Page 5, 21st July 1967

21st July 1967
Page 5
Page 5, 21st July 1967 — U.S. POLICY OVER VIETNAM
Close

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.

Tags


Share


Related articles

The Vietnam Mess

Page 4 from 6th January 1967

Vietnam

Page 5 from 10th February 1967

Vietnam: Churches Say Both Guilty

Page 3 from 12th August 1966

New War Clouds In The Far East

Page 7 from 2nd March 1979

‘churches Bombed In North Vietnam' Claim

Page 2 from 6th September 1968

U.S. POLICY OVER VIETNAM

AS a Britain 17 years resident in America I must differ from Mr. D. F. Colan (July 7) on Vietnam. A deployment of military power so great as to give South Vietnam the aspect not of an ally but of a conquered province is failing to defeat the Viet Cong, and Washington promises of "Victory just around the corner" are no longer believed.

The cry of anti-communism is raised to justify sins that stagger the imagination (e.g., using napalm.) To the land and people of Vietnam the "price of the war is ruin of body and soul"; to America, growing brutalisation and the loss of its finest youth after the bloodlettings of the 1939-45 war and Korea.

Tens of thousands of Americans, of all religious beliefs and most political shadings, object in conscience and protest against this war; important sections of the Catholic press (Commonweal; Ave Maria; Jubilee) attack it; and the recent huge anti-war rallies in San Francisco and New York included large numbers of Catholic clergy and nuns.

M. Richey London, N.11.

-1-1 F. CONLAN'S naivety -1--o• (July 7) on the Vietnam war is in need of reply. America is not "defending South Vietnam against Communist aggression." It is systematically destroying areas of that country. The U.N., the Red Cross, and M.P.s' reports on the state of Vietnam reveal the "benefits" of U.S. protection and defence. If napalm and hatred are the gifts of friends, who needs enemies?

Secondly, the North Vietnamese and the National Liberation Front have made it clear that they will talk, if the threat of the U.S. raids is removed. This is a fair request. Would any country (e.g., Britain in 1939) wish to be bombed to the conference table?

David Poolman




blog comments powered by Disqus