arlos wrote:I'm saying the US directly organized it.
-Arlos
The coup and the assasination or just the coup? The reason I ask is that I have yet to figure out if our government and/or the CIA wanted him simply removed from power without intention of assasination or if that was also part of the plan/goal. Although most of the information I've come across portray's the US role as something akin to turning our backs, there is some fairly substantial evidence to the contrary, most noteably some very large sums of money paid to South Vietnamese generals. If this was a case of an internal power struggle and overthrow that we chose not to intervene in, then pay outs would not be neccecary. I can see the US interest in the overthrow, what I have yet to discern is motivation to take things beyond that to assasination.
spazz wrote:We live in a diffrent time zancheif. Hippies protesters and anyone against a war is now a horrible person.
I have no problem with someone viewing the option of a military solution as a poor or wrong choice, even if I disagree with them that doesn't make them a horrible person in my book. If however their arguments against military action lean toward support for our enemys or those of our allies, or if those arguments argue for appeasment and concession that would significanly weaken us or our allies and cow tow to the opposing side.. yea I take a very dim view of that.
Blaming the "hippies" for the loss of the Vietnam war is pretty short sighted. From my discussions with people who lived through the era, my understanding is that if you grouped all the people together who were opposed to the US involvment in Vietnam, you find a very small minority which were etreme and millitant about it, and who went beyond just having an issue with us being there to blaming our troops and trying to undermine our efforts.