PDA

View Full Version : "60's Lies About Vietnam War Must Be Exposed Now"



thedrifter
07-02-02, 02:17 PM
VIETNAM VET REFORM GROUP SAYS 60'S LIES ABOUT VIETNAM WAR MUST BE EXPOSED NOW
TO DISCREDIT ACADEMIC VIEWS ON FOREIGN POLICY AND THREAT OF POLARIZATION. -
a V.V.A.R. newsnote from Leonard Magruder- President (Part 2)

The main focus of lying by the anti-war movement was two White Papers
issued by the State Department in December l961 and March l965. The claims of
these two papers, based on a great deal of evidence, were that Hanoi was
directing a campaign of overt and covert subversion and aggression against
an independent South Vietnam. In a sustained attack over the years, the
anti-war movement claimed that the war was a civil war between "U.S. puppets"
and "indigenous resistance" in South Vietnam . This denial of a North
Vietnamese presence in the South was the major contention, and the biggest
lie, of opponents of the war. They portrayed the two White Papers as a
calculated campaign of disinformation by the U.S. Governement. Destroying the
credibility of these two White Papers was the chief objective of the anti-war
movment and the first step in its ultimate victory over U.S. policy. But it
was done by lying, and if they do it again with regards to current U.S.
policy on the war on terrorism, they will destroy the homeland.
The l961 White Paper said outright and, as it turns out, correctly,"The
Viet Cong are not indigenous freedom fighters; Hanoi is behind the guerrilla
war in South Vietnam. The Lao Don party, that is, the Communist Party, is
the vangard of the "liberation" movement." This first White Paper was the one
that presented John F. Kennedy's case for assistance to South Vietnam as
legal, moral, and proper.
The Second White Paper, released in Februrary of l965, after Lydon Johnson
took over, again made the point that the conflict was caused by Hanoi's
policy of conquest. It stated, "South Vietnam is fighting for its life
against a brutal campaign of terror and armed attacks inspired , directed ,
and controlled by the Communist regime in Hanoi. It is established beyond
question that North Vietnam is carrying out a carefully conceived plan of
aggression against the South... a violation of the United Nations Charter and
directly contrary to the Geneva Accords to which North Vietnam is a party."
The entire anti-war movement rested on the lie that North Vietnam was
never involved in aggression. This was done to take the issue out of the
arena of Cold War containment policy. This is what was taught to students in
the notorious teach-ins at major universities. as well as spread by leading
anti-war figures such as I.F.Stone, Stanton Lynd, Tom Hayden, David
Dellinger, Abbie Hoffman, Francis Fitzgerald, and Hans Morganthau. Later
George Kahin and John Lewis in a text that was widely used in the teach-ins
,"The United States in Vietnam", wrote, "There is no evidence to assert, as
does the U.S. White Paper of 1965, that the Liberation Front for South
Vietnam was formed at Hanoi's order." They completely ignored all of the
evidence that went into the two White Papers. Since then, of course, we have
had numerous testimonies from disenchanted leaders of the North confirming
the accuracy of the White Papers, men such as Van Toai Doan, author of "The
Vietnamese Gulag" and Truong Nhu Tang, author of "A Vietcong Memoir." As to
the lie by the anti-war movement that the Viet Cong was an independent South
Vietnamese political movement, Bui Ten, the North Vietnamese colonel who
accepted the surrender of South Vietnam said in "The Wall Street Journal "
recently, "It was set up by our Communist Party to implement a decision of
the Third Party Congress of September 1960."
But the most important confession of involvment by Hanoi is found in the
report "Summary of Fact", issued in l987 by Hanoi's Military History
Institute describing key decisions made by Hanoi regarding South Vietnam from
the Geneva Convention in l954 until the final conquest by the Communists in
l975. Stephen B. Young in an article to which I am indebted for some material
in this article, summarized the impact of this material when he wrote, "The
Summary confirms the two American White Papers and utterly refutes the
position of the anti-war movement. Hanoi's document reveals how, step by
step, the Vietnamese Communist leadership in Hanoi made the decisions to
forment a war in South Vietnam and then, again and again, to escalate that
conflict." From the start of South Vietnam's existence following the Geneva
Conference, Hanoi was resolved to crush its autonomy and bring its people
under Communist rule. Those who supported the war were never confused about
this, but the lies of the anti-war movment came to be embraced by so many
that the U.S. was threatened with serious internal conflict, and the flawed
solution of Vietnamization offered by Nixon was accepted.
The "Summary of Fact" contains this statement, "Following the road set out
by the Party Congress, on December 20, l960, the People's Front for the
Liberation of South Vietnam was established." That is, the NFL, or Viet Cong
is thus revealed by the Summary as having been the creation of Hanoi's
Communist Party. That one sentence destroys the arguments of the anti-war
movement.
The White Papers of 1961 and 1965 had assessed the intentions of Hanoi
with complete accuracy. The credibility gap, or cynicism, of the 60's was
not created by any fabrication on the part of the Kennedy or Johnson
Administrations. It was created by deliberate lying by the leaders of the
anti-war movement.
Said Stephen B. Young in his article commenting on celebrations of the
thirtieth anniversaries of the Vietnam War,"A generation congratulates itself
once again for doing what the North Vietnamese never could have done -defeat
the United States. History, as they say, is written by the victors, and the
victor in this conflict was the American anti -war movement. It is no wonder,
then , that our national recollection of the war matches that of the New
Left. It is no wonder too that certain questions are no longer asked, chief
among them the question, a central one thirty years ago, of whether the U.S.
involvement resulted from a tissue of lies Washington was spinning out even
before the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or whether its factual assessment of
conditions in South Vietnam , Laos, and Cambodia and its consequent policy
response to the plight of the South Vietnamese people was rational and
justifiable."
We now know, with much of the evidence coming from the enemy itself, that
the response was rational and justifiable. Therefore, what is taught on
campus about the Vietnam War can no longer be tolerated as it is largely
based on lies. By far the most widely used textbook on the Vietnam War in our
universities is Stanley Karnow's "Vietnam: A History." So biased is the book
that when translated into a PBS series it caused protests and riots by
Vietnamese refugees and Americans in New Orleans, Houston, Los Angeles,
Washington, Paris, and London. A documentary , narrated by Charlton Heston
was produced exposing the errors, and also a book, "Pirates are Losers."
The time has unquestionably come for Vietnam veterans, who were the
primary victims of this massive academic conspiracy against truth to speak
out strongly in demanding that this change, and that this matter of the two
White Papers and the evidence that the anti-war movement was a moral fraud,
be a central part of presenting to students a new and more honest view of the
Vietnam War.
The only way that the American campus is going to be able to present the
absolutely necessary unity with the rest of the nation that is required in
the face of the terrorist crisis is to admit that it was wrong on Vietnam,
admit they fell for and propagated enemy propaganda, as there are already
signs that this may be happening again.
As the Chief of Military History, U.S. Government wrote in his "Final
Report", "If there is to be an inquiry related to the Vietnam War, it should
be into the reasons why enemy propaganda was so widespread in this country,
and why the enemy was able to condition the public to such an extent that the
best educated segments of our population have given credence to the most
incredible allegations."

Sempers,

Roger

NamGrunt68
07-02-02, 02:24 PM
Thanks for posting that Bro.....I will copy and paste it and send it out in a bunch o emails. Also I think I will add a new page to my website about it. I get alot of visits from Students in College and High School askin questions about the Vietnam War.

thedrifter
07-02-02, 02:49 PM
Hi Dane,

I'm glad you like the post. I try to find articles and etc about the Viet Nam War. Keeping my Brothers informed to the Truth is what I try to do. The more that read this the better off We are.
Thank you for forwarding it and putting it on your site.

Sempers,

Roger

NamGrunt68
07-02-02, 04:38 PM
Thanks again for that "lies" piece....I got it up on my site !!! I put a credit to you for providing it even though you didn't write it...I don't know your last name so I just put your standard signature from here......Course if you want to expose yourself here I'll put your last name on........Hell thats a dumb thing to say...all Good Marines like exposin themselves !!!!:p

arzach
07-02-02, 06:17 PM
drifter, excellent post! 'bout time the truth was put out for all to 'scope'!:D

Midnight
07-03-02, 08:31 AM
DRIFTER THAS A MOST EXCELLENT POST!
THE UNFORTUNATE THANG IS THAT THE PEOPLES THAT NEED TO READ IT THE MOST PRBLY WON'T EVER SEE IT. IZE NEW HERE BUT I SEE THAT THE ONLYEST ONES COMMENTING ON THIS ARE ALL BROTHER NAMMIES.
I MEAN WHAT GIVES?
SEMPER FI MARINES.
STEVE 0331 RVN 69-71

CAS3
07-03-02, 10:21 AM
Roger...Great job in voicing the Vietnam "lies".

Steve, just to let you know, I have joined an organization which brings the POW/MIA issue to a forefront. I am a young former WM but I feel that the Vietnem War has ****ed up a lot of lives and is still doing so.

NamGrunt68
07-03-02, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Midnight
DRIFTER THAS A MOST EXCELLENT POST!
THE UNFORTUNATE THANG IS THAT THE PEOPLES THAT NEED TO READ IT THE MOST PRBLY WON'T EVER SEE IT. IZE NEW HERE BUT I SEE THAT THE ONLYEST ONES COMMENTING ON THIS ARE ALL BROTHER NAMMIES.
I MEAN WHAT GIVES?
SEMPER FI MARINES.
STEVE 0331 RVN 69-71

Steve, I thinks You might have come close to answerin yer on question bro !!!! "It Don't Mean Nothin"......WELCOME HOME BRO !!!!

Midnight
07-03-02, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by NamGrunt68


Steve, I thinks You might have come close to answerin yer on question bro !!!! "It Don't Mean Nothin"......WELCOME HOME BRO !!!!
Hiya Dane, Thanks fer the welcome. Yer right bro! {:BAFG:}
Semper Fi!

arzach
07-03-02, 10:22 PM
welcome home bro! and welcome here.
think you hit it on the head, SAMO-SAMO! ain't no thing bro.

MillRatUSMC
07-08-02, 10:51 AM
First, thanks for this great post.
But we're left with this question.


What is truth and what is a lie?

Truth

1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
- in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY

Lie

Date: 13th century
1 : an untrue statement : LIE
2 : absence of truth or accuracy
3 : the practice of lying : MENDACITY

We were in Vietnam since 1947 but our biggest commitment came in 1965.
There many stories and movies on Vietnam.
Some tell the truth.
Others are just big lies.
Some were written by veterans of that war.
Others were written by wantabees.
Others were written by historians.
Will the history of Vietnam come to generations of the future.
Like the Homer’s Iliad.
Written 300 years after the Trojan War.
Wars cannot be taken out of their historical place in history.
Some were guilty of Dereliction of Duty.
Others were guilty of under reporting of the Order of Combat of our enemies.
We had to face ROE or Rules of Engagement.
Those made our job an impossibility.
In the future who will know what was the truth.
They will then commit the same errors.
Wars are fought by men.
Some act heroic, while others act like cowards.
Vietnam had some of each.
Its not for us to judge the conduct of others.
They must live with the action they took.
Some will rewrite history to suit the action taken.
Like some that had "OTHER PIORITIES"
Can those names on the Vietnam Memorial claim that?

arzach
07-08-02, 06:29 PM
covered a lot a bases there, Millrat! don't hear much about viet nam at the close of W.W.2. seems the french booked from the Japs, then wanted their 'colony' back. We even helped Ho Chi Minh beat the Japs! he wanted independence from France then, didn't get it, we helped the French with moola and equip. till they got run out in '54. ho started talking to the commies, and Ike got us going over there. In my mind, if the French had granted Independence, or even worked with Ho, we wouldn't have been there! hindsight is 20/20, so i could be all wet.
Either way, I'm proud of what I did there personally, and DAMN PROUD of all my Bros. who fought that damn war!

JRtheSTAR
07-08-02, 09:32 PM
Outstanding post Drifter and a big Hand Salute.

MillRatUSMC
07-09-02, 01:14 AM
I said Order of Combat when it should be "ORDER OF BATTLE"
Several Officers resigned their commission because they saw the lies.
That were being reported.
Westmoreland didn't want to include the local VC in that "Order of Battle".
That under-reporting led to TET of 1968.
It put to rest, their statement "We can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
So that the reason for my question.
"What is the truth?"
If you tell enough lies.
Soon you will start to believe your own lies.
Much like our leadership during the Vietnam War.
This was gross dereliction of duty.

thedrifter
04-30-04, 03:54 PM
Need to bring this up again......

Ellie

Sparrowhawk
04-30-04, 04:36 PM
"If there is to be an inquiry related to the Vietnam War, it should
be into the reasons why enemy propaganda was so widespread in this country, and why the enemy was able to condition the public to such an extent that the best educated segments of our population have given credence to the most incredible allegations."


We are seeing today, how Kerry proudly acknowledges having participated in those lies.

And we are beginning to see the seeds of anger rise once again of what we saw in the 60's when social programs funds were cut to fund the war. People in charge of those programs arose in protest because tehy would ahve to do with less. So the social profesional beggers of that tiem, united with the Anti-war movement to give the anti-war movement the numbers it needed to make it appear that there were many against the war, and they prevailed against common sense.


The "March for Women's Lives" needed the help of other causes in order to generate the number of people that reportedly gathered in Washington, D.C. Many of those in the march had their own agendas to promote that had little or nothing to do with saving women's lives. The invitation to march was extended to homosexual activists, antiwar protesters and those who oppose President Bush.

The pro-abortion organizers had to solicit these other groups in order to shore up the numbers they claimed would be marching. The fact is that they are losing support as more and more people, especially young people, recognize the truth of "pro-abortion" - which in reality is pro-death to the innocent victim of abortion.

Expect that group now, to join Kerry's campaign, oophs they already have, like they did before in the 70's, when Kerry was their hero.

Stupid greedy people, that have no true compassion for others, who want their selfish needs met, no matter what cost it takes. We can expect tehm to unite agaisnt the war in Iraq for all the wrong reasons, but Kerry will carry the banner for them.


They don't want to believe that Hussein is still in charge in Iraq and that those causing the trouble there, are his republican guards and supporters that want us out. When will they ever learn?

just my thoughts...

Cook

arzach
04-30-04, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
"If there is to be an inquiry related to the Vietnam War, it should
be into the reasons why enemy propaganda was so widespread in this country, and why the enemy was able to condition the public to such an extent that the best educated segments of our population have given credence to the most incredible allegations."


We are seeing today, how Kerry proudly acknowledges having participated in those lies.

They don't want to believe that Hussein is still in charge in Iraq and that those causing the trouble there, are his republican guards and supporters that want us out. When will they ever learn?

just my thoughts...


Cook


http://www.vwam.com/vets/tet/tet.html

Check this, it'll open yer eyes...been walkin' around for 37 years with this K-bar in my back.

eddief
05-27-04, 01:39 AM
One of the biggest lies of the Vietnam era was when LBJ said, "I will not send American boys to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves". May LBJ and McNamara rot in hell.

eddief
05-27-04, 01:42 AM
LBJ also lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

www.prisonplanet.com/tonkin_incident_might_not_have_occured.htm

radio relay
05-27-04, 05:16 AM
Right on, Cook!

Makes you wonder how the "usefull idiots" of the leftwing press can sleep with themselves. Wonder what they would do if their "dream" of the downfall of the United States, came to pass, and they no longer had the protection of the first amendment?

Call me crazy, but I'm convinced that the media was long ago compromised by foriegn agents, hostile to the United States, and it's people! Too bad that they have an audience of "edief's" . Living in their fool's paradise, and lapping up every irresponsible lie as though it were pure ambrosia....

SF :marine:

radio relay
05-27-04, 05:44 AM
Tit For Tet
Ann Coulter
May 26, 2004

Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. By lying about the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to lose the war. And people say reporters are lazy.

The immediate consequence of the media's lies was a 25 percent drop in support for the war. The long-term consequence for America was 12 years in the desert until Ronald Reagan came in and saved the country.

Now liberals are using their control of the media to persuade the public that we are losing the war in Iraq. Communist dictators may have been ruthless murderers bent on world domination, but they displayed a certain degree of rationality. America may not be able to wait out 12 years of Democrat pusillanimity now that we're dealing with Islamic lunatics who slaughter civilians in suicide missions while chanting "Allah Akbar!"

And yet the constant drumbeat of failure, quagmire, Abu Ghraib, Bush-lied-kids-died has been so successful that merely to say the war in Iraq is going well provokes laughter. The distortions have become so pervasive that Michael Moore teeters on the brink of being considered a reliable source.

If President Bush mentions our many successes in Iraq, it is evidence that he is being "unrealistically sunny and optimistic," as Michael O'Hanlon of the liberal Brookings Institution put it.

O'Hanlon's searing indictment of the operation in Iraq is that we need to "make sure they have some budget resources that they themselves decide how to spend that are not already pre-allocated." So that's the crux of our challenge in Iraq: Make sure their "accounts receivable" columns all add up. Whenever great matters are at stake, you can always count on liberals to have some pointless, womanly complaint.

We have liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, had weapons of mass destruction, invaded his neighbors, harbored terrorists, funded terrorists and had reached out to Osama bin Laden. Liberals may see Saddam's mass graves in Iraq as half-full, but I prefer to see them as half-empty.

So far, we have found chemical and biological weapons – brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, ricin, sarin, aflatoxin – and long-range missiles in Iraq.

The terrorist "stronghold" of Karbala was abandoned last week by Islamic crazies loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who slunk away when it became clear that no one supported them. Iraqis living in Karbala had recently distributed fliers asking the rebels to please leave, further underscoring one of the principal remaining problems in Iraq – the desperate need for more Kinko's outlets. Last weekend, our troops patrolled this rebel "stronghold" without a shot being fired.

The entire Kurdish region – one-third of the country – is patrolled by about 300 American troops, which is fewer than it takes to patrol the Kennedy compound in Palm Beach on Easter weekends.

But the media tell us this means we're losing. The goalpost of success keeps shifting as we stack up a string of victories. Before the war, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof warned that war with Iraq would be a nightmare: "[W]e won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces." (Unless, he weaseled his way out, "we're incredibly lucky.")

We've done all that! How incredibly lucky.

Kristof continued: "We'll have to hunt out Saddam on the ground – which may be just as hard as finding Osama in Afghanistan, and much bloodier."

We've captured Saddam! And it wasn't bloody! Indeed, the most harrowing aspect of Saddam's capture was that he hadn't bathed or been de-liced for two months.

Kristof also said: "Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly 7 million more in Al Quds militia."

And yet, somehow, our boys defeated them in just six weeks! Incredibly lucky again! And just think: all of this accomplished without even having a "Plan."

Now we're fighting directly with Islamic loonies crawling out of their rat holes from around the entire region – which liberals also said wouldn't happen. Remember how liberals said the Islamic loonies hated Saddam Hussein – hated him! – because he was a "secularist"? As geopolitical strategist Paul Begala put it, Saddam would never share his weapons with terrorists because "those Islamic terrorists would use them against Saddam Hussein because he's secular."

Well, apparently, the crazies have put aside their scruples about Saddam's secularism to come out in the open where they can be shot by American troops rather than fighting on the streets of Manhattan (where the natives would immediately surrender).

The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning. Every day liberals can create a new narrative that destroys the past as it occurred. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

To be sure, Iraq is not a bed of roses. As the Brookings Institution scholar said, we have yet to give the Iraqis "budget resources" that "are not already pre-allocated." I take it back: It is a quagmire.

Jim
05-27-04, 06:19 AM
Speaking of the truth coming out. What happened to the swift boat vets that publicly challenged Kerry's version of his service in Nam and his stance afterward? I saw some of their press conference on CSpan but the rest of the media seems to have ignored them.

yellowwing
05-27-04, 06:56 AM
They have been tied to Nixon's political machine.

One the SBVFT founder's, John Oneill, was hired by Presdient Nixon's political advisor Chuck Colson, "[Kerry] was an immediate celebrity. He was also an immediate target of the Nixon administration. Years later, Chuck Colson--who was Nixon's political enforcer--told me, 'He was a thorn in our flesh. He was very articulate, a credible leader of the opposition. He forced us to create a counterfoil. We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group."

The doctor that discredited Kerry's wounds, was debunked when it was found out that he was not the attending physician.

There are plenty of conservative media oulets, if the Swift Boat Veterans have lost the spolight, its not the liberal's fault.

eddief
05-27-04, 07:06 AM
radio relay

I stated facts that had nothing to do with the fine men and women who served in Vietnam. I was talking about the jackasses that got us into the war in the first place. As for you thinking I'm a sucker for the media, that's just not the case. I'm wary of the left wing and right wing media. That's why I check with as many sources as I can to root out the bullcrap. But thanks for that petty little insult of yours. It was good for a laugh.

radio relay
05-27-04, 09:42 AM
Glad to be of service. Always like to leave 'em laffiing... :yes:


SF:marine:

arzach
05-27-04, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by yellowwing
They have been tied to Nixon's political machine.

One the SBVFT founder's, John Oneill, was hired by Presdient Nixon's political advisor Chuck Colson, "[Kerry] was an immediate celebrity. He was also an immediate target of the Nixon administration. Years later, Chuck Colson--who was Nixon's political enforcer--told me, 'He was a thorn in our flesh. He was very articulate, a credible leader of the opposition. He forced us to create a counterfoil. We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group."

The doctor that discredited Kerry's wounds, was debunked when it was found out that he was not the attending physician.

There are plenty of conservative media oulets, if the Swift Boat Veterans have lost the spolight, its not the liberal's fault.

If this was actually the case, don't you think the kerry campaign would have latched on to it and repeated it incessantly? And the media? In both cases, their 'silence' speaks 'volumes'!

just thoughts cruising thru my mind

yellowwing
05-27-04, 10:24 AM
Your assuming that Kerry and his campaign staff are on the ball! :banana:

But seriously, if they faded away, why allocate any more resources on them?

arzach
05-27-04, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by yellowwing
Your assuming that Kerry and his campaign staff are on the ball! :banana:

But seriously, if they faded away, why allocate any more resources on them?

I ain't assuming anything, kerry's staff is full of horsecrap and really needs to downplay the insinuation that kerry wuz a combat wuss.:evigrin:..there are way too many people in dout of his worthiness of the 3 PH awards, consequently, that also casts doubt on the SS and BS awards.

As for 'fading' away, what was the last big thing reported about him? Yeah, it was that he fudged the process for his own political gain...THAT is what will be remembered in November.