Rick Perry -- Socialist!!

I thought the draft was a bad idea then and a bad idea now.

I thought the draft was a bad idea then and a bad idea now. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

In hindsight, I would have to agree but quite frankly it was the "only game in town" at the time. Thus, I did not find it to be out of the ordinary.

As for me, I joined and never regretted doing so!

Well, perhaps once or twice!

In hindsight, I would have to agree but quite frankly it was the "only game in town" at the time. Thus, I did not find it to be out of the ordinary.

As for me, I joined and never regretted doing so!

Well, perhaps once or twice! Originally Posted by bigtex

Yeah you regretted it when they were banging on Trash Can Lids at 4:00Am, lol. But yeah we know what ya mean.

In hindsight, I would have to agree but quite frankly it was the only system going at the time. Thus I did not find it to be out of the ordinary.

As for me, I joined and never regretted doing so!

Well, perhaps once or twice! Originally Posted by bigtex

well, I salute you

as I have said earlier, I joined to serve, have always been a military type guy, at one time I had Patton's speech memorized to the letter and I have watched the Battle of Midway over 100 times

Yeah you regretted it when they were banging on Trash Can Lids at 4:00Am, lol. Originally Posted by acp5762

That was what I now refer to as a "rude awakening!"

I have watched the Battle of Midway over 100 times Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

I suspect I am not far behind you. I have probably seen it close to that number of times myself! I have often wondered, what our ultimate fate would have been, had it not been for the Battle of Midway!

.........I had Patton's speech memorized to the letter and I have watched the Battle of Midway over 100 times Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

That was the extent of my service LOL!

I salute both of you.

It was interesting to hear bt talk about "the only game in town". Some times I forget that bt is a little older than me. The draft system had been around for a long time and I only had the honor of participating in the last one.

How many Krauts did you kill bt?

How many Krauts did you kill bt? Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

In which war? I or II?

In which war? I or II?

Originally Posted by bigtex

Trenton, NJ

Weren't you the guy in the other boat that was painting?

Trenton, NJ Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

That being the case, a bakers dozen!

Weren't you the guy in the other boat that was painting? Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

You have the story all wrong, I was panting!

You can't win a war that doesn't have a definable objective or an exit strategy.

Read either A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and Amreica in Vietnam, by Neil Sheehan; or The Best and The Brightest, by David Halberstam. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

we did have one, it was call Counter-insurgency and the plan was to do what we did in South Korea, where I heard that South Korea had one of the largest land armys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-insurgency

You apologize for your ignorance of what lost the war? Even to the people of the former North Viet Nam? If you feel you must.

At the end of the war, there was no one left in their army (South Viet Nam) to give bullets to. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

nope, I dated a SVN stripper for 8 years and she could tell by their ancients perhaps some of you knew her, she went by Asia

I was to young for the last draft and to old when registration was reinstated. Probably a good thing since I would be a great supply officer but a lousy combat soldier. However, I have nothing but respect for those that have served and admiration for those that have the courage those kids in the middle east have.

[quote=bigtex;1696003 Those who did have wealthy parents for the most part had college deferments and never served in the military!

I would be curious to know if this was about average and/or typical?[/quote]

Yes, it was typical. A few went out of a sense of duty, like Al Gore, John Kerry, etc. But not many.

But, some fuck up rich kids can't stay in college. (Arguably that's what the National Guard was there for.) And some eventually run out of degrees to get. So the draft was ended so that their kids would never even have to worry or bother with college deferments.

After all, there was a reason that some folks had to go to Canada. And those folks were mostly from families of means.

But, some fuck up rich kids can't stay in college. (Arguably that's what the National Guard was there for.) And some eventually run out of degrees to get. So the draft was ended so that their kids would never even have to worry or bother with college deferments.

After all, there was a reason that some folks had to go to Canada. And those folks were mostly from families of means. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

And you learned all this in a little town in East Texas.

#1: the NG was "there" longer than any other "service" branch.
#2: the "college" deferment allowed a four-year degree.
#3: discretionary "deferments" were "approved" by a board based on criteria.
#4: "going to Canada" to "evade" the draft was a federal crime.

If you can recall, Johnson ordered a deferment for married guys, and licenses were issued left and right .... whether rich, poor, or in between ... then within a few months he cranked up the "family" deferment to father's and a pregnancy boom emerged ... all the while the "lotto" number made the difference in the selection process.

The folks I considered friends had at least some college, if not a degree, when they entered the service. None of them were "poor" and none of them "uneducated" .... or otherwise lacking in intellectual capacity ... and all of them volunteered ... and in reflecting back on their families ... their parents were "educated" and at least one of their parents were considered "professionals" and/or owned their own businesses.

And when one observes them "re-upping" for an extended period of time, and often becoming career officers it challenges the criticism of our military as being composed of "poor" and "uneducated" sheep.

There are actually some well-educated, financially "secure" families in this country who perceive a responsibility and duty to serve the general public and the nation by offering up their time, effort, and lives to implement the policies of the then existing government, irrespective of their own personal beliefs as to the wisdom or convenience of doing so.

BTW: By his own admission that is not why John Kerry "volunteered." He was augmenting his political resume. He was not interested in "driving" boats on inland water ways or shooting kids in the back while they ran off into the jungle. That's why he wanted to go home after he got a splinter in his ass (that I think was never found), and lied to Congress about all the "atrocities" he observed while "serving."

Master dick muncher, you have no regard for the truth. When the media engages in biased reporting, the net effect is a lie. You can twist and squirm and equivocate, but that is the real truth to the matter.

Peter Braestrup was a war correspondent for the Washington Post during the 1968 Tet Offensive. Subsequently, Braestrup examined and reported on media bias regarding the Tet offensive incorporating his experiences as a former Marine infantry officer in Korea and as an experienced war reporter in Algeria and in Vietnam. Braestrup used his personal skills and knowledge to evaluate how the media covered the 1968 Tet Offensive.

During the course of his research, Braestrup read every word on the fighting during Tet published by the following media outlets: the AP and the UPI, the New York Times, Washington Post, Time and Newsweek. Additionally, he reviewed the video tapes of every TV news broadcast televised during the offensive by the three major U.S. networks: CBS, NBC and ABC. He collected extensive data regarding both print and TV reports; plus, he reviewed public opinion findings and incorporated his own investigative findings. The product of his research was a book entitled Big Story.

In his book he lays out what he discovered:

First and foremost he maintains the press was not equal to the task; hence, the bias and the “misconceptions” - Braestrup’s polite term for lies.

Lie: The U.S. was completely surprised by the 1968 Tet Offensive. In fact, the press ignored cautionary reports issued by General Earle Wheeler and General William C. Westmoreland some weeks earlier in December and early January.

Lie: The press reported that the Tet Offensive was a tactical victory for Hanoi, when in fact it was a catastrophic tactical defeat.

Bias: When the allies met some initial reverses, the press reacted by emphasizing the enemy's successes. When it was clear that the insurgents had been defeated, the press persisted in interpreting the offensive as a "psychological victory" for the Vietcong/ North Vietnamese Army, who "held the initiative." Furthermore, there was little or no objective analysis of the many enemy failures and troop losses.

Lie: The North Vietnamese offensive exposed the unreliability and decrepitude of the South Vietnamese: the U.S.’s primary ally. The press falsely reported that the offensive shattered GVN control over the country.

Bias: The press reported that the American military response was to destroy city districts and villages with overwhelming, indiscriminate firepower – as evident in journalist Peter Arnett’s description: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” You remember ol’ Peter don’t you? He’s the one that latter fallaciously reported that the U.S. employed sarin gas in Laos during Operation Tailwind.

Whereas it is true that American and ARVN commanders did have to use heavy weaponry in some urban areas, that response was not at all typical of the allies’ counteroffensive. In fact, the Battle of Hue is notable for the limitations that were imposed on the use of artillery and close air support to minimize collateral damage. This decision led to the deaths of scores of U.S. Marines.

Lie: The Viet Cong raid on the American embassy, the fighting in Hue, and the siege of Khe Sanh typified the war as a whole. In fact, these engagements were not typical, but unusual. Nevertheless, biased press reports identified these battles as "universals" typifying the war because they were conveniently visible and afforded dramatic photo ops. The fact that American and GVN troops subsequently prevailed and subdued the attackers was all but ignored by the press.

Lie: The Siege of Khe Sanh was christened America's Dien Bien Phu by the press. The media constantly reported that doom and disaster was inevitable for the beleaguered Marines. The fact is, B-52 Arc Light strikes nearly annihilated the attacking NVA.

The American war effort in Vietnam was undermined by the negativity of these lies and biased reports. Ultimately, it was Walter Cronkite, "the most trusted man in America," who dealt the hardest media blow against the war. In a special CBS News broadcast on February 27, 1968, Cronkite concluded his gloomy assessment: "We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and in Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. . . To say that we are mired in a stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. . . It seems increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out will be to negotiate." Thereafter, other media outlets soon began to portray the war as “unwinnable.”

Based on Cronkite’s biased editorial, LBJ purportedly remarked, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, then I’ve lost Middle America.” A few months later, LBJ gave up the presidency: no small accomplishment for biased reporting.
Johnson gave a speech Mar 31 1968 saying he would not seek re-election

Several months after Tet had drawn to a close, “an NBC producer proposed to correct the record with a three-part series showing that Tet had in fact been an enemy defeat. The idea was rejected by higher ups at the network because, a senior producer said, Tet was seen ‘in the public’s mind as a defeat, and therefore it was an American defeat’” (Braestrup).

General No Nguyen Giap, the Supreme Commander of the Viet Minh (NVA) forces said, in a 1989 interview with CBS’s Morley Safer, “The most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory…The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion.” (The Vietnam War: An Encyclopedia of Quotations, Howard Langer, 2005).

No doubt you will equivocate, lie and reject these examples. That is the nature of a liberal Dimocrap when faced with facts. There are many more examples of how the press lied to and mislead the American people throughout the Vietnam War, but you can find them for yourself. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You just gave a book review. Since I haven’t read it I have included 3 reviews of the book Big Story.

Peter Braestup's book on the reporting of the Tet Offensive is a critically important book to read for those trying to understand the effect of reporters' all-too-human bias on what information the average citizen has available to him or her, as well as for those looking to find out not only what went wrong in Vietnam, but what the United States and its allies (including South Vietnam) did right - an aspect still all too overlooked.
Though it is critical of some particular newspeople, as well as some politicians and military spokemen of the Vietnam era, the book is highly constructive in tone. Many of the lessons pointed out by Braestrup two decades ago have clearly been taken by the media, judging by the general improvement in war reporting during the current (as of fall, 2001) events in Afghanistan.
It is also a must read for those who question the abilities of democratic states to defend what they believe in.Braestrup lays bare the notions of the time that the allied forces - from ARVN to the U.S. Marines, were not effective, or that they were a corrupt force for undesirable ends.
An added bonus is that Braestrup is a gifted writer; his prose is readable and engaging, and his research is thorough and well documented. This book deserves to be brought out in a new edition (though I did buy mine through the Amazon's used book marketplace, and received excellent service there).


This book was a real eye-opener for me. As a Vietnam veteran who served in Vietnam in 1967-68-69-70 and 71, I had always held fast to the premise that media coverage of Tet 68 sabotaged the possible successful conclusion of the Vietnam war in our favour. I had always believed that the american press had deliberately skewed their war coverage towards the negative side.

Braestrup's well documented study of press coverage of the Tet 68 offensive made me re-think all my knee jerk attitudes towards the press.

He presents meticulous summaries of coverage by the major american newspapers and television networks. While some individual papers and networks might have had an anti-war bias most tried to give balanced coverage.

When Braestrup gets into the logistical details of the in media coverage of the war, he really enlightens us. It's easy in hindsight to assume that todays wall to wall coverage of world news was the norm in Vietnam. Braestrup shows us in great detail the limitations in personnel and technology that constrained media coverage of the Vietnam war

If you read his analysis, compiled from his own in-country experience with an in depth analysis of most major news outlets reporting from Vietnam during the war, you as a reader are enlightened and forced to rethink your own pre-conceived notions about the subject.

I found this work one of the most illuminating works of modern history that I have even read.

It's interesting just from Braestrups first hand retelling of his own part in history as a practicing journaslist. His analysis of journalistic coverage of the Vietnam War is incredibly stimulating and educational.

I highly recommend this work to war correspondents, editors and journalism students interested in getting war coverage just right.



A thorough critique of the press coverage of the Tet Offensive. Amazingly, the press almost universally got it wrong. The U.S. and the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) actually won the battle; the Viet Cong were decimated and never recovered as a fighting force (The regular North Vietnamese Army shouldered the major fighting from then on). It took the NVA (North Vietnamese Army) four years to build up enough strength for another major offensive (1972), which led to the Christmas bombings of Hanoi and the "peace accords."

Written by a journalist, this book is critical but not ideological; the press is not "the bad guy" here. There is plenty of blame to go around. The military misrepresented the strength of the Viet Cong, for its own reasons, and the press went on to misrepresent the battle for its own reasons. The real heresy of this book is revealing how the ARVN and U.S. forces aquitted themselves exceedingly well on the battlefield. Was the war "winnable" on the ground? It certainly wasn't "winnable" politically, but credit should be given to the servicepeople on the ground (and in the air) who did in fact win the battle tactically and strategically.