Mark Knight

Mr. Yarnell, I suppose you never heard of Martha Mitchell. In case you haven't, let me enlighten you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Mitchell_effect That's right...the wife of the attorney general of the United States, Martha Mitchell had knowledge concerning the planning of the Watergate burglary, as well as the subsequent cover-up. [Evidently, John Mitchell must've brought some of his work home with him.] When Martha Mitchell threatened to go public with what she knew, her shrink--probably at the urging of her husband and his politically powerful friends--declared that she was insane. Eventually, Martha Mitchell was vindicated when the Watergate story broke. But her case was another example of how far the Nixon people would go to try to slience their critics. I believe it was Colson--in his pre-"born again" days--who testified that he would have run over his own grandmother to achieve the political ends of his bosses. In THAT context, then, it's NOT a stretch to believe that the downing of a plane--a plane which, by the way, carried NO people as closely related to Colson as his grandmother--would have been considered a justifiable risk, by persons of such a mindset. [Gee, Tim...while the Democrats allegedly had ties to the KKK in the south and the Mob in the northeast, I don't recall any Democrats advocating "grandmatricide" to advance their political agenda...or, if they did, having anyone so proud of it that it was displayed as a badge of honor in their testimony anywhere. ]

You must also be aware that Cuba is on the official US list of terrorist nations; therefore, the questions becomes "do we release an alleged terrorist to a terrorist nation?" The US is caught in a trap of its own making. If they capitulate to Castro's demands to extradite Posada, they are, according to their own list, giving in to a demand of a terrorist nation. But if they free Posada, they will be releasing an alleged terrorist. Most likely scenario, IMHO, is that the US authorities will release Posada to some other government, with the "suggestion" that he be returned to either Venezuela or Cuba...that takes Bush administration off the hook, and places Posada's fate in the hands of others, without the US government actually setting him free themselves. In that way, the Bush administration avoids an "either/or" choice, and this weasel solution will probably be legally acceptable but please no one. So expect it to happen.

You must also be aware that Cuba is on the official US list of terrorist nations; therefore, the questions becomes "do we release an alleged terrorist to a terrorist nation?" The US is caught in a trap of its own making. If they capitulate to Castro's demands to extradite Posada, they are, according to their own list, giving in to a demand of a terrorist nation. But if they free Posada, they will be releasing an alleged terrorist. Most likely scenario, IMHO, is that the US authorities will release Posada to some other government, with the "suggestion" that he be returned to either Venezuela or Cuba...that takes Bush administration off the hook, and places Posada's fate in the hands of others, without the US government actually setting him free themselves. In that way, the Bush administration avoids an "either/or" choice, and this weasel solution will probably be legally acceptable but please no one. So expect it to happen.

I recently heard a joke that I believe parallels the purpose of the "tramps": A policeman always watched a certain tavern as closing time neared, and in this manner he always seemed to get his quota of arrests for driving while intoxicated. One night, as he surveyed the crowd leaving the bar, he spotted one fellow who was having particular problems with walking upright as he staggered to his car. The cop watched, his interest growing, as the obviously inebriated fellow struggle to unlock the door, and as the other bar patrons left around him, the man finally was able to start his car. After revving the engine a few times, the man haltingly edged the car into the street, where he was almost immediately stopped by the officer. After asking the man to produce his drivers license, the officer had him blow into the handheld breathalizer...and was incredulous when the machine registered NO alcohol in the man's system "How can this be?" the cop mused aloud. "Easy," the quite sober man replied. "I'm the designated decoy." And so I believe the case of the tramps in the rail car may be a similar matter...meant to occupy the time and personnel of the police departments, probably in order to help facilitate the escape of the actual triggermen. And the resemblance of these men to Hunt and other operatives may not have been a coincidence, either.

Bitter Fidel Castro Foe Detained by U.S. May 18, 2005 3:46 AM EDT MIAMI - Caught between its hard-line policy against Fidel Castro and its war on terrorism, the Bush administration has arrested an anti-Castro exile accused of masterminding a deadly 1976 airliner bombing. Luis Posada Carriles, 77, was seized Tuesday by federal agents. He had been in hiding in Miami for two months and had petitioned for asylum in the United States. Posada, a former CIA operative and Venezuelan security official, is wanted by Venezuela for possible retrial in the plane bombing that killed 73 people. Castro wants Posada to be sent to Venezuela. In a series of speeches, Castro repeatedly accused the United States of a double standard in the war on terror and led a protest Tuesday by tens of thousands in Havana. "The majority of Americans would never be in favor of harboring a terrorist," said Wayne Smith, a former U.S. envoy to Cuba who now heads the Cuba program at the Washington-based Center for International Policy. If the United States were to grant asylum, Smith added, "We will be seen as hypocrites and as being against terrorism only when is suits our purposes." Generally, the U.S. government does not extradite people to Cuba or to countries acting on Cuba's behalf, the Homeland Security Department said in a statement. The department has 48 hours to determine Posada's immigration status. Cuba's parliament speaker, Ricardo Alarcon, said the Cuban government will wait to see if President Bush "lives up to his rhetoric or if they help an old friend." Before the arrest, Posada's lawyer, Eduardo Soto, told reporters that his client no longer wanted to pursue his asylum request. All that changed when Posada was detained, leading Soto to question the timing. "It was the U.S. government's preconceived notion to detain him before we withdrew our application for asylum," Soto said. "You don't need to formally remove a person who wants to leave." Soto said the asylum request would be refiled. Posada escaped from Venezuelan prison in 1985 while prosecutors appealed his second acquittal in the bombing of a Cubana Airlines jetliner near Barbados. His whereabouts had been unknown until Soto said he was in Miami in March seeking asylum. In Caracas, Venezuela's interior minister, Jesse Chacon, said Posada "must pay for the crimes he committed" and renewed his country's demand that Posada be extradited. The United States and Venezuela have an extradition treaty. Pepe Hernandez, president of the Cuban American National Foundation, said Posada still deserves a chance for asylum. Posada is seen as a hero by many in the Cuban-American community in South Florida. "He's been fighting one of the worst tyrannies this continent has experienced," Hernandez said. Posada was initially taken to an immigration detention center, then flown by helicopter to an undisclosed location, said Posada's friend and benefactor, Santiago Alvarez. Before his arrest, Posada said he never intended to cause problems for the United States. "If my petition for political asylum created any problem to the government of the United States, I am ready to reconsider my petition," he said. "My only objective is to fight for the freedom of my country." Posada and three others were pardoned last August by Panama's president for their role in an alleged assassination plot in 2000 against Castro during a conference in Panama. Posada also was connected to a series of 1997 bombings of tourists sites in Cuba, one of which killed an Italian tourist. Recently declassified FBI and CIA documents verify that Posada worked for the CIA for years and was connected to the airliner bombing by informants. In an interview in Tuesday's Miami Herald, Posada denied any involvement in the airliner bombing but refused to confirm or deny involvement in other attacks, telling the newspaper: "Let's leave it to history." "I feel that I've committed many errors, more than most people," he said. "But I've always believed in rebellion, in the armed struggle. I believe more and more every day that we will triumph against Castro. Victory will be ours." --- Associated Press writers Adrian Sainz in Miami, Lara Jakes Jordan in Washington and Anita Snow in Havana contributed to this story. Copyright 2005 Associated Press.

New item today in Associated Press news: Cuban Hiding in U.S. Denies Role in Attack May 17, 2005 10:55 AM EDT MIAMI - An anti-Castro Cuban seeking asylum in the United States gave an interview denying any involvement in a 1976 attack on a Cuban airliner but declined to deny a role in 1997 bombings of Cuban tourist sites, The Miami Herald reported Tuesday. Luis Posada Carriles, who is being sought by Cuba and Venezuela, has been in hiding in the U.S. He was interviewed last Wednesday in a surreptitious meeting at a luxury condominium, the newspaper said. Posada, 77, is wanted in Venezuela on charges of involvement in blowing up a civilian Cuban jetliner in 1976, killing 73 people. He escaped from a Venezuelan prison in 1985 while facing a retrial in the bombing. Cuban President Fidel Castro is waging a campaign demanding Posada's arrest. Early Tuesday, he led a demonstration of hundreds of thousands of Cubans who filed past the American mission in Havana. Posada, former CIA operative and Venezuelan security official, has been bent on toppling Castro for 40 years. He applied for political asylum after arriving in Miami in March following an illegal trip through Central America. Recently declassified federal documents link Posada to planning meetings with airline bomb plotters. "They accused me of being the intellectual author of fabricating a weapon of war and of treason to the homeland. No one saw me make a bomb," Posada said in the two-hour interview. "Sincerely, I didn't know anything about it." Despite previous admissions, Posada refused to confirm or deny playing a role in the 1997 Cuban bombings that killed an Italian tourist. "Let's leave it to history," he said. "I feel that I've committed many errors, more than most people," he said. "But I've always believed in rebellion, in the armed struggle. I believe more and more every day that we will triumph against Castro." U.S. officials have said they would like to interview Posada but are not actively seeking him because there are no American warrants for his arrest. Posada said he hid at first when he reached Miami but is living more openly now. He said he has been recognized at a market and a doctor's office. FBI documents identify one of the informants against Posada as the late Ricardo "Monkey" Morales Navarrete, who admitted being part of the bomb plot. Posada has said Morales identified himself as the mastermind. "I never would have participated in any conspiracy with Monkey Morales," Posada said. "I'd have to be crazy, my God! Everything Monkey said had a double intention. He was not credible." Copyright 2005 Associated Press.

Shanet, You're exactly in line with the direction I was headed with this thread. Let's recap, shall we? At the approximate moment that JFK gets "capped," the beeper signal from the football ceases, for some reason. Then LBJ goes off from Parkland to Love Field, and the football gets left behind. Meanwhile, the entire cabinet--except the attorney general--is out of the country, their return time measured in hours. So...with LBJ cowering in the back of a car headed toward Love Field...off the top of your head... WHO'S IN CHARGE? (a) LBJ; ( the cabinet; © the military; (d) none of the above. Could one reason that the Washington DC phone system shut down that day have been to prevent the transmission of an order to fire one or more missiles? If so, why? If not, why not? Something to think about....since the football contains the launch codes, was the fact that it was left behind really an accident? In the interim, who had access to it? WHOA, NELLIE!!! FUMMMMM...BLE!

Mark, this alone has been enough to make any serious investigation into the JFK assassination extremely difficult. I believe it was by design, so that the "lone nutters" could ridicule other investigators as being in conflict and disorganized...pretty much the modus operandi of folks like McAdams and Posner. And, so far, it appears to be working; 40+ years later, we still haven't come up with an exact solution. In fact, drawing in both the PRO-Castro and the ANTI-Castro elements appears to have been a stroke of genius, as far as the sowing of seeds of confusion goes. Wading thru the misinformation/disinformation is difficult enough; add in the conflicting FACTS, and it's a wonder we've accomplished anything at all!

More on the Marlin Model 62 Levermatic: ***** The basic Levermatic action was a strong one, and in 1963, Marlin decided to bring out a centerfire version of the Levermatic. This became the Marlin Model 62. With the centerfire Model 62, Marlin returned to the use of box magazines. In the first catalog listing, the calibers to be offered were .357 Magnum, .256 Winchester Magnum and .22 Remington Jet. (The .256 and .22 Jet were both necked-down versions of the .357.) Subsequent catalogs listed the .256 and the .22 Jet only. In fact, though, only the .256 Winchester Magnum version was actually produced, and the Marlin Model 62 was the first rifle ever to be produced in that caliber. In some places, the Model 62 is often listed as having been available in .256 and .22 Jet, but the .22 Jet rifles were never made. ***** from http://www.leverguns.com/articles/malloy.htm

Try the following links on the .22 Jet: Reload Bench .22 Jet Specs ballistics data And I'd like to correct my earlier statement...my friend's gun was a Smith & Wesson Model 53, and not a Colt. The Marlin gun chambered for .22 Jet was allegedly the Model 62 "Levermatic," which would have made an interesting assassin's weapon...but reports are that, although tested in .22 Jet, it was never available for sale...according to the info I've uncovered. Like everything else on the Internet, this information re: availability of the Model 62 may or may not be accurate.

Somehow, I'd previously missed this thread. There IS a cartridge that would fall neatly into the category you described, Pat. Originally developed as a "wildcat" hunting cartridge, the .22 Remington Jet was developed in 1959 and became commercially available right around 1962. The .22 Jet was the marriage of necked-down .357 Magnum brass with a 40 gr. .22 caliber bullet. Developers had hoped for over-2000 fps muzzle velocities, but were only able to achieve numbers in the 1800 fps range. Amazingly, the research I've done on the .22 Jet--NOT related to the JFK assassination, but because a friend had a Colt revolver chambered for the .22 Jet--revealed that the cartridge yielded a nearly-flat trajectory out to 100 yards, according to the few sources that Google could find. The cartridge was never a commercial success, primarily due to the fact that the angle where the cartridge was necked down tended to allow the brass to "move" backward in the cylinder of the Colt revolvers, which tended to inhibit the cylinder from advancing the next round to firing position. Research I've done also revealed that Marlin offered a rifle chambered for .22 Jet, but I've never been able to find a picture on the Internet. As I recall, the cartridge was withdrawn from the market in the early 1970's, although some original brass still remains available for handloaders. So...you have a .22 caliber bullet behind a .357 load, with an 1800 fps muzzle velocity and a nearly flat trajectory out to 100 yards, and spent brass would appear to be from a .357 rather than a .22...sounds almost like the perfect weapon for the assassination scenario, doesn't it? And the cartridge didn't exist before 1959, and it disappeared in the early 1970's...if I was an assassin who'd used one, this would almost be a dream-come-true weapon! And it fits the profile Pat described SO much better than what Files/Sutton claimed to be using...at least enough to make ME go "Hmmmmmm......"

***** Even today, NSA refuses to release the "Looking Glass" [11/22/63] tapes that recored these latered proven to be false broadcasts. "Looking Glass" also recorded that the beeper signal from the nuke code football had been disrupted just before Dealey Plaza, and notified NORAD of same. 'Nuff for now. GPH ***** Mr. Hemming, I'm almost sorry I brought this topic up now...I was just curious who was supposed to be in charge of the football, as somewhere in the dim recesses of my mind I had a faint recollection that, sometime on 11/22/63, the football had been left behind by someone, somewhere...and I was looking for corroborating evidence from someone more knowledgeable here on the forum. It appears I got more than I bargained for. Since I still have an idea that the JFK assassination was part of an attempt to get the US involved in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union--pre-emptive or otherwise--the disrupting of the beeper signal from the football would then become an event of some degree of significance. And with the presence in Dealy Plaza of what appear to be both "hit" and "prevent" teams, I'm beginning to wonder just how dangerous this territory might become to explore... ...to quote a local black reverend who, when confronted by a white mob after a nighttime tent-revival session, was asked if he believed HE was going to get into Heaven: "Yessir...but I'm in no hurry!" BTW...very little info available in a Google search for Ira Gearhart.

A question which occurred to me recently is, exactly who had custody of the briefcase referred to as "the football", the one containing the confidential codes to begin/control a nuclear attack, on November 22, 1963, between 12:30 and the time of LBJ's swearing-in aboard AF1? I tried to do a Google search, but came up empty...and I know that Alexander Haig wasn't there to claim "I'm in charge"...so who was, as it were, "holding the bag?" A recent report in the newspaper on the history of "the football"--so named, according to this article, because of the code name "dropkick" once associated with the nuclear defense plan--said that "the football" has existed since at least the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis. So...who had the football when the QB got sacked, and before the second-stringer got suited up?

Upon hearing the news that the CIA is considering relocating from Langley, VA to Denver, it initially caused me to wonder if this move AWAY from the center of government might translate to "less accountability"... ..and then I realized that "less accountability" from the CIA was, for the most part, an impossibility; possibly even oxymoronic.

Oddly enough, I found another article regarding JFK and a pre-emptive nuclear strike...this time, in regards to CHINA and its nuclear capability: JFK Considered Bombing China's Nuke Sites According to the article, LBJ was also pressured to make a pre-emptive strike on the Chinese facilities...so I can only conclude that those who were pushing for a pre-emptive strike against the Soviets were still wanting to sling some nukes at SOMEONE after the "window of opportunity" with the Soviet Union had closed. That's MY assessment...comments?

Stan, while I haven't had the time to check out the links, I actually believe that, in the context of the JFK assassination, LBJ was used...or, more correctly, played like a grand piano. Johnson was predictable, if nothing else...and I believe that his predictability is what made him the perfect presidential puppet for those who pulled the strings. I no longer believe that the Don Reynolds testimony before Congress happening on the day of the assassination was mere coincidence; rather, I believe it was meant as a warning to LBJ: we can take, you down, too, if we so choose...so you can either march in step with us, or pay the price. In hindsight, could that not also have been the case with Nixon?...both LBJ and NIxon were dirty, but Nixon made the decision to try to cut the strings, while Johnson decided to do as he was told. Shanet, I believe you're on the right track...McCloy, Walker, Taylor, Mannlichers...the puzzle is coming together a bit more.

Lyndon Johnson was a 1930's "good-ol'-boy" politician trapped in the 1960's. He didn't understand television, apparently, or at least not well enough to mold a positive image of himself..and these days just about ANYONE can do that! And I agree with you that he failed to fully sell the country on Vietnam and civil rights. But, nevertheless, civil rights ended up being his legacy. Probably for all the wrong reasons, if my reading of Johnson is correct...and DESPITE his lack of statesmanship, vision, and true leadership. It happened, on his watch, and with his backing...so it was his accomplishment to rightfully claim. We can debate what LBJ SHOULD have done from here to eternity--and I honestly don't think we're on opposite sides of THAT issue--but it still won't detract from what was accomplished in regards to civil rights during his administration, and with his assent. And THAT, I believe, was the topic of this thread.

Try this link to a speech Oswald gave: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t+Oswald+speech From what I can determine, Oswald had a grasp of a sort of utopian--or, as he referred to it, "Trotskyite"--form of communism which differed significantly from the despotic Stalinism that we are more familiar with. So it's evident, from the text of the speech, that he read SOMETHING about communism, and he had a higher-than-average comprehension of the differences in the communism he "preached" and the communism practiced in the 1950's and 1960's in the Soviet Union and its spheres of influence. Whether this answers your question or not, it does indicate that Oswald had a working knowledge of the style of communism he allegedly advocated. I would surmise that his knowledge of the "failures" of Soviet-styled communism would imply that he had knowledge of their system as well; else he would NOT have been able to articulate the differences. Whether that is evidence of reading a particular piece of literature or not is a conclusion each researcher will have to draw individually. But that's just my impression.

In order to get his legislation passed, LBJ didn't need to sell the country; he merely needed to sell the Congress...which he did; that was his best skill. I don't argue, either that LBJ was a statesman; you can put a pig in a tuxedo, and he's still a pig...and you can put LBJ into the presidency, and he's still...well, you get the idea. But I'm beginning to believe that LBJ thought that, after the Bobby Baker scandal and the other messes that were bubbling just below the surface that had his fingerprints all over them, he needed to have his name associated with something that was more right than it was political, so that the judgement of history, of his legacy, would include SOMETHING positive. It is an innate desire of all men to be remembered for something; and to a career politician like Johnson, civil rights would be the ticket to raise his star, to distance him from all the hack political moves that had heretofore defined his career. No, that DOESN'T make him a statesman, by ANY means; it just makes him a shyster with a LITTLE bit of a conscience.

In the wake of the JFK assassination, LBJ got unprecedented congressional cooperation. Had there not been an assassination, JFK's tax-cut legislation, as well as Johnson's social programs, probably would have languished, victims of the filibustering skills of senators like Everett M. Dirksen [whom LBJ phoned to plead for his cooperation on the civil rights legislation].

Went thru the roster from WC report three times, and found no one named Aday...same with traffic and security detail. Is the Meatloaf blowin' smoke?

Johnson may have been a crook--I firmly believe it--but politically, he was a pragmatist above all else. Brown vs. Board of Education was, in 1963, already nine years old; yet racial discrimination and segregation still prevailed, not merely in the "deep South," but in cities in "border states" as well...cities like Louisville, Kentucky, where de facto segregation still exists though not necessaily due to discrimination any more. In Louisville, the home of three-time world heavyweight boxing champion Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali, it really wasn't until after the riots over court-ordered busing in 1975 that a SERIOUS dialogue between the races began. Having grown up in the shadow of Louisville, I witnessed the struggles there, so I can speak of them confidently. My point about LBJ is that, as the pragmatic politician, he could feel the winds of change blowing directly in his face. He instinctively knew that the door had been opened toward equality, but it had been opened only a crack. He knew that unless the door was opened further a mighty explosion might occur, from the building rage and resentment that black Americans had from being told time and again, "Not yet" or "Not too much, nor too fast". In fact, the riots seen in America in the mid-1960's--Watts, Detroit, and countless others--were hinted at by Johnson when he spoke of "this patient stuff...this piecemeal stuff.." While it might have cost the party in the short term, Johnson also had to be thinking about the administration's legacy, and how history would remember them. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it became Johnson's legacy...and Lyndon Johnson, the old-school, dirty, crooked politician that he was, had a permanent, indelible halo for his presidential portrait, no matter what else came back to haunt him. No matter that Johnson was corrupt; his administration has a hallowed place in history for its contributions to equality and civil rights. And I believe that Johnson wanted the credit for prodding JFK in that direction, even if Kennedy was somewhat inclined that way himself. Not exactly atonment for Johnson's sins, mind you, but something positive for the scales of justice to weigh.

Tim, I hope you don't get discouraged in following this line of investigation. I still believe that SOME level of participation by pro-Castro forces, whether under the direction of Castro's government or not, is something that has NOT been 100% ruled out as at least a partial factor in the assassination. And as long as it is not an IMpossibility, the theory is still in play. While I personally don't believe that it was the DECISIVE factor in the assassination, I don't think that it's out of the realm of possibility. Your research in this area actually frees others of us to pursue other areas of our own curiosity in the matter, so just because some may suggest that your work is a waste of time and energy, don't get the impression that EVERYONE thinks that way. As I say, until you can rule OUT a theory, it's still a valid theory. Improbability doesn't necessarily translate to impossibility--on ANY theory--despite what some here might contend. And whenever someone tries to shut down ANY area of discussion, I'm reminded of McAdams and Posner and anyone else who thinks that all of the relevant evidence has already been seen...what are THEY trying to hide? The truth?

In an internet search for articles about singer Meatloaf, who was once known as Marvin Aday but now goes as Michael Aday, I found an article in which he claims that he has some knowledge about who was actually involved in the JFK assassination [yeah, yeah, they all do...]. Meatloaf, or more properly Mr. Aday, claims his dad was a member of the Dallas Police Department in 1963, and was on duty that day. The article further stated that the senior Mr. Aday had some problems with alcohol, and sometime later in the 1960's resigned from the DPD. I've not been able to put any meat on these bones, up to this point. Does anyone here have a roster of the DPD officers on November 22, 1963? What about assignments on that day? While I was initially inclined to blow this claim off as another "wannabe" seeking a second "fifteen minutes of fame", I'd hate for this to be an item that might just reveal some evidence we could actually use, after initially ignoring it. Anybody have anything on Mr. Aday and the DPD? Or is the Meatloaf just blowing smoke?

In my opinion, European dominoes begat visions of Asian dominoes, and the visions began with China and Korea, and progressed to Vietnam. When the French were getting their derrieres handed to them on a platter at Dien Bien Phu in '54, the US made the mistake of seeing this as a battle against communism...while hindsight gives us the insight to realize that it was more a battle against colonialism [anyone care to recall Algeria?]. The French sphere of influence was on its way out of existence, much as the British Empire also saw the sun set in the years following WWII. Unfortunately, the US view of Vietnam was regional [think Korea] rather than global [think India, et al]. There may be those who see the Vietnam war as a battle for control of the Indochina drug trade cloaked in the camoflage of capitalism-vs.-communism, and there may actually be a glimmer of truth in their arguments. But I believe that Vietnam began as a naive attempt by the US to help the non-communist government--ANY non-communist government--resist the tide of communism that some Americans saw as sweeping the earth. This is why, even in 1963, the US troops were still considered "advisors," and that their mission was to train the ARVN troops how to successfully wage war. Unfortunately, the bullheadedness of the US military leadership caused them to refuse to merely accept the ARVN's unwillingness to fight--by and large, the Vietnamese citizens didn't care WHO the government was, as long as they had rice and weren't being attacked--and walk away from the indifference of the Vietnamest people. But once committed, the US military was too blinded by pride to let what was essentially a civil war play out on its own; if the ARVN wouldn't fight Charlie, then by damn, WE'LL fight Charlie FOR 'em...it's for their own good. Friend and foe looked and spoke alike in Vietnam...and often, your friend today turned out to be your foe tomorrow. Essentially, the majority of Vietnamese MAY have cared about the outcome, but it became increasingly evident over the years that those who opposed the communists didn't care ENOUGH to keep the fight up themselves. Remember, "you can lead a horse to water, but..." There was no national unity in South Vietnam, or at least not enough to create a credible resistance. In the end, THAT is what doomed the US-led forces. With no visible desire to fight the communists shown by the South Vietnamese, the will of the US citizens to provide troops--and money--to defend those unwilling to defend themselves eventually crumbled. The Domino Theory was only partially correct; where the people had a strong enough will to fight their own battles, the people eventually prevailed against communist domination [witness Poland...a long time coming, but it signaled what could be accomplished by a proud people in the battle against repression]. But where the people were apathetic, communism took over despite outside help. The lesson the US should havelearned from Vietnam is that one cannot drag a country kicking and screaming into independence; that country must be a willing participant in the fight if the fight is to ever be successful. Whether the same result will occur in Iraq or Afghanistan remains to be seen. While the Afghani people are a race of fierce warriors [witness their fight against the Soviets], I believe it's still too early to judge whether the US-led "reform" government there will remain for a significant length of time. And in Iraq, the formation of a government, even WITH US guidance, has been a formidable challenge; whether stability will result still hangs in the balance. Stay tuned.