Sender: "Joseph Townsend" <TOWNSENJ@coral.indstate.edu>
Subject: Re: why we stayed in vietnam
Dear vic flic,
I think it is rather ironic that you claim "history is hired
bullshit," but you use some semblance of historical referral to make
your own statements. Furthermore, if you have conclusive evidence as
to who killed JFK please inform the rest of us. I'm curious.
If you believe in evidence then you must believe that there is some
validity to historical research or, at least, it is as valid as any
other line of research on social, political, cultural and economic
issues.
Joseph S. Townsend
History Department
Indiana State Univ.
extension 4032
_______________________
[2]
Sender: jgrant@bookzen.com (jo grant)
Subject: Re: why we stayed in vietnam
>Why?
>I still burn thinking that 20,000 Americans died, so many more
>Americans were scarred and so much of our political system was
>trashed because we could not just, as was suggested at the time,
>declare victory and leave. Clinton did it Somalia. Hopefully, this
>will set a precedent.
>
>Marc
20,000 Americans died? Are you referrring to Vietnam?
j grant
______________________
[3]
Sender: Paul Gray <paul.gray@cpr.nara.gov>
Subject: Re: Why did the U.S. remain in Vietnam? (fwd) -Reply
For an interesting analysis of U.S. involvement see the book "JFK and
Vietnam", by John Newman, professor of history at the University of
Maryland. Newman documents that in October, 1963, JFK had made the
decision to withdraw. Up to that point, JFK had supported the U.S.
presence based on a private warning from President Eisenhower that
should he not support our committment there, JFK risked political damage
from conservatives that he was "soft on communism". The book further
documents that it was Robert McNamara who urged JFK to withdraw the
troops (app. 16,000) , beginning with a 1000 troop withdrawal by the
end of 1963.
However, with JFK's death in November, 1963, the plan was never
implemented. In fact, it was reversed by LBJ 4 days after the
assasination. It may be, that LBJ feared the same political damage that
Ike had warned JFK about......charges of being "soft on
communism"......no small concern in those political times.
For a more recent analysis of this episode, see the article by Oliver
Stone in the Oct 21, 1996 issue of Newsweek....."Was Vietnam JFK'S
War".
paul d gray
paul.gray@cpr.nara.gov
National Personnel Records Center
Civilian Records Facility
111 Winnebago St
st. louis, mo 63118
314-425-5722 (voice)
314-425-5719 (fax)
w/ the usual disclaimer
(All thoughts/expressions are mine...not my employer's...)
__________________________
[4]
Sender: <TONYW@siucvmb.siu.edu>
Subject: Re: why we stayed in vietnam
Re. Marc's "hoary Marxist ideology" I assume he refers to the demonic
domino Evil Empire principle and not to the valid role of economic
interpretation in classical economic texts such as CAPITAL, GRUNDRISSE, and
THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE.
Since economics is now playing a dominant role in society from corporate
and academic downsizing to exploiting the "New Frontier" of Eastern Europe,
perhaps Althusser and certain areas of postmodernist thought may have been
too premature in entirely dismissing the economic factor, even though cultural
and ideological forces are also playing their part in this miserable era.
As we've learned recently, the all-mighty buck turns eyes away from the
genocide in East Timor.
Tony Williams