[Nox]

I like this piece, so I'll re-float it.

Since you began the topic initially ... is this 'pride of authorship' ?

The initial article is not totally objective and leaves out facts which could alter the meaning.

Nox

[CasX]

Who wrote that? They sure need to work on their grammer skills.

It's spelt grammar. If you're refering the the original article, it was obviously John Pilger.

Since you began the topic initially ... is this 'pride of authorship' ?

No. It's because I re-read the article, due to the fact that I am studying Vietnam and the Indochina conflict in history class.

The initial article is not totally objective and leaves out facts which could alter the meaning.

Yet you explain nothing. Please do.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I think an addition of the names of the countries and political affiliations of them that supplied most of the weapons, ammunition, and aid to the Communist Vietnamese would explain things a little better.

[Nox]

[i]He was later made Journalist of the Year and International Reporter of the Year for his reporting of the Vietnam War over a period of almost ten years.

Yes ... and a moron named Peter Arnat got a Pulitzer Prize for reporting a false story about the US using chemical weapons in Viet Nam. I realize this has little to do with the author, but it does tarnish the awards and accolades given journalists ... by other journalists.

in which more than two million Vietnamese were killed and a bountiful land devastated.

Where did these numbers come from? The same people who gave us the 6 million 'holocaust' victim numbers?

With the Americans finally gone, Vietnam was made an international pariah.

A very subjective statement presented as fact.

Out of thirty years of war came twenty years of isolation - such were the spoils of victory.

And just a few lines above this, the statement was made about the "longest war of the twentieth century". Can anyone say the word Korea? (I seem to recall that the Korean War is still technically going on)

1930
Ho Chi Minh founds Indochina Communist Party to resist French rule. Goes into exile in the Soviet Union and China after the Party is savagely suppressed.

And the use of the word 'savagely' is the beginning of the author's loss of objectivity, because he is injecting his personal bias.

[A month later, Kennedy is assassinated.

A true statement, but it adds nothing to the topic. I notice that Nikita's death wasn't mentioned, nor was Mao's, or Lyndon's.

March, a US army platoon kills more than 400 unarmed women, children and old men at My Lai.

While the Mai Lai massacre did occur and was indeed a black spot on the record of the US, the number 400 is inflated. Now here comes the rub. The author looses any credibility because of his lack of even-handedness. A US atrocity is presented (and it is true) but there is zero mention of the slaughter of the Viet Namese hill by the Viet Cong and NVA. There is no mention of the wholesale murder of the village chiefs in South Viet Nam. There is no mention of the North Viet Namese treatment of the people who lived along the 'Ho Chi Mihn Trail'. I could continue with myriad other examples ... but the point of the lack of objectivity by the author is made.

1969
President Nixon begins to withdraw US ground troops under guise of 'Vietnamisation' - the South Vietnamese Army will fight the war while the US provides aid, advice and air support.

Again the author's bias comes through by his choice of words. In this case "guise". It is true that Nixon was later disgraced because of lying about the break-in of Democratic Party headquarters ... but Nixon DID end the war in Viet Nam, which Johnson had escalated to astronomic hieghts.

1974
Nixon resigns because of Watergate.

Again a true statement that adds nothing to the topic except to re-expose the author's bias.

I will only cite one more example because this is getting tedious.

Intricate irrigation networks built over hundreds of years had been blitzed into oblivion.

This is a totally FALSE statement. The Red River dikes were what kept the North Viet Namese in the war. The US military wanted to bomb the dikes but were prohibited from doing same. The North Viet Namese placed their AAA batteries on the dikes knowing they were safe from attack. The picture of Jane Fonda seated on a NVA AAA gun was taken on a gun on the dikes.

As I said before, I could dissect this entire piece, but something tells me it would only be a waste of my time, since many of you already have your minds made up and don't want to be confused by a contervaling opinion.

Nox

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I think the photographs of Vietnamese clinging to American helicopters to escape the communists says a lot about the truth also.

Approximately 230,000 South Vietnamese soldiers and civilians died fighting the communists.

China and the former Soviet Union and it's sattelites supplied weapons, ammunition, aid etc to the communist cause.

Speaking of atrocities what about the genocide of the montagnards? (over 40,000 joined U.S. forces) Seige of Hue? Re-education camps?

How many political opponents and civilians were killed by the Viet Cong?

[Adrien]

Where did these numbers come from? The same people who gave us the 6 million 'holocaust' victim numbers?

That catched my eye. Are you contesting the 6 million number? There was once on PoFo a long debate about that, and i don't want to restart it inside a topic about Vietnam, but could you develop a little?

[Nox]

I missed the discussion you mentioned about the 6million ... I would like to read it.

My reference to the number of Viet Namese killed was indeed sarcastic. Sarcastic because the author attributes every Viet Namese death to the US. How about the folks the NVA and VC killed? Where is their 'body count'?

My overall point in that post was in response to CasX question concerning my statement that "Yet you explain nothing. Please do." The article was highly biased as I pointed out in the examples I used. The numbers that people fling around are easy to generate but difficult to substantiate. Too many numbers are extrapolated data which by definition is inherantly wrong. Yes, the holocaust numbers really have no place here. I used the analogy because the holocaust numbers are extrapolated data. In another topic I have explained why I don't concur with the numbers ... I would like to look at the topic you referenced. If you could remember the name, I should like to read it.

Nox

[Adrien]

I *think* that it is here:

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6249

Another part of it may be elsewhere, or may have been deleted, since the discussion was very lively and since it was (i once again think) a reason of Talonius's departure.

Can one of our veterans help me on this one?

[Nox]

Thanks Adrien.

Nox

[CasX]

And just a few lines above this, the statement was made about the "longest war of the twentieth century". Can anyone say the word Korea? (I seem to recall that the Korean War is still technically going on)

Technically, but common sense rules. There have been very few actual hostilities in the Korean border since 1953.

1930
Ho Chi Minh founds Indochina Communist Party to resist French rule. Goes into exile in the Soviet Union and China after the Party is savagely suppressed.

And the use of the word 'savagely' is the beginning of the author's loss of objectivity, because he is injecting his personal bias.

By any humane person's standards, the repression of the communists was savage. The French used any means they felt like. It was brutal.

There is no mention of the North Viet Namese treatment of the people who lived along the 'Ho Chi Mihn Trail'.

Which North Vietnamese are you talking about? (serious question)
The trail went through Laos and Cambodia, through sparsely populated jungle and hills.

A month later, Kennedy is assassinated.

A true statement, but it adds nothing to the topic.

LBJ becoming President upon Kennedy's assassination was incredibly important in the history of this conflict. How is pointing this event out biased?

1974
Nixon resigns because of Watergate.

Again a true statement that adds nothing to the topic except to re-expose the author's bias.

What...now simple facts are bias? Again, this was a very important point in the history of the conflict in Vietnam. The US Presidents had different ideas and policies in relation to the Vietnam issue.

Intricate irrigation networks built over hundreds of years had been blitzed into oblivion.

This is a totally FALSE statement.

Eh? How exactly would you know that. Vietnam is an ancient and agricultural land, which the US bombed enormously. In fact, more bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were dropped in the whole of WWII.

I really don't see what many of your points are. John Pilger covered the war in Vietnam, from Vietnam, for almost 10 years. He won numerous outstanding journalism awards and became of the world's most famous journalists for his dedication and commitment. Yet, you accuse him of bias when he presents simple facts. I really don't understand your position.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

This is a totally FALSE statement. The Red River dikes were what kept the North Viet Namese in the war. The US military wanted to bomb the dikes but were prohibited from doing same. The North Viet Namese placed their AAA batteries on the dikes knowing they were safe from attack. The picture of Jane Fonda seated on a NVA AAA gun was taken on a gun on the dikes.

Funny how the remains of American B-52s are still scattered around these dikes! Wonder what they were doing there? I could send you a few pictures of them if I had a scanner. But here is a B52 shot down over the main embankment keeping Hanoi safe from the Red River.

It came to rest only 250 meters from the main barrage.

[Nox]

And just a few lines above this, the statement was made about the "longest war of the twentieth century". Can anyone say the word Korea? (I seem to recall that the Korean War is still technically going on)

Technically, but common sense rules. There have been very few actual hostilities in the Korean border since 1953.

This is false. There have been multiple incidents ... some of which came close to reinitiation of hostilities. And the 'common sense' allusion proves that you have never been to Korea ... let alone to the DMZ. Should you ever do so, you may change your mind ... (Possibly, but not probably ... it might mean you'd have to admit you were wrong). On second thought ... disregard the previous statement.

And the use of the word 'savagely' is the beginning of the author's loss of objectivity, because he is injecting his personal bias.

By any humane person's standards, the repression of the communists was savage. The French used any means they felt like. It was brutal.

I stand by my statement that the author was showing bias. The author never once used inflamatory words to describe Ho or NV. What you are trying to do is confuse the issue. The French were anything but nice ... but the opposition to them wasn't nice either.

There is no mention of the North Viet Namese treatment of the people who lived along the 'Ho Chi Mihn Trail'.

Which North Vietnamese are you talking about? (serious question)
The trail went through Laos and Cambodia, through sparsely populated jungle and hills.

I'm glad you said this was a serious question because I wanted to laugh ... I am talking about the REAL Viet Namese. You know ... the one's in the North Viet Namese Army ... Yes, the ones who actually used the Ho Chi Mihn trail. And yes ... those "sparsely populated" jungle and hill people who were provided the opportunty to "volunteer" their services, physical and sexual, to those heroic NVA REAL Viet Namese.

You need to read up on the trail.

A month later, Kennedy is assassinated.

A true statement, but it adds nothing to the topic.

LBJ becoming President upon Kennedy's assassination was incredibly important in the history of this conflict. How is pointing this event out biased?

1974
Nixon resigns because of Watergate.

Again a true statement that adds nothing to the topic except to re-expose the author's bias.

What...now simple facts are bias? Again, this was a very important point in the history of the conflict in Vietnam. The US Presidents had different ideas and policies in relation to the Vietnam issue.

You either didn't read carefully or you aren't familiar with dates ... most likely both.

Had you have read carefully, I pointed out that other significant deaths were not reported. Additionally, Watergate and Nixon's subsequent resignation had nothing to with Viet Nam. Again I stand by the point that the author is demonstrating bias.

Intricate irrigation networks built over hundreds of years had been blitzed into oblivion.

This is a totally FALSE statement.

Eh? How exactly would you know that. Vietnam is an ancient and agricultural land, which the US bombed enormously. In fact, more bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were dropped in the whole of WWII.

I guess I would know about it because I have studied the war extensively. You apparently have not. You also haven't studied WWII very well either. You are comparing apples and oranges when you talk about the bombing campaigns of the two wars.

The singular ... I repeat SINGULAR ... time that the bombing campaigns were even close was during Linebacker II. I suggest you go to Google.com if you don't know what I'm talking about ... because maybe, just maybe, Nox does "exactly" know that.

I really don't see what many of your points are.

Okay.

Yet, you accuse him of bias when he presents simple facts.

And I explained why. You have already stated that you don't understand my points.

I really don't understand your position.

Nor I yours.

This is a totally FALSE statement. The Red River dikes were what kept the North Viet Namese in the war. The US military wanted to bomb the dikes but were prohibited from doing same. The North Viet Namese placed their AAA batteries on the dikes knowing they were safe from attack. The picture of Jane Fonda seated on a NVA AAA gun was taken on a gun on the dikes.

Funny how the remains of American B-52s are still scattered around these dikes! Wonder what they were doing there? I could send you a few pictures of them if I had a scanner. But here is a B52 shot down over the main embankment keeping Hanoi safe from the Red River.

While those remains may seem funny to you, I find it funny that your reading comprehension skills are as lacking as your understanding of things military. Once again I shall try to give you some PME (if you remember from last time that is Professional Military Education):

When a flying airplane is shot down ... it falls to the surface of the Earth. Where the impact site is, has nothing to do with its intended target. Had the US have targeted the dikes, the dikes would have disappeared and food production in the North would have come to a halt (did I say that before?).

It came to rest only 250 meters from the main barrage.

What a pity it didn't land on same.

I realize that both you guys hate America, but you are allowing that hatred to blind you of historical understanding. What shame.

Nox

[CasX]

Of course there have been some...the most famous incident I know of was the one were US soldiers crossed the border with an axe to cut down a tree that was blocking their view into the DPRK, they were ambushed by North Koreans and at least one (I think) was decaptated with their own axe.

No doubt that at the DMZ - one of the most heavily militarised areas in the world - there is enormous tension. But just because they never signed an official peace treaty doesn't mean that the North and South are still at war. Like you said, it's a technicality, and like I said, common sense dictates - they aren't in direct conflict.

Vietnam, however, was involved in the longest conflict of the twentieth century - like the original article said.

[CasX]

(Pilger) leaves out facts which could alter the meaning.

What facts are you refering to? You have only attacked him for inserting facts like the assasination of Kennedy. How simply saying that Kennedy was assasinated shows 'bias' is beyond me. And again I state that this point is of the utmost relevance. How could you do a short timeline on the conflict in Vietnam and leave out the assasination of Kennedy which meant the Presidency of Johnson and a different stance on Vietnam?

I stand by my statement that the author was showing bias. The author never once used inflamatory words to describe Ho or NV.

He never used infamatory language to describe anything as far as I can see. The French repression of the communists was brutal - so he said it was brutal. Please point out the openly 'biased' statements in the article, because you continue to say it's biased...with little evidence.

There is no mention of the North Viet Namese treatment of the people who lived along the 'Ho Chi Mihn Trail'.

I got the wrong end to the stick due to misreading this - so my reply was irrelevant. In an article of this size - quite small, when you are covering a conflict that spanned decades and resulted in millions of deaths, why would you mention the treatment of these people? Unfortuantely, it simply isn't important enough to be included in the article.

Had you have read carefully, I pointed out that other significant deaths were not reported.

The article is small and precis. As far as I know the loss of leaders like Mao and Kruschev were much less important to the conflict than the changing of Presidents in the US, due to the major differences in actions and opinions each US President brought with them.

I guess I would know about it because I have studied the war extensively.

Where? In what context? What exactly did you study?

Like I said earlier, Pilger covered the war in Vietnam, from Vietnam, for almost 10 years. He has returned to do follow ups to his earlier coverage of the Vietnam conflict. He became one of the world's greatest journalist's through his coverage. You tell me you've studied the war in great detail - yet show little evidence of this in your posts. You've repeated called it biased etc etc but not shown what you think is wrong and what you think is right about the history of this war.