From: CNguyen.osbu_north@xerox.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.vietnamese
Subject: Re: Ngo-Dinh-Diem : another perspective
Date: 30 Dec 92 18:35:37 GMT
Organization: Saigon.COM Public Access BBS; Data Line: (408)730-1092
X-Ns-Transport-Id: 080020110E7F2EFA2A63


Why it always got down to this kind of dialogue? With such stupid things as:

>From:	dangs@ere.umontreal.ca (Dang Sybinh)
>...
>Co' pha?i o^ng la` ngu+o+`i cu?a Chi'nh Phu? VN hie^.n nay ?
>...
>   Da^y la` nhu+~ng y' kie^'n rie^ng cu?a o^ng ne^n to^i kho^ng da'm lua^.n
ba`n.
>Co' mo^.t -die^`u cha('c cha('n la` tu+ tu+o+?ng cu?a o^ng ne^u ra kho^ng
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>ngoa`i 2 mu.c di'ch: chi'nh tri. va` to^n gia'o.
>...

Come on, you can only win me with your educated, fact based arguments, never
with your bullying, emotional, groundless logics. I challenge you to prove me
wrong. Remember, don't take words from other people from their books and graf
them up and make the point. I won't buy it because the opposite people can do
the same thing with books of their choice. Give me facts and base your argument
on them. Don't give me rubbish.

And please cut out this kind of crab next time:

>From:	dangs@ere.umontreal.ca (Dang Sybinh)
>
>Ki'nh go+?i o^ng CNguyen,
>
>Ki'nh thu+a o^ng,
>   Tru+o+'c he^'t xin minh xa'c vo+'i o^ng ra(`ng to^i vo^'n di~ kho^ng thi'ch
>nhu+~ng chuye^.n thuo^.c ve^` la~nh vu+.c chi'nh tri. .
>...

/cuong



--- begins included message -----
>From:	dangs@ere.umontreal.ca (Dang Sybinh)
Organization: Universite de Montreal
Apparently-To: apv-list@Sony.COM
-----RFC822 headers---->


Ki'nh go+?i o^ng CNguyen,

Ki'nh thu+a o^ng,
   Tru+o+'c he^'t xin minh xa'c vo+'i o^ng ra(`ng to^i vo^'n di~ kho^ng thi'ch
nhu+~ng chuye^.n thuo^.c ve^` la~nh vu+.c chi'nh tri. . Nhu+ng khi tha^'y mo^.t
ngu+o+`i ma` chi'nh ca' nha^n ngu+o+`i a^'y cu`ng toa`n the^? gia di`nh bi.
ta`n sa't chi? vi` lo`ng ye^u nu+o+'c ma` ngu+o+`i ta co`n tie^'p tu.c ma.t
sa't thi` to^i kho^ng the^? nhi.n -du+o+.c. Ne^'u xe't ve^` ma(.t "nha^n, le^~,
nghi~a, tri', ti'n", thi` nhu+~ng su+. ba^'t co^ng va` vo^ ly' tre^n bao gio+`
mo+'i cha^'m du+'t, thu+a o^ng ?

In article <BzzyrG.3M0@Saigon.COM> CNguyen.osbu_north@xerox.com writes:
>....
>
>Not true. The plan which was helped to form by Sir Robert Thompson in theory
>was a sure win but in reality because of the corruption of the top responsible
>South Vietnam administrators it went very bad. The utilities which were
>supplied to help the peasants to build their new homes had been stolen and
sold
>to the free market or resold to the peasants. By mid 1963 the national
>strategic hamlet plan (aka Quoc Sach Ap Chien Luoc) had become a joke, as
later
>recalled by many South Vietnamese.

De^? hie^?u ro~ chi'nh sa'ch cu?a My~ ta.i Vie^.t Nam, xin o^ng -do.c la.i
ca'c ta'c pha^?m cu?a William COLBY, Bernard FALL, Marguerite HIGGINS, ...
-Die^?n hi`nh ho+n ca? :
      The Pentagon Papers: The Defense Department - History of United States
           Decisionmaking on Vietnam .
           Gravel Edition. The Senator.  Boston : Beacon Press, 1971.


>>Ke^' hoa.ch na`y -da~ vo^ hie^.u ho'a hoa.t -do^.ng xa^m nha^.p cu?a VC va`
>>la`m tan ra~ ha. ta^`ng co* so*? cu?a chu'ng.
>>
>
>Did he relate this to the infamous "To>' Co>.ng" program?
>

Co' pha?i o^ng la` ngu+o+`i cu?a Chi'nh Phu? VN hie^.n nay ?

>>O^ng Nhu -da~ cho tha`nh la^.p ca'c toa'n bi`nh -di.nh, xa^y du*.ng no^ng
>>tho^n, ca'c toa'n 4T...hoa.t -do^.ng sa't ca'nh vo*'i ngu*o*`i da^n o*?
>>no^ng tho^n ne^n -da~ ca<'t -du*'t he^. tho^'ng tie^'p te^' va` lie^n la.c
>>cu?a VC o*? ha. ta^`ng co* so*? ta.i no^ng tho^n vo*'i bo.n -da^`u na~o o*?
>>ru*`ng nu'i.
>
>Again, not true. If one take a look at Doa\n Them's "Vie>.c Tu*\ng nga\y:
>1945-1964" one should be able to see that Viet Cong's activities rapidly
>escalested after 1960 with its successful assasinations and large scale
>ambushes.
>

Vie^.t Nam la` mo^.t nhu+o+.c tie^?u quo^'c tre^n bi`nh die^.n the^' gio+'i.
Ne^'u o^ng na('m giu+~ quye^`n ha`nh quo^'c gia va`o tho+`i -do' thi` o^ng
gia?i quye^'t the^' na`o khi ma` vie^.c la`m cu?a o^ng kho^ng -du+o+.c
"o^ng ba.n Do^`ng Minh chu? no+." -do^`ng y' ?

>
>
>I don't like to beat a dead horse over and over again (this stuffs have been
>heavily discussed in Viet-Net not long time ago) but when someone revisited
the
>issue I can't help it. Here's my opinion:
>
>	1. Pres. Diem was held responsible for the destruction of the political
>structure of the South after 1954. Eliminating the barbarious Bi\nh Xuye>n was
>a good action but trying to eliminate other political groups (with the secret
>jailing/torturing/killings of their leaders and their core members) was a big
>mistake. After his regime collapsed the South went into periods which had no
>leaderships and directions. Not surprisingly those situations had been grabbed
>wildly and dearly by opportunitists and traitors.
>
>	2. How could the South under Diem win the war when:
>		a. Ngo dinh Thuc, Diem's elder brother, a high ranking priest,
>did business with the Viet Cong (selling them the South precious anti-biotic
>medicine, rice, etc. and bribing them)
>		b. Ngo dinh Can, Diem's younger brother, a mediocre person,
>became the "tyran of the Central" formed his own secret service to kidnap,
>torture, and kill those who dared to protest against his illegal business and
>those who refused to succumb to his blackmails and extortions.
>		c. Ngo ddinh Nhu, another younger brother of Diem, spit on the
>harshed national law against opium smokers with his well known habit of
smoking
>opium himself.
>		d. Later in his presidency, feeling their collapse was near
>Diem and his brother Nhu tried to make deals with Viet Cong (Vietnamese
>communists) in hope that they could still get something for themselves. The
>1-11-63 coup broke the regime before any thing could materialize.
>
>
>/cuong
>
>
   Da^y la` nhu+~ng y' kie^'n rie^ng cu?a o^ng ne^n to^i kho^ng da'm lua^.n
ba`n.
Co' mo^.t -die^`u cha('c cha('n la` tu+ tu+o+?ng cu?a o^ng ne^u ra kho^ng
ngoa`i 2 mu.c di'ch: chi'nh tri. va` to^n gia'o.

   Tra?i bao tha(ng tra^`m, VN hie^.n nay va^~n co`n -da^`y da^~y ngo^. nha^.n
va` ky` thi. . Thu+.c -da'ng buo^`n thay !

   Ve^` nhu+~ng su+. tha^.t cu?a nhu+~ng y' kie^'n ne^u tre^n cu?a o^ng
CNguyen, ba.n do.c co' the^? ti`m nhu+~ng ta'c pha^?m sau:


. Our Vietnam Nightmare. HIGGINS, Marguerite. New York: Harper and Row, 1965.
. 30 ans de CIA. COLBY, William. Paris: Presse de la Renaissance, 1978.
. Vie^tnam, Re've'lation d'un te'moin. LABIN, Suzanne.
          Paris: Nouvelles Editions Latines, 1964.
. US Involvement in the Overthrow of Diem, 1963; a staff study based on The
          Pentagon Papers. (73p). HOLLICK, Ann L.
          Washington, D.C.: US Congress, Senate, Committee on Foreign
Relations,
          1972.vi.
. Les deux Vie^tnam. FALL, Bernard. Paris: Payot, 1967.
. The real war. NIXON, Richard. (French version: La vraie guerre.
          Paris: Albin Michel. 1980.
. Les relations Ame'ricano-Vie^tnamiennes. (2 volumes). TRAN, Minh Tie^'t.
          Paris: Nouvelles Editions Latines, 1971.
. Time out of hand. SHAPLEN, Robert. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.


----------------
Sybinh DANG, ing. junior
(CRT - Centre de Recherche sur les Transports)
E-mail: dangs@crt.umontreal.ca
        dangs@ere.umontreal.ca
        dangs@info.polymtl.ca
----------------

--- ends included message ---
Newsgroups: alt.politics.vietnamese