I didn't link for the editorial, just for the man's words. I thought you would read and focus on what he had said if my source was one of which you may approve:p There is no revising history on this issue, Tet was the turning point of the Vietnam war, Cronkite didn't miss the mark by far, well except that you can't really refer to the outcome as a stalemate. BTW, the past 34 years sorta put paid to the veracity of that old Domino theory, eh?
Among his comments were these:
Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I’m not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw.
It seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.
But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could. (Emphases added)
Originally Posted by blind ambition http://www.retrievertraining.net/for...s/viewpost.gif
I didn't link for the editorial, just for the man's words. If that's the case then if I could be so bold as to offer a rhetorical tip... you might not want to link an article that refutes the points you're trying to make (i.e. that Cronkite was right about Vietnam).Might I be so bold as to suggest that such advice would only be useful if one could be certain ones opposite in debate would not dismiss information provided if they did not like it's source, as I stated, I thought you might take the time to re-read Cronkite's words during that evening's broadcast, if you were comfortable with the site referenced. I didn't expect you to just lap up the pre digested editorial opinions on the subject, I thought you might read Walter's own words and form ones unique to yourself. I thought you would read and focus on what he had said if my source was one of which you may approve:razz: There is no revising history on this issue, Tet was the turning point of the Vietnam war, Cronkite didn't miss the mark by far, well except that you can't really refer to the outcome as a stalemate. You seem all torn up about that, too. America needed some comeuppence, didn't we? Dear sir, no one needs cumuppance, and to suggest so just moves us further from the discussion at hand. I do not know how you can devine my feelings but setting that aside, I asure you I am not torn up over the issue, I just wanted to point out that Cronkite's statement of prognostication as to how the Vietnam war would end might be the only point one could refute in light of historical fact. BTW, the past 34 years sorta put paid to the veracity of that old Domino theory, eh? It sure did. The post-war bloodbath in Vietnam it is with deep regret that most civil wars end in the same manner and the killing fields of Cambodia, combined with an extensive and continued American presence in the region put a halt to communist expansionism in that neck of the world. Hardly the apocalypse presented by the theory's proponants though, is it?
I know you have Google as you have remarked to others on this forum as to their need to avail themselves of it's services, try this search; "america vietnam trade"...have a sandwich, then get back to us with the fruits of your labours, then we'll chat intelligenty about the validity of the Domino Theory, the evils of communism, etc.