From: ttran@cv3000.Prime.COM (T. Tran)
Subject: CALL FOR A DIALOGUE/Reply TMT
Originator: daemon@media-lab.media.mit.edu
Reply-To: @relay.prime.com:ttran@cv3000.Prime.COM
Organization: SCV Relay
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:25:31 GMT


I was hoping for a dialogue in which one will back up one's position
with certain facts and figures, rather than relying on impressions and 
word-of-mouth opinions.

Since TMT was not specific, I'll ask for clarification: 

From "<1992Dec3.155907.19447@news.media.mit.edu>, TMT wrote:

>          T. Tran talks about the myth of an independent South
>Vietnam, while at the same time trying to perpetuate another myth,
>that consisting of portraying the Vietnamese Communists as national
>liberators.

** TMT, I never use the term "national liberators" - it's your words
** not mine. Words have a tendency to cloud one's mind, especially 
** "loaded"  ones. All I said was:
**
**     -- The Communists defeated the French, regaining national
**        independence.
**     -- They again defeated the U.S when the US was trying to 
**        circumvent the Geneva Agreement.
**
** If you consider these to be myths, then so be it !
** 
          Communists have a their own way of using and interpreting
terminology.  So look carefully at what they mean by liberation,
independence, and freedom, and democracy.  And let us not be fooled.

** I refer the reader to Huynh Kim Khang's "Vietnamese Communism,
** 1925-1945", published by Cornell University Press.
** Khanh had a whole chapter on what the term "nationalist" meant and
** how it was abused.
** You will agree that Cornell University Press is not known for being
** a hotbed of Communism.
** My intention is not to defend Communism. Rather, if we want to deal
** effectively with the Communists, we better face up to certain
** facts.
  
          Personally, I have no stake in defending the Thieu or Diem
regime and I agree that South Vietnam was not as sovereign as we would
have wished, but does that necessarily imply that North Vietnam was
the champion of national independence?  Just look at the way
Vietnamese culture and language are being distorted by Communist
culture, how our traditional values are being replaced by survival
instincts and suspicion.  And as we speak, the Vietnamese leadership
in Hanoi is dealing with foreign investors to sell them the future of
entire generations.

** I can sympathize with your predicament, as it was mine for a long time:
** The predicament is this:
**         -- If the Diem/Thieu regimes were not sovereign governments
**            Then WHAT THE HELL WERE WE FIGHTING FOR ?
**         -- If we pursue the implication of this, there will be a lot
**            of pain.
**
** I think you are mixing up two issues. A government can be a champion
** of national independence and then makes all the darn'dest mistakes you
** can think of !

** As for the question of foreign investment, if you can provide info
** to back up you conclusion, let's lay it on the table.

          If we for a second assume that North Vietnam was independent
and was fighting for independence, let me point out that Nazi Germany
was also independent.  Did that help the Germans?

** This is besides the point. Are you arguing that therefore being 
** ruled by others is a preferrable option ?
** For to exist as a nation, a country has to be an independent entity
** first. Only then can we decide what's the next step can be. Otherwise, 
** others will keep deciding for us, and I can assure you they will NEVER
** voluntarily decide to give you your independence !
** As for the German, no one in their right mind will applaud the Hitler
** regime. But, that's not the end of the story, isn't it?  Look at what
** Germany is now -- the preeminent economic powerhouse of EC and the
** world. You think Germany will be in its current position had its 
** government been "protected" by a foreign power ?

Regards,

T. Tran.

** My reply invoked a further response:

From <mtruong.723402944@cunews> :

          Hi T.Tran

I do not see what predicament you are talking about.  One question you
raised was what we (the South Vietnamese) were fighting for during the
war.  I think many soldiers were dying in the fields so that people
like you and me had a chance to grow up and develop into more or less
decent human beings.  Is that good enough for you?  Many were dying
and enduring suffering so that people like you and I can now sit here and
talk smart all we want.  And I am talking about South Vietnamese
soldiers, not American soldiers.  I do not advocate reliance on
foreigners, especially not Americans, I live in Canada for a reason
you know.

Tri'


** Let me reprint the paragraph in question:

** I can sympathize with your predicament, as it was mine for a long time:
** The predicament is this:
**         -- If the Diem/Thieu regimes were not sovereign governments
**            Then WHAT THE HELL WERE WE FIGHTING FOR ?
**         -- If we pursue the implication of this, there will be a lot
**            of pain.

** What I'm trying to say is this:
**         -- If the Diem/Thieu regimes were not sovereign governments
**         -- Then some other foreign power controlled the governments,
**            and hence determined the REAL purpose of the war, NOT what
**            we Vietnamese thought it was about !

** As I said in my response to bui@berlioz.nsc.com :

**  "Besides, my point was not to disparage those who died for their
**  beliefs in SVN, but that we died, even unbeknownst to us, for the
**  strategic interests of the superpowers, NOT for the interests of the
**  VNese. "

** As for what happened to us personally, it might be of mighty interests
** to ourselves, but you will agree that it had no impact whatsoever on
** the situation then. We were pretty inconsequential in the scheme of 
** things, unfortunately.  


T. Tran