Call for help -- in a debate!

[InkL0sed]

So what are the two things LBJ's Presidency is most known for? 1. His pro-civil rights, anti-poverty stance that has been incredibly influential on the Democratic party ever since, and 2. Escalating the Vietnam War.

One can identify a lot of hypocrisy in those two notable aspects of his Presidency, both on the civil rights front, and the poverty front.

How do you think, inkl0sed, the escalation of the Vietnam War might have conflicted with LBJ's domestic social policies?

Uh... I'm being slow here, how exactly does that conflict? Is it just because he was all for humanitarianism domestically while fighting a brutal war abroad?

I have this debate in about half an hour by the way, so all this has actually been helpful.

[btownmeggy]

So what are the two things LBJ's Presidency is most known for? 1. His pro-civil rights, anti-poverty stance that has been incredibly influential on the Democratic party ever since, and 2. Escalating the Vietnam War.

One can identify a lot of hypocrisy in those two notable aspects of his Presidency, both on the civil rights front, and the poverty front.

How do you think, inkl0sed, the escalation of the Vietnam War might have conflicted with LBJ's domestic social policies?

Uh... I'm being slow here, how exactly does that conflict? Is it just because he was all for humanitarianism domestically while fighting a brutal war abroad?

I have this debate in about half an hour by the way, so all this has actually been helpful.

Well, I want YOU to think of some examples of how they conflicted.

*btownteacher*

[btownmeggy]

UNWINNABLE? Except the US Miliary had delivered the final coup de grâce and exterminated the Viet-Cong in their last ditch offensive by 1968, and forced Hanoi to sue for peace by 1973, effetively winning the war...

You realize that Vietnam is a Communist country today, yes?

[Napoleon Ier]

UNWINNABLE? Except the US Miliary had delivered the final coup de grâce and exterminated the Viet-Cong in their last ditch offensive by 1968, and forced Hanoi to sue for peace by 1973, effetively winning the war...

You realize that Vietnam is a Communist country today, yes?

Because Congress passed a bill because of smelly, lazy hippies who deserved, by all standards of decency, to have been hunted by National Guardsmen in a giant safari park on the grounds of Kent State University, so the NVA launched an offensive and took over South Viet-Nam. Even after US withdrawal, they were too weak to do it right away and took two years to capture Saigon.

[InkL0sed]

So what are the two things LBJ's Presidency is most known for? 1. His pro-civil rights, anti-poverty stance that has been incredibly influential on the Democratic party ever since, and 2. Escalating the Vietnam War.

One can identify a lot of hypocrisy in those two notable aspects of his Presidency, both on the civil rights front, and the poverty front.

How do you think, inkl0sed, the escalation of the Vietnam War might have conflicted with LBJ's domestic social policies?

Uh... I'm being slow here, how exactly does that conflict? Is it just because he was all for humanitarianism domestically while fighting a brutal war abroad?

I have this debate in about half an hour by the way, so all this has actually been helpful.

Well, I want YOU to think of some examples of how they conflicted.

*btownteacher*

I do normally think for myself! I was just in a rush because my debate was coming up very soon.

Anyway, it's over now, and it went well, thank you very much. However -- let the debate go on in this thread!

[btownmeggy]

UNWINNABLE? Except the US Miliary had delivered the final coup de grâce and exterminated the Viet-Cong in their last ditch offensive by 1968, and forced Hanoi to sue for peace by 1973, effetively winning the war...

You realize that Vietnam is a Communist country today, yes?

Because Congress passed a bill because of smelly, lazy hippies who deserved, by all standards of decency, to have been hunted by National Guardsmen in a giant safari park on the grounds of Kent State University, so the NVA launched an offensive and took over South Viet-Nam. Even after US withdrawal, they were too weak to do it right away and took two years to capture Saigon.

War (winnability, included) is much more than military tactics.

[suggs]

I think Nap its talking utter tosh on the domestic side, but i agree with you Nap about the Vietnam war.
Its one if the great "What ifs?" If Nixon hadnt got caught ( doing what LBJ and Kennedy had done), it seems pretty likely that the US would have either won the Vietnam war, or at least got pretty decent terms.
Nixon and Kissinger were winning, and had a clear mandate. Sure, thy were winning by something not far off genocide 0 but were are not talking about whether they were justified in what they were doing, just whether it was effective.
And, as you say, by 1973, it was apparent that bombing the whole place to shit was pretty effective.
Here Meg makes an unusual error. "Unwinnable"- the vietnam war was never unwinnable - just difficult to win, as the Us is a democracy, and no democracy likes a high body count.

Again, one could criticise LBJ from the right and say, he didn't do enough in vietnam - he should have bombed the place to f*ck much early, and sent a shit load more men in.
Nixon had it sussed foreign policy wise - just a shame about his domstic shambles.
A nice mirror to LBJ

(thats how i would finish the essay - historians love a good Tricky ending)

[suggs]

btw Inklosed don't forget you can attack LBJ from the right, and from the left -the curse of being a centrist. (which LBJ was).

[btownmeggy]

I think Nap its talking utter tosh on the domestic side, but i agree with you Nap about the Vietnam war.
Its one if the great "What ifs?" If Nixon hadnt got caught ( doing what LBJ and Kennedy had done), it seems pretty likely that the US would have either won the Vietnam war, or at least got pretty decent terms.
Nixon and Kissinger were winning, and had a clear mandate. Sure, thy were winning by something not far off genocide 0 but were are not talking about whether they were justified in what they were doing, just whether it was effective.
And, as you say, by 1973, it was apparent that bombing the whole place to shit was pretty effective.
Here Meg makes an unusual error. "Unwinnable"- the vietnam war was never unwinnable - just difficult to win, as the Us is a democracy, and no democracy likes a high body count.

Kissinger was secretly bartering an end to the war before the Watergate BREAK-IN even occurred.

Johnson's Secretary of Defense said and says that an armed war was indeed unwinnable, even "a dangerous illusion".

The points I'm stressing have a great deal to do with ideology and political will, both within Vietnam and the U.S. But even tactically, the U.S. army was at great folly because they had no idea WHAT or WHO they were fighting. You're right, the bombings killed LOTS of people (that's victory, yes?)... around 1/2 of whom were (not necessarily non-partisan, but) non-militant civilians.

The war was a stain and a lie and one that the U.S. CONTINUES to lose today.

[PLAYER57832]

Finally, the ultimate criticism is that he just did not consolidate his power enough, make enough friends so that Nixon was able to come in and take over.

I think that Nixon could "come in and take over" because the Vietnam war was already an unpopular, mangled mess, Johnson was inextricably tied to the war, and so much of the mainline Democratic party was as well. Bobby Kennedy was the only realistic threat to a Republican presidency.

By '67-'68 Johnson felt that his Presidency and his life were failures. He had INTENSE depression which essentially caused him to be medically unable to seek reelection in '68.

I was told that one of the reasons Nixon was even able to get to that point was McCarthy. McCarthy was out attacking so many folks, Nixon was able to just sort of "slip in", not goof and eventually make it to the presidency.

But .... I also went to school in CA, where he belonged to a College group who's goal was to disrupt/direct elections through ballot stuffing and other activities. Now, FAR be it from me to suggest there might be a connection between these activities and later events..,

[PLAYER57832]

... Anyway, it's over now, and it went well, thank you very much. However -- let the debate go on in this thread!

Let me be the first to congratulate you.

Also, I am not sure if this was assigned to you specifically because you do like LBJ, or just "randomly". But, we were often assigned to take the side we did NOT believe in school... and though frustrating, I often found it enlightening. Usually, I kept my original position, but gained new insight into the other view and actually confirmed my own ideas. (in most cases).

I hope, above all else, you have found this an educational experience!

[Napoleon Ier]

I think Nap its talking utter tosh on the domestic side, but i agree with you Nap about the Vietnam war.
Its one if the great "What ifs?" If Nixon hadnt got caught ( doing what LBJ and Kennedy had done), it seems pretty likely that the US would have either won the Vietnam war, or at least got pretty decent terms.
Nixon and Kissinger were winning, and had a clear mandate. Sure, thy were winning by something not far off genocide 0 but were are not talking about whether they were justified in what they were doing, just whether it was effective.
And, as you say, by 1973, it was apparent that bombing the whole place to shit was pretty effective.
Here Meg makes an unusual error. "Unwinnable"- the vietnam war was never unwinnable - just difficult to win, as the Us is a democracy, and no democracy likes a high body count.

Kissinger was secretly bartering an end to the war before the Watergate BREAK-IN even occurred.

Johnson's Secretary of Defense said and says that an armed war was indeed unwinnable, even "a dangerous illusion".

The points I'm stressing have a great deal to do with ideology and political will, both within Vietnam and the U.S. But even tactically, the U.S. army was at great folly because they had no idea WHAT or WHO they were fighting. You're right, the bombings killed LOTS of people (that's victory, yes?)... around 1/2 of whom were (not necessarily non-partisan, but) non-militant civilians.

The war was a stain and a lie and one that the U.S. CONTINUES to lose today.

Ahh...such old fashioned, naive views which I thought existed only amongst the fairy-minded nostalgics of Mai '68 here, but no, a Texan of all people actually shares and holds dear this quixotic notion of the brave peasant nation having the bravery political will to bring the "evil empire" to its knees...

The first thing to say is that had Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny not succumbed to his cancer, his campaign's conclusion would have finally annhilated the Viet-Minh. This myth of the determined, "invincible" peasant guerilla first arose at Dien Bien Phu, ironically, a pitched battle that surmises itself as nothing more than a military blunder. From it however, arose this legend of the undefeatable Viet-Minh fighter. If you look at Kruschev's memoirs' account of the Peace Accords, he Minh and Giap were ecstatic at what they saw as a hugely generous settlement.

Moving on to the US Campaign. Now, you fellows had some success with your Zippo Raids, and apparently killed 100.000 of the buggers in the South alone in 1967. Pushing them to throw everything into a last ditch attempt during the Tet festival. BUT, there success in getting 19 Kamikazes onto th grounds of the US embassy and killing 5 marines made it seem back home like these people were nailing you, when actually, the overall Tet offensive killed about 77.000 Viet Cong and NVA in a fortnight, whilst a meagre 2.000 allied troops became fatalities, in what was supposed to be the Viet-Cong's great turning point of the war. After this, Westmoreland asked for an reinforcements to finish them once and for all: the result? Pathetic, cowardly, ignorant traitors in the United States betrayed their comrades on the front and pressured the US Government to end the War. Even then, it took Victor Charlie 4 years to recover, not to mentioned cause huge rifts in the Hanoi politburo. Whilst you weren't sure who you were fighting in practical terms, it's just a bare-faced lie to say there wasn't a concrete and definite goal: destroy NLF presence in the Republic of Vietnam. And you were succesful in that aim, but you allowed them to grow back time and time again by refusing to finish the job by either wiping them out for good and putting sustained pressure on the North, or even outright invading the North.

Then, Nixon was elected on the Vietnamization agenda...had he only been able to continue brandishing the threst of some form of US reprisales such as bombing the North, Hanoi would never have dared lift a finger against the South. But, simply because of domestic pressure stirred up by biased media coverage and distractions involving Watergate, it was not to be.

[spurgistan]

Dunno if this has already been said, but if it has, I didn't read it.

My criticism of LBJ (and understand, he may or may not be my fave president of the last 40 years) stems from his fanatical self-confidence and drive for posterity (the same that afflicts our present President) the character that both allowed the War on Poverty and the War on Vietnam, as well as the polarization of American politics. LBJ had a grandiose view of his eventual place in American history, which both prevented him from being the first president to admit defeat in a major war (which led to the escalation) and being in a position to end poverty (a program whose general failure reflects less on LBJ than the people who dismantled it) While perhaps an over-appreciation of the self is a vital characteristic of national politicians, I feel LBJ had it more than most, and it is why LBJ's world vision was unattainable, and thus, failed.

[Napoleon Ier]

I think Nap its talking utter tosh on the domestic side, but i agree with you Nap about the Vietnam war.
Its one if the great "What ifs?" If Nixon hadnt got caught ( doing what LBJ and Kennedy had done), it seems pretty likely that the US would have either won the Vietnam war, or at least got pretty decent terms.
Nixon and Kissinger were winning, and had a clear mandate. Sure, thy were winning by something not far off genocide 0 but were are not talking about whether they were justified in what they were doing, just whether it was effective.
And, as you say, by 1973, it was apparent that bombing the whole place to shit was pretty effective.
Here Meg makes an unusual error. "Unwinnable"- the vietnam war was never unwinnable - just difficult to win, as the Us is a democracy, and no democracy likes a high body count.

Kissinger was secretly bartering an end to the war before the Watergate BREAK-IN even occurred.

Johnson's Secretary of Defense said and says that an armed war was indeed unwinnable, even "a dangerous illusion".

The points I'm stressing have a great deal to do with ideology and political will, both within Vietnam and the U.S. But even tactically, the U.S. army was at great folly because they had no idea WHAT or WHO they were fighting. You're right, the bombings killed LOTS of people (that's victory, yes?)... around 1/2 of whom were (not necessarily non-partisan, but) non-militant civilians.

The war was a stain and a lie and one that the U.S. CONTINUES to lose today.

Ahh...such old fashioned, naive views which I thought existed only amongst the fairy-minded nostalgics of Mai '68 here, but no, a Texan of all people actually shares and holds dear this quixotic notion of the brave peasant nation having the bravery political will to bring the "evil empire" to its knees...

The first thing to say is that had Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny not succumbed to his cancer, his campaign's conclusion would have finally annhilated the Viet-Minh. This myth of the determined, "invincible" peasant guerilla first arose at Dien Bien Phu, ironically, a pitched battle that surmises itself as nothing more than a military blunder. From it however, arose this legend of the undefeatable Viet-Minh fighter. If you look at Kruschev's memoirs' account of the Peace Accords, he Minh and Giap were ecstatic at what they saw as a hugely generous settlement.

Moving on to the US Campaign. Now, you fellows had some success with your Zippo Raids, and apparently killed 100.000 of the buggers in the South alone in 1967. Pushing them to throw everything into a last ditch attempt during the Tet festival. BUT, there success in getting 19 Kamikazes onto th grounds of the US embassy and killing 5 marines made it seem back home like these people were nailing you, when actually, the overall Tet offensive killed about 77.000 Viet Cong and NVA in a fortnight, whilst a meagre 2.000 allied troops became fatalities, in what was supposed to be the Viet-Cong's great turning point of the war. After this, Westmoreland asked for an reinforcements to finish them once and for all: the result? Pathetic, cowardly, ignorant traitors in the United States betrayed their comrades on the front and pressured the US Government to end the War. Even then, it took Victor Charlie 4 years to recover, not to mentioned cause huge rifts in the Hanoi politburo. Whilst you weren't sure who you were fighting in practical terms, it's just a bare-faced lie to say there wasn't a concrete and definite goal: destroy NLF presence in the Republic of Vietnam. And you were succesful in that aim, but you allowed them to grow back time and time again by refusing to finish the job by either wiping them out for good and putting sustained pressure on the North, or even outright invading the North.

Then, Nixon was elected on the Vietnamization agenda...had he only been able to continue brandishing the threst of some form of US reprisales such as bombing the North, Hanoi would never have dared lift a finger against the South. But, simply because of domestic pressure stirred up by biased media coverage and distractions involving Watergate, it was not to be.

Shit...that was worryingly Jenos-esque, upon second reading...

[Snorri1234]

Here Meg makes an unusual error. "Unwinnable"- the vietnam war was never unwinnable - just difficult to win, as the Us is a democracy, and no democracy likes a high body count.

Word. I'd say the Vietnam War was technically unwinnable because it was in the 60's and 70's. Any difficult war in these times is almost certainly doomed to fail, especially when the reasons for going in are shakey at best (WMD's, communism). If you couple that with underestemating the enemy at the start (like sending in too few troops and later realising you need way more) then popular opinion sways and you might as well quit.

Basically, the US fucked the Vietnam-war up for itself. Not over there, but at home. And they're doing the same thing with Iraq again.

[Napoleon Ier]

Here Meg makes an unusual error. "Unwinnable"- the vietnam war was never unwinnable - just difficult to win, as the Us is a democracy, and no democracy likes a high body count.

Word. I'd say the Vietnam War was technically unwinnable because it was in the 60's and 70's. Any difficult war in these times is almost certainly doomed to fail, especially when the reasons for going in are shakey at best (WMD's, communism). If you couple that with underestemating the enemy at the start (like sending in too few troops and later realising you need way more) then popular opinion sways and you might as well quit.

Basically, the US fucked the Vietnam-war up for itself. Not over there, but at home. And they're doing the same thing with Iraq again.

That's true, but what needs to be remembered is the total ignorance and alienation of the public from the reality on the ground at virtually every point in the war.

[Frigidus]

Here Meg makes an unusual error. "Unwinnable"- the vietnam war was never unwinnable - just difficult to win, as the Us is a democracy, and no democracy likes a high body count.

Word. I'd say the Vietnam War was technically unwinnable because it was in the 60's and 70's. Any difficult war in these times is almost certainly doomed to fail, especially when the reasons for going in are shakey at best (WMD's, communism). If you couple that with underestemating the enemy at the start (like sending in too few troops and later realising you need way more) then popular opinion sways and you might as well quit.

Basically, the US fucked the Vietnam-war up for itself. Not over there, but at home. And they're doing the same thing with Iraq again.

That's true, but what needs to be remembered is the total ignorance and alienation of the public from the reality on the ground at virtually every point in the war.

Fair enough, but that seems to be true of basically everything even vaguely related to politics. Remember: America.

[btownmeggy]

That's true, but what needs to be remembered is the total ignorance and alienation of the public from the reality on the ground at virtually every point in the war.

Fair enough, but that seems to be true of basically everything even vaguely related to politics. Remember: America.

The Vietnam War was heavily CENSORED and sometimes even fabricated. Even the public that was genuinely interested and concerned COULDN'T know what was going on on the ground, because the media wasn't allowed to show it and often colluded with the government to prevent the reality from being broadcast.

[Napoleon Ier]

That's true, but what needs to be remembered is the total ignorance and alienation of the public from the reality on the ground at virtually every point in the war.

Fair enough, but that seems to be true of basically everything even vaguely related to politics. Remember: America.

The Vietnam War was heavily CENSORED and sometimes even fabricated. Even the public that was genuinely interested and concerned COULDN'T know what was going on on the ground, because the media wasn't allowed to show it and often colluded with the government to prevent the reality from being broadcast.

No, reporters went around squealing about how the US was so brutally dicking on the poor Vietnamese peasants for no obvious reasons, whilst completely and blissfully unaware of, or worse, selectively filtering out, Communist atrocities.

[Nephilim]

I think Nap its talking utter tosh on the domestic side, but i agree with you Nap about the Vietnam war.
Its one if the great "What ifs?" If Nixon hadnt got caught ( doing what LBJ and Kennedy had done), it seems pretty likely that the US would have either won the Vietnam war, or at least got pretty decent terms.
Nixon and Kissinger were winning, and had a clear mandate. Sure, thy were winning by something not far off genocide 0 but were are not talking about whether they were justified in what they were doing, just whether it was effective.
And, as you say, by 1973, it was apparent that bombing the whole place to shit was pretty effective.
Here Meg makes an unusual error. "Unwinnable"- the vietnam war was never unwinnable - just difficult to win, as the Us is a democracy, and no democracy likes a high body count.

Kissinger was secretly bartering an end to the war before the Watergate BREAK-IN even occurred.

Johnson's Secretary of Defense said and says that an armed war was indeed unwinnable, even "a dangerous illusion".

The points I'm stressing have a great deal to do with ideology and political will, both within Vietnam and the U.S. But even tactically, the U.S. army was at great folly because they had no idea WHAT or WHO they were fighting. You're right, the bombings killed LOTS of people (that's victory, yes?)... around 1/2 of whom were (not necessarily non-partisan, but) non-militant civilians.

The war was a stain and a lie and one that the U.S. CONTINUES to lose today.

Ahh...such old fashioned, naive views which I thought existed only amongst the fairy-minded nostalgics of Mai '68 here, but no, a Texan of all people actually shares and holds dear this quixotic notion of the brave peasant nation having the bravery political will to bring the "evil empire" to its knees...

The first thing to say is that had Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny not succumbed to his cancer, his campaign's conclusion would have finally annhilated the Viet-Minh. This myth of the determined, "invincible" peasant guerilla first arose at Dien Bien Phu, ironically, a pitched battle that surmises itself as nothing more than a military blunder. From it however, arose this legend of the undefeatable Viet-Minh fighter. If you look at Kruschev's memoirs' account of the Peace Accords, he Minh and Giap were ecstatic at what they saw as a hugely generous settlement.

Moving on to the US Campaign. Now, you fellows had some success with your Zippo Raids, and apparently killed 100.000 of the buggers in the South alone in 1967. Pushing them to throw everything into a last ditch attempt during the Tet festival. BUT, there success in getting 19 Kamikazes onto th grounds of the US embassy and killing 5 marines made it seem back home like these people were nailing you, when actually, the overall Tet offensive killed about 77.000 Viet Cong and NVA in a fortnight, whilst a meagre 2.000 allied troops became fatalities, in what was supposed to be the Viet-Cong's great turning point of the war. After this, Westmoreland asked for an reinforcements to finish them once and for all: the result? Pathetic, cowardly, ignorant traitors in the United States betrayed their comrades on the front and pressured the US Government to end the War. Even then, it took Victor Charlie 4 years to recover, not to mentioned cause huge rifts in the Hanoi politburo. Whilst you weren't sure who you were fighting in practical terms, it's just a bare-faced lie to say there wasn't a concrete and definite goal: destroy NLF presence in the Republic of Vietnam. And you were succesful in that aim, but you allowed them to grow back time and time again by refusing to finish the job by either wiping them out for good and putting sustained pressure on the North, or even outright invading the North.

Then, Nixon was elected on the Vietnamization agenda...had he only been able to continue brandishing the threst of some form of US reprisales such as bombing the North, Hanoi would never have dared lift a finger against the South. But, simply because of domestic pressure stirred up by biased media coverage and distractions involving Watergate, it was not to be.

sounds quite fairy-minded and nostalgic to me.....since meggy hasn't quoted any sources and nappy resorts to ad hominem and other fallacies w/ great frequency, can't we just construe all of this as a verbal war between competing ideologies rather than an attempt to rightly interpret historical evidence?

and can't we agree that nappy is a giant ignorant douche with a decent vocabulary and a penchant for facile but high-flown rhetoric that masks his weak arguments?

yes, let's.....

[btownmeggy]

sounds quite fairy-minded and nostalgic to me.....since meggy hasn't quoted any sources and nappy resorts to ad hominem and other fallacies w/ great frequency, can't we just construe all of this as a verbal war between competing ideologies rather than an attempt to rightly interpret historical evidence?

I have no ideology. I have History degrees.

[muy_thaiguy]

sounds quite fairy-minded and nostalgic to me.....since meggy hasn't quoted any sources and nappy resorts to ad hominem and other fallacies w/ great frequency, can't we just construe all of this as a verbal war between competing ideologies rather than an attempt to rightly interpret historical evidence?

I have no ideology. I have History degrees.

Close enough. And yes, I am being cheeky.

[Snorri1234]

No, reporters went around squealing about how the US was so brutally dicking on the poor Vietnamese peasants for no obvious reasons, whilst completely and blissfully unaware of, or worse, selectively filtering out, Communist atrocities.

That's because those atrocities weren't american and therefore unimportant. Journalists still have to earn money and talking about how horrible the US was meant the papers would buy their stories. It's like reports about plane-crashes and stuff, they always mention how many people on the plane were from your nationality. Reporting what a bunch of vietnamese did to another bunch of vietnamese is just not interresting.

Also, meg does have a point that info was censored, but the problem with the US government is that it really couldn't do a very good job at that. It's not a totalitarian state where the media is controlled. The only things the government could do were making it extremely difficult to get the info, censor parts and give out unclear information or outright made up info (all to make sure the enemy is misled...).

Take a look at how the Bush-administration has reported on Iraq. They've lied a lot, but they still can't deal with the huge negative press on it.

[Napoleon Ier]

sounds quite fairy-minded and nostalgic to me.....since meggy hasn't quoted any sources and nappy resorts to ad hominem and other fallacies w/ great frequency, can't we just construe all of this as a verbal war between competing ideologies rather than an attempt to rightly interpret historical evidence?

and can't we agree that nappy is a giant ignorant douche with a decent vocabulary and a penchant for facile but high-flown rhetoric that masks his weak arguments?

yes, let's.....

I'm sorry, but who the f*ck are you?

Do you know what the 1954 Geneva Peace accords were?

Do you know who Nikita Sergeyevitch Kruschev was?

Do you know what a "memoir" is?

Do you even know where Viet-Nam is?

[Napoleon Ier]

No, reporters went around squealing about how the US was so brutally dicking on the poor Vietnamese peasants for no obvious reasons, whilst completely and blissfully unaware of, or worse, selectively filtering out, Communist atrocities.

That's because those atrocities weren't american and therefore unimportant. Journalists still have to earn money and talking about how horrible the US was meant the papers would buy their stories. It's like reports about plane-crashes and stuff, they always mention how many people on the plane were from your nationality. Reporting what a bunch of vietnamese did to another bunch of vietnamese is just not interresting.

Also, meg does have a point that info was censored, but the problem with the US government is that it really couldn't do a very good job at that. It's not a totalitarian state where the media is controlled. The only things the government could do were making it extremely difficult to get the info, censor parts and give out unclear information or outright made up info (all to make sure the enemy is misled...).

Take a look at how the Bush-administration has reported on Iraq. They've lied a lot, but they still can't deal with the huge negative press on it.

Right. Absolutely. Media reporting was biased, and this more or less cost the US the war. Not any "ooooh determined bwave freedom fighting peasants wesisting wacist impewialist Amewica!!!" bollocks.