“De-escalation”

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31652, 11 April 1968, Page 10

“De-escalation”

Sir, —Perhaps North Vietnam did not feel it necessary to declare war in defence of her own country against American aggression: certainly, a declaration of war might not have led to World War III: and finally, that if bombing of the North had never begun there would have been, always present, a wide base upon which talks might have begun.—Yours, etc., JOHN B. MILLER. April 10, 1968.

Sir,—What on earth does “A. B. Cedarian” think he is talking about? I have made it abundantly clear to the meanest intelligence that 1 think the bombing of Vietnam indefensible in the circumstance in which it began, and said that anyone who tried to excuse it on logical grounds had obviously adopted the reasoning of Lewis Carroll. Perhaps "A. B. Cedarian” has not yet got round to reading “Alice In Wonderland,” but surely he must have studied the author of “Ommaney’s Approximations.”—Yours, etc., I. TREW. April 10, 1968.

Sir, —George Kelly’s prejudiced invective is no answer to the opposition to American hostilities in Vietnam by

New Zealand and world-wide authorities. The present deescalation supports the statement of January 26, 1955, of General Douglas MacArthur: “The very triumph of scientific annihilation has destroyed the possibility of war as being a practical settlement of international differences. The enormous destruction of both sides makes it impossible for the winner to translate it into anything but his own disaster." The imperative need of today is summed up tn the words of a letter, by 2500 ministers, priests, and rabbis, to President Johnson: “In the Name of God, stop it!”—Yours, etc., SETH NEWELL. April 10, 1968.

Sir,—lt now seems that President Johnson's peace probe will be irrelevant. Recent events indicate that, peace talks or no, American troops will have to withdraw from Vietnam to take part in some future Gibbon's monumental “Decline and Fall of the United States Republic." In any case, we can dismiss the idea of “Uncle Sam’s protective umbrella” keeping any rain off us. We will just have to learn to stand on our own feet.— Yours, etc., QUERCUS. April 8, 1968.

Sir, —P. G. Sutton said that the United States has little face to lose if it pulled out of Vietnam. It seems to me that all some of these people want is for the United States to lose face. A revolt is in its true sense when the people rise up against the government in power. The Viet Cong during the Tet offensive thought the people of South Vietnam would do that, but they found that the Vietnamese would have no part in it. In 1967 more than 20,000 Viet Cong and Communist regular soldiers defected to the south, disillusioned with the Communists. And that is not propaganda. P. M. Cotterail says send the invader home and free Asia from United States aggression. Prejudice is no base for a debate. The United States has not invaded anyone: the South asked them there.—Yours, etc., KIWI. April 10, 1968.