "Supremacy Clause"), and you'll find your answer with respect to
"states' rights": "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
dsw
Johnny
> "states' rights war" that people like Joe Cliburn still try to propagate.
You will note that it came from Bill Buckley's NATIONAL REVIEW, hardly
a left-leaning publication. I couldn't add author and title, but if
you want oit all, it's part of a review of Gods & Generals, and is
written by an officer in the US military.
> Btw, Joe also asserted that the Confederate soldiers viewed the war as the
> North invading their homes. First, the beginning of the war, at Fort Sumter,
> was an act of aggression on the part of the Southern states (although
> tactically forced by Lincoln). Second, had the South won the war, a war that
> they were winnning for a couple of years, their soldiers would have been
> "invading" northern homes.
Probably not: the South wasn't trying to conquer the north, just
force the north to sue for peace. But the north would not have
survived with a hostile south on it's border. The south would have
controlled New Orleans, which is to control the midwest and great
plains--those would have had to dissociate from the northeastern
states. So the war was about the preservation, not just of the
'union' but of the USA as a viable entity.
>
> The question of whether Lincoln acted constitutionally by preventing the
> South's secession is an interesting one, but he acted as he did to preserve the
> Union, and I for one am glad he did.
>
> I'd like to see Joe justify the states' rights battles in the 20th century,
> clearly over the right to maintain segregation and a caste system, as a battle
> over the "constitutional" issue of "states' rights" as well.
That is correct--states rights are invoked only over issues of race,
or to prevent setting a precedent which would open federal
interference with a race-based distribution of resources. On the
other hand, we should remember there have been federal government
actions regarding race we would be equally un-proud of: Jackson and
Indian removal, the Dawes severalty act, anti-espionage acts during
WWI used against various ethnics, immigration restriction laws used in
the 1930s to send thousands of Jews back to Europe and into Hitler's
hands (at American tax-payer expense, btw!!!), Japanese internment in
the 1940s, etc.
>
> Hey, Joe, read Artilce VI, section 2 of the Constitution (commonly referred to
> as the "Supremacy Clause"), and you'll find your answer with respect to
> "states' rights": "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
> shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
> and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
> Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
On the other hand, there was a sense in which secession was one of
those constitutional arguments that was unsolveable except on the
battlefield. The south had been one of the centers of the
anti-constitutional anti-federalists in the 1780s, and these folk were
often some of the most radical revolutionaries. They did fear a
powerful centralized government, just as the Whig party in England
had, and while this became a shield for slavery, it was also a serious
option in political philosophy, not in every way connected to slavery
in the beginning. This philosophy, while not deriving from slavery,
was dying out by the 19th c. as centralized govns, banks, militaries,
etc., became part of a general movement in the west. What kept the
philosophy alive in the south was the fact that, because they had
slaves, they had an exconomic interest in keeping the old
anti-federalist theories alive. That's a little oversimplified, but
it will have to do.
>
> dsw
Dwolf0823
>> Thanks for posting that piece, Johnny, establishing the lie that this was a
>> "states' rights war" that people like Joe Cliburn still try to propagate.
>
>You will note that it came from Bill Buckley's NATIONAL REVIEW, hardly
>a left-leaning publication.
Oh, yes, it would be hard to miss that. :)
I couldn't add author and title, but if
>you want oit all, it's part of a review of Gods & Generals, and is
>written by an officer in the US military.
>
>> Btw, Joe also asserted that the Confederate soldiers viewed the war as the
>> North invading their homes. First, the beginning of the war, at Fort
>Sumter,
>> was an act of aggression on the part of the Southern states (although
>> tactically forced by Lincoln). Second, had the South won the war, a war
>that
>> they were winnning for a couple of years, their soldiers would have been
>> "invading" northern homes.
>
>Probably not: the South wasn't trying to conquer the north, just
>force the north to sue for peace.
Good point; I renounce that last sentence in the above paragraph.
But the north would not have
>survived with a hostile south on it's border. The south would have
>controlled New Orleans, which is to control the midwest and great
>plains--those would have had to dissociate from the northeastern
>states. So the war was about the preservation, not just of the
>'union' but of the USA as a viable entity.
>>
Another strong point.
>> The question of whether Lincoln acted constitutionally by preventing the
>> South's secession is an interesting one, but he acted as he did to preserve
>the
>> Union, and I for one am glad he did.
>>
>> I'd like to see Joe justify the states' rights battles in the 20th century,
>> clearly over the right to maintain segregation and a caste system, as a
>battle
>> over the "constitutional" issue of "states' rights" as well.
>
>That is correct--states rights are invoked only over issues of race,
>or to prevent setting a precedent which would open federal
>interference with a race-based distribution of resources. On the
>other hand, we should remember there have been federal government
>actions regarding race we would be equally un-proud of: Jackson and
>Indian removal, the Dawes severalty act, anti-espionage acts during
>WWI used against various ethnics, immigration restriction laws used in
>the 1930s to send thousands of Jews back to Europe and into Hitler's
>hands (at American tax-payer expense, btw!!!), Japanese internment in
>the 1940s, etc.
>>
Of course. Not to mention the late 19th/early 20th century ideas that the
Fourteenth Amendment, which specifically applies to the states, would have no
effect on the federal government's power to discriminate. This issue was
resolved when the equal protection portion was read into the fifth amendment
"due process" clause, under the theory that it would be illogical to allow the
feds to discriminate while banning states from doin the same.
>> Hey, Joe, read Artilce VI, section 2 of the Constitution (commonly referred
>to
>> as the "Supremacy Clause"), and you'll find your answer with respect to
>> "states' rights": "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
>which
>> shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the
>Land;
>> and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
>> Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
>
>On the other hand, there was a sense in which secession was one of
>those constitutional arguments that was unsolveable except on the
>battlefield.
Indeed, a separate issue entirely. If I wasn't clear, that's why I mentioned
the question of Lincoln's constitutional power to prevent secession. The
strongest argument against the constitutionality of secession is that the
Constitution provides no means to secede from the Union. Of course, the South
would argue, quite plausibly, that they never would have entered the Union had
they realized once in, always in.
The south had been one of the centers of the
>anti-constitutional anti-federalists in the 1780s, and these folk were
>often some of the most radical revolutionaries. They did fear a
>powerful centralized government, just as the Whig party in England
>had, and while this became a shield for slavery, it was also a serious
>option in political philosophy, not in every way connected to slavery
>in the beginning
Most certainly. Among other issues, it related to the creation of a federal
bank. These early battles did not solely concern slavery, although it was
always in the background, as the 3/5 compromise and the fugitive slave act,
both written into the original constitution, demonstrate.
. This philosophy, while not deriving from slavery,
>was dying out by the 19th c. as centralized govns, banks, militaries,
>etc., became part of a general movement in the west. What kept the
>philosophy alive in the south was the fact that, because they had
>slaves, they had an exconomic interest in keeping the old
>anti-federalist theories alive. That's a little oversimplified, but
>it will have to do.
Oversimplified, perhaps, but basically spot on.
dsw
monicaIII
> don freeman wrote:
> > As horrible the Civil War was, it was fought for an honoourable
> cause.
>
> Right you are! The <insert expletive of choice> Yankees invaded
> the South! ;-)
>
> Unreconstructedly,
> Joe
I don't believe this.M
harry haller
>
> > More than 50,000 americans died in vietnam.
> >
> > In the civil war, 50,000 died in one week (Gettysburgh).
>
> What about Antietam? Bloodiest day in US history. And *all* the
> casualties were Americans, which ought to please the US bashers
> around here.
>
> Joe
Leaving politics out as if you could,one death in war is too
many,regardless of race,country,or intent.Truth is the first casualty
of war,Herodotus wrote(you all know that).A Lennon song that demanded
he write it,of course,"Imagine",we'll remember,must remember..What has
war done for us?Dylan's "With God on Our Side" we should not let get
out of mind.Sometime read William Stafford,a poet & conscientious
objector during WW II.He's a great poet,up there with Dylan.harry
Bobby
> >I don't think the Vietnamese
> > government is asking for an official apology, so why are you, Don?
>
> I think the Vietnamese goverment is asking for all the aid that was
> promised in the peace treaty that the American gov't is wtihholding,
> claiming that Vietnam is hiding the MIAs. The fact that there are so
> many more Vietnamese MIAs seems lost on most Americans.
>
> Vietnam is also asking for normal trading relations with America.
>
> I would like Americans to acknowledge that they committed a horribly
> tragic mistake in Vietnam so that there could be some hope that
> "mistakes" like this would never happen again.
I don't think we Americans need to acknowledge anything of that nature to
you; however, whether officially or not, I think the acknowledgement has
been made time and again.
And let's not even talk about promises made in that peace treaty.
Dwolf0823
>I think the Vietnamese goverment is asking for all the aid that was
>> promised in the peace treaty that the American gov't is wtihholding,
Aren't treaties a two-way street? Wasn't this 1973 treaty supposed to end the
civil war? And then Saigon fell in 1975. As usual, Don will never let the
facts get in the way of his ideology, which is why he generally has no
credibility with anyone here, even those sympathetic to his politics.
dsw
xemthesu
respected.
.Theses counterparts did not respect their signatures? No.
Yes, US signature must be respected in the name of honor of all US
people. But, if US acknowledges and respect his signature, I wish the
aids and the all good things of US will do will go to the vietnamese
people, distributed personally and not by vietnamese government who
never respect its signature in any treaty signed. And this government
is never elected by the people.
I am a vietnamese abroad. I like to see the normalization of US and
Vietnam. We can be good friends. And I am sure that US people and
Vietnamese people understand it's a good thing to do. But the
communist government doesn't think this way. They always think that
USA loose the war so USA MUST PAY the indemnity. They never think it's
a good gesture from USA.
dwol...@aol.commonstock (Dwolf0823) wrote in message news:<20040204065017...@mb-m25.aol.com>...
Will Dockery
> whites--actually belonged to them. Rather it was one