Could the Press Grow a Spine?

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 28 Jun 2004 22:56:48 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

By 1972, the table was most assuredly round and all
four parties were involved in the negotiation.

According to several books I've read, only the NVN and US were in
Paris...at
least at the peace accords.

As has been earlier mentioned here, one of the stumbling blocks was
the unwillingness of Diem regime to concede some of the points agreed
to beween the US and NVN.

Ed, Ngo Dihn Diem was killed in 1963, the SVN President in 1972 was
Nguyen
Van
Thieu whom the North refused to negotiate with since they claimed his
regime
was illegitimate.

Encroaching senility. Meant Thieu. His representative was Le Duc Tho.

You should have quit when you were ahead, Ed. Look below, or read it and
weep:

Wow. You must have missed Ed's immediate correction that he hisself posted
regarding this little history lesson you are offering?

Brooks


"Le Duc Tho was born in Nam Ha province, Vietnam on 14th October, 1911. As
a
young man he became involved in radical politics and in 1930 helped
establish
the Indochinese Communist Party. He campaigned against French rule in
Vietnam
and was twice imprisoned for his political activities (1930-36 and
1939-44).

In 1945 Le Duc Tho returned to Hanoi and joined with Ho Chi Minh and Vo
Nguyen
Giap in establishing the Vietnam Revolutionary League (Vietminh). Until
1954 he
was Vietminh's leader in South Vietnam. A member of the Politburo of the
Vietnam
Workers' Party, he had responsibility for organizing the rebellion against
the
government of South Vietnam.

Peace talks between representatives from United States, South Vietnam,
North
Vietnam and the NLF began in Paris in January, 1969. Le Duc Tho served as
special adviser to the North Vietnamese delegation. He eventually became
North
Vietnamese leader in these talks."


George Z.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

snip

I guess my point was that had the US not done
anything in Vietnam, it would have left the door open for more adventurous
action (than what was actually experienced) on the part of the USSR and PRC
supporting communist factions in other nearby nations.

Perhaps, but any direct support to communist insurgents in say Thailand would
have required the cooperation (at least in over-flight rights) of both Vietnam
and either Cambodia or Laos and the staging of operations in either Cambodia or
Laos. With Vietnam and Cambodia at "odds", would it have been likely that they
would have had the inclination to support such operations? It may have been
possible, but not certainly as "neat" as the support to NVN and the Pathet Lao
was.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John Mullen" writes:
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

The sixties saw us (read large--the Brits did their share of countering
communist moves during this period, IIRC, especially in Malaya) face
insurgencies around the world; US "advisors" were apparently involved
in
helping combat this threat in a fair number of spots outside
Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos. ISTR US special forces (and CIA) assets (to
include
B-26K COIN aircraft) were active in Africa,

Yuo mean the CIA's support for the unsuccessful insurgency in Angola?
Surely
that went on into the 80's?

He means the involvement of teh CIA, the USAF (AIr Commandos, and
later on, USAFE and MATS aircraft), and U.S. Army Special Forces in the
Congo. (Later Zaire, then the Congo again) in the period between the
two uprisings in the early and mid-'60s. It was the sort of thing
that occurred in Africa at teh time (And later, as well), with Tribal
animosities, strange mixtures of Marxism/Leninism/Maoism/Animism
thrown in, and an overtone of severe atrocities against any
"Europeans" or "European-ized" Africans. The first revolt/uprising
resulted in the U.N. getting involved, with Swedish and Indian
Peacekeepers strafing the natives with SAAB-29s and Canberras.
The second uprisising was put down by a comnination of Congolese,
Mercenaries ("Mad Mike" Hoare) funded by the CIA, with assistance from
the USAF Air Commandos (AT-28s and the B-26Ks), and the Belgian
Para-Commando Regiment, which was dropped from USAFE C-130s backed up
by MATS C-124s to rescue hostages (Mostly Europeans) held in
Stanleyville.

It's a big, nasty, complicated story that I couldn't possible do
justice to.

In addition, a goodly chunk of the Humanitarian Aid flown into Biafra
and oterh such places was in Air National Guard C-97s, "leased" at
some nominal fee to Balair in Switzerland (International Red Cross),
and World Church Aid. These aircraft were flown by ANG personnel.

Excellent post! It was Brooks writing 'Africa' that left the question he was
talking about ambiguous. It is a big continent, and has more than its fair
share of wars over the years. Would that be the CIA's first use of
mercenaries (sorry, ahem, 'contractors') to do their dirty work for them?

Vic Flintham's excellent book 'Air Wars and Aircraft: A Detailed Record of
Air Combat, 1945 to the Present' gives a very good account of both the Congo
and the Biafra affairs. Sadly, it now seems to be out of print. Vic, do you
still read this NG? Any plans to produce an updated version?

John

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote:
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

The sixties saw us (read large--the Brits did their share of
countering
communist moves during this period, IIRC, especially in Malaya) face
insurgencies around the world; US "advisors" were apparently
involved
in
helping combat this threat in a fair number of spots outside
Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos. ISTR US special forces (and CIA) assets (to
include
B-26K COIN aircraft) were active in Africa,

Yuo mean the CIA's support for the unsuccessful insurgency in Angola?
Surely
that went on into the 80's?

B-26's were supposedly flown in operations in the Congo, in the 1960's.
B-26's were used in Angola but I believe the missions where all flown by
members of the FAP.

Offering facts like that will only confuse him further.

Hey Brooksy, I always wondered, why do you always sign with your last name?
Are you of noble birth or something?



John

In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:46:22 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes

Any questions?

Yes, but they're quibbles rather than arguments. I'd argue details of
many of those statements while agreeing with them overall.

But, then you've proven yourself to be a rational individual who
offers greater depth to the discussion than simple name calling or
sloganeering.

As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
convictions. The hard part is to rise above the pig-wrestling and
listen to the other side's argument, demand that both sides offer fact
and reason, then make objective rather than subjective choices.

Ain't easy.


But thank you, very sincerely, for telling that to your students. If
only that reasoning could extend to USENET posters...

In article , Stephen Harding
wrote:



This sort of character assassination in the guise of
political debate was common political currency from the
founding of the US right up to the late 1800s when electioneering
seemed to become more civil (though still filled with the
smoke filled, back room wheeling and dealing). Washington,
Adams, Jefferson and Jackson seemed especially victimized
by this sort of politically driven, savage personal attack.

Ah, but the rhetoric of the day, if carried into modern times, might be
a bit redeeming. Compare Cheney's recent anatomical comment to that
from John Randolph of Roanoke about Henry Clay: "Like a rotten mackerel
by moonlight, he shines and stinks."

Even turn-of-the-twentieth-century would do:

Speechifying Repreentative: "I'd rather be right than President!"

Speaker of the House Vinegar Joe Cannon: "You, sir, are in no danger of
ever being either."

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..

I'd rather win than lose.

Me too.

I'd rather America prevail than the Islamic fundamentalists.

I'd rather have truth and justice prevail than religious
fundamentalism regardless of the variety of religion or the
nationality of the fanatic.

I'd
rather retain national sovereignty than subject us to the whims of the
UN.

I'd rather our elected officials and their apointees respect the
Constitution, their obligations under the treaties ratified by
our Senate, and obey the law. Happily, six of our Supreme Court
Justices agree with me.

I'd rather carry my own weapon and defend myself.

Me too.

I'd rather
individual responsibility than a welfare state.

Me too, Ditto for welfare for the rich.

I'd rather keep my
earnings and make my own spending choices.

Me too.

I'd like higher standards
rather than affirmative action.

I'd like them both. They are not incompatible.

--

FF

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
...
As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
convictions. ...

It is unfortunate that you perpetuate the myth that political
questions may be sensibly reduced to a mere dichotomy.

--

FF

In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message
. ..
...
As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
convictions. ...

It is unfortunate that you perpetuate the myth that political
questions may be sensibly reduced to a mere dichotomy.

He didn't say that, now, did he?

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..


How about if you lay out a chronology of GWB's ANG service for
us, or refer us to an accurate one posted elsewhere.

Beats the hell outta "Your making that up." "No, you'r making
that up."

--

FF