[jjr69]
- From: <viet.be@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <jjr69@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <salonmixte@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:42:13 -0800
Hey Dung,
I am Bac Ky`, and for sure can eat duck jello. Not just eat it, but I can
slurp it down. By the way, I have eaten most of the delicacies that you guys
were served in ClubMed.
Le, like Dat I appreciate the reasonable tone that you continue to bring to the
debate/discussion.
Dat, I understand and agree with most of what you said/wrote.
Van, I understand your feelings about war/violence/peace, etc... From my
personal experience(s), it only bothers me when someone, even MLK, refers to
the VN war with derogative/demeaning attributes.
To all, let's wrap it up. It has been a good discussion.
Now, back to Angelique, where were we??????????????
Your Chief Chaperone to the Crazy Horse Saloon,
Viet.
>
> From: Dung Luu <dungluu101@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2003/01/16 Thu AM 09:48:11 PST
> To: jjr69@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [jjr69] Re: Martin Luther King's Opposition to the War on Iraq
>
>
> To wrap up the "debate" on this issue of MLK/Vietnam,
> Toi thay the arguments cua Van, Viet, Dat va`...ca'c
> ban khac deu co ly'...cua ho. Su suy nghi~ phai
> no'i...mot pha^`n (kho^ng nho?) phat xuat tu personal
> insight(or not), involvement (or not) in the Vietnam
> war.
> I was "in" (both war and clubmed), needless to say,
> you know what side i'm with in this debate ...and I
> don't want to say it...ne^'u kho^ng con nha` Tu`ng lai
> noi toi...ve hu`a! But I must say that I particularly
> like Viet say on... side effect! Ironique but....good,
> neu khong gio nay con ca'i mi`nh dang la`...cha'u
> ngoan Bac Ho!
> Viet, xin chia buon cung ban ve su hy sinh cua Bac
> trong cuoc chien tranh bao ve tu do cho To^? Quo^'c
> VietNam. Neu duoc, ban co the goi den Uy Ban Xay Dung
> Tuong Dai info ve Bac de duoc cho vao virtual library
> cua Memorial. Ban email den cho toi cung duoc.
>
> Hey Viet...can you eat Duck Jello? Van can!
>
> Du~ng
>
>
> --- viet.be@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > Dat,
> >
> > Just one more thought, since you mentioned the side
> > effect of the VN/Cambodia event:
> > One of the side effects of the Mission Civilisatrice
> > is that we both went to French schools. One of the
> > side effects of the White Man's Burden policy is
> > that we both are sitting in America discussing this
> > in English.
> >
> > Are these good side effects of bad policies of
> > interventions?
> >
> > >
> > > From: Dat Duthinh <dduthinh@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: 2003/01/16 Thu AM 06:34:04 PST
> > > To: jjr69@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [jjr69] Martin Luther King's Opposition
> > to the War on Iraq
> > >
> > >
> > > So the Americans would defend freedom and the
> > Iraquis would fight against
> > > invasion, both very valid reasons. Both sides
> > are right, and people
> > > die. The defense of freedom sounds so lofty it
> > reminds me of the Mission
> > > Civilisatrice and the White Man's Burden.
> > >
> > > I see only one reason for foreign military
> > intervention: the prevention of
> > > genocide. Rwanda, Bosnia , Kosovo, Cambodia.
> > Now, countries also use that
> > > excuse when their real reason is more
> > imperialistic, as for VN in Cambodia,
> > > even though the side effect was very good.
> > >
> > > At 08:40 PM 1/15/03, you wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >Van, Dung, Khai,
> > > >
> > > >As much as I oppose violent means to resolve
> > conflicts, and in the Iraq
> > > >case, a contemplated PREEMPTIVE strike under the
> > guise of protecting the
> > > >world, I must say that SOMETIMES war is
> > inevitable, even
> > > >necessary. I would not advocate avoiding war
> > at any cost. For example,
> > > >fighting a war to defend one's country against
> > invasion is, to use Marting
> > > >Luther King's own words, honorable and just.
> > That is how I see the
> > > >self-defensive fight that we (the Vietnamese who
> > chose to live in the
> > > >South, and the Americans who helped them) lost.
> > > >
> > > >I resent the fact that those who opposed the VN
> > war see it and continues
> > > >to see it as an event that dishonored America.
> > I don't see it that
> > > >way. On the contrary, it was a part of US and
> > Vietnamese history that
> > > >should be honored. The only regrettable part
> > was the outcome.
> > > >
> > > >Please forgive me if I offend any one. It is my
> > only (!) bias in
> > > >politics.
> > > >
> > > >Mr. Nash's , and MLK's, lamenting that the poor
> > and the Blacks died in
> > > >disproportionate numbers is a justified concern.
> > But how does a nation
> > > >equally distribute the burden of death, when it
> > comes time to fight to
> > > >ensure that something worthwhile (like the
> > freedome of a friendly people:
> > > >the Vietnamese) be preserved? Or should a
> > country live in complete
> > > >isolation, close its eyes, plug its ears, and not
> > come to the aid of a
> > > >friendly nation? How does one do that? I
> > don't have answers here.
> > > >
> > > >Nothing less than freedom and self-defense
> > justifies the loss of lives,
> > > >especially the lives of young men and women.
> > I'm forever grateful that a
> > > >large number of Americans and Vietnamese died for
> > me (us) to live the
> > > >precious few years of relative freedom. I
> > remain saddened by those losses.
> > > >
> > > >I lost my father in the war. If I were asked
> > whether I would give up my
> > > >father to a "just and honorable" war, I will say
> > no. The problem is, I
> > > >wasn't asked. And I believe that he died in
> > honor. I also believe that
> > > >he joined the Army knowing of the ultimate
> > consequences. And he accepted
> > > >them willingly.
> > > >
> > > >Preserving freedom, coming to the aid of a
> > friend, or self-defense, is NOT
> > > >the case in Iraq. But it does not mean that all
> > war is evil.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Viet Be
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
>
Viet Be
Other related posts:
