"How Walter Cronkite Helped Lose the Vietnam War 44 Years Ago"

[rah]

Anyone that thinks that the war was about Democracy vs Communism is a patsy that believes all the propaganda. Their country was just another victim of the Cold War. A terrible waste of lives and resources.

[Lancer]

Perhaps Aeson, but his words were considered very important at the time. You understand the balance Aeson, though you over estimate the anti war (to some) or defeatist (to others) side, so why not accept the part of Cronkite in upsetting that balance towards the defeatists? We were defeated, defeat was taken from the jaws of victory, that's the point of the article. At which point do you disagree with the article?

Sure Dr S, no one can deny it. The democracy was to be found in the US, not in North Vietnam, but it was under attack from many sides, the CIA, the communists who bought time and people, and in the last the correspondents were swayed in the balance which is what the article is about. Walter Cronkite. What can you say about his part? What about the article? I am but one man with an opinion, though I was a thinking young man at the time. What is your opinion?

[Lancer]

Anyone that thinks that the war was about Democracy vs Communism is a patsy that believes all the propaganda. Their country was just another victim of the Cold War. A terrible waste of lives and resources.

What then was it about rah?

[rah]

As I said, a victim of the world wide pissing contest between the US and Russia. Do you think the war would have gotten as far as it did without the support of both countries?

[Aeson]

Perhaps Aeson, but his words were considered very important at the time. You understand the balance Aeson, though you over estimate the anti war (to some) or defeatist (to others) side, so why not accept the part of Cronkite in upsetting that balance towards the defeatists? We were defeated, defeat was taken from the jaws of victory, that's the point of the article. At which point do you disagree with the article?

I disagree that we had victory on a silver platter after Tet. The losses by the NVA were heavy, but they quickly replaced the numbers. Just as they had been doing for years before, and continued to do for years afterwards.

[Lancer]

As I said, a victim of the world wide pissing contest between the US and Russia. Do you think the war would have gotten as far as it did without the support of both countries?

No of course not. However I think more was involved than the base competition, or "pissing contest" as you say. I believe the pissing contest was the result of the differences between democracy and communism, or are you suggesting that as far as each could pee is the only difference?

[Lancer]

I disagree that we had victory on a silver platter after Tet. The losses by the NVA were heavy, but they quickly replaced the numbers. Just as they had been doing for years before, and continued to do for years afterwards.

Congrats at what might be considered the first response to the article in the OP. What a pleasure it is to see too, thank you.

[rah]

or are you suggesting that as far as each could pee is the only difference?

Useless to argue if that's what you took from my comment.

If the Russians were Monarchists, it wouldn't have been about monarchists vs democracy, it would still have been a proxy war between the Russians and the US. We were butting heads with Russian influence all over the globe. Cuba, South America, Central America. And as history has always taught us.... It's always much better to fight a war on someone else's property.

[Dinner]

Who? What truths? How do you know I don't like them?

To my knowledge none has said anything I don't agree with.

Oh, please.

One look at the thread title tells me exactly what your opinion is on Cronkite. Talk about fake denials.

[rah]

and I agree with Aeson. Public opinion was already in steady decline. That's what impacted LBJs decisions.

[giblets]

It was a colossal waste of their time, years, lives.

So let's continue it under the assumption that dropping more bombs on Vietnam than all teh bombs used in WWII will somehow improve the lives and welfare of the Vietnamese people. Oh, and let's bomb some of Vietnam's neighbors for good measure, I'm sure that won't have any negative consequences! Victory is just around the corner, oh we've probably said that before, but this time we mean it!

Remember, North Vietnam is COMMUNIST! Their left-wing dictatorship is somehow vastly worse than the right-wing dictatorship in South Vietnam!

[rah]

Yes Obama would be vastly worse than Santorum.

[MOBIUS]

So let's continue it under the assumption that dropping more bombs on Vietnam than all teh bombs used in WWII will somehow improve the lives and welfare of the Vietnamese people. Oh, and let's bomb some of Vietnam's neighbors for good measure, I'm sure that won't have any negative consequences! Victory is just around the corner, oh we've probably said that before, but this time we mean it!

Remember, North Vietnam is COMMUNIST! Their left-wing dictatorship is somehow vastly worse than the right-wing dictatorship in South Vietnam!

Yep, Pol Pot and his killing fields was a direct result of US intervention in Indochina...

[kentonio]

It was a higher time back then for reporting, with the private lives of politicians respected, even JFK doing Marlyn Monroe was not touched until much later. A time less crass, of greater class, long gone.

So its fine for politicians to do whatever they like, as long as no-one talks about it?

[rah]

That's not the point he was trying to make. I'm from the old school and mostly agree. A lot of the crap that the media revels in is just not our business. What the president does 24/7 isn't necessarily public record imo. I would say the same for most people, with the exception of what they do in public. That's fair game.