Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Thân gửi ông giáo sư khoa học vi tính David Gelernter,

 

Có lẽ bởi v́ ông là nhà khoa học vi tính, cho nên ông nh́n vấn đề rất đơn giản như 2+2=4. Cái ngớ ngẩn của một nhà khoa học khi nh́n sang chính trị nó c̣n tệ hại hơn cả là ông đă nh́n từ góc cạnh của một ngựi Mỹ. Viet NamIRAQ là hai vấn đề khác nhau xa lắm. Nó phức tạp không như một bản lệnh điện toán có thể ráp nối hoặc như một phương tŕnh toán có thể thay thế hoán chuyển.

 

Thưa ông,  cho dù là ông làm việc chung quanh với sách vở và máy điện tóan chắc ông không đến nỗi  bị tách biệt khỏi thông tin, dĩ nhiên tôi muốn nói đến thông tin đứng đắn chứ không phải như các loại thông tin được dàn dựng theo chủ định cũa Ngũ Giác Đài một chiều ở Mỹ hiện nay- Là  Xă hội và chế độ Iraq và mức sống  của ngừời dân Iraq , nếu đem so sánh với xă hội và chế độ Bắc Hàn và mức sống ngựi dân Bắc Hàn ai cũng phải nh́n nhận là IRAQ hơn Bắc Hàn rất xa.. Điều này cũng rơ như 2+2=4.

 

1-Chế độ Bắc Hàn tàn độc và phi nhân hơn Sadam Husein rất xa .

2- Bắc Hàn có vũ khí nguyên tử và có khả năng phóng hỏa tiễn tầm xa tận đến Alaska. Có nghĩa là Bắc Hàn có khả năng đe dọa an ninh của Mỹ. Iraq của Sadam Husein chưa có khả năng  đe dọa này

 

3-Chỉ có một điều Bắc Hàn "kém hơn"  Iraq là không có dầu hỏa và không phải là nước Hồi Giáo, kẻ thù của ngựi Thiên Chúa giáo Da Trắng và Do Thái.

 

Mục đích chính của Quân Mỹ đến IRAQ không phải là diệt cế độ Sadam Husein  v́  ngựi Mỹ của ông xúc động trưóc nỗi thống khổ của nhân dân IRAQ và ước vọng nền dân chủ cho nhân dân IRAQ . V́ thật sụ nếu ngựi Mỹ các Ông thật sự tốt bụng như vậy th́ Bắc Hàn mới là nơi cần các ông đến trưóc và hăy đến ngay!!!

 

Quyền lợi Dầu Hỏa và năo trạng  bài Hồi giáo trong chiến lược toàn cầu của đám tân bảo thủ  ngựi Mỹ  (Neocons) các ông là động lực chính của cuộc tiến chiếm IRAQ!

 

Ông là nhà khoa học dù nh́n vấn đề có đon giản cũng là điều không đáng trách. Nhưng phải lương thiện và tự trọng khi ông hăy nh́n ngựi Mỹ các ông bắn giết, xúc phạm nhân phẩm và văn hoá người dân IRAQ.. Nó cũng giống như ngự̀i lính Mỹ các ông đă từng làm ở đất nưóc Việt Nam của Tôi. Sự tồi bại của CSVN hay của Sadam Husein, không thể là cái cớ chính đáng để ngựi Mỹ các ông vi phạm nhân quyền tràn vào lấn chiếm ngông nghênh v́ quyển lợi và mục đích đồi bại ích kỷ phi nhân bản của ngựi Mỹ các ông ở Viêt Nam 1965, và hôm nay ở IRAQ 2002.

 

Hăy trả lại IRAQ cho ngựi IRAQ, Sadam Husien đă ra đi!

 

Thân chào ông

Một ngừoi Việt Nam,

Nguyên Khả Phạm Thanh Chương

24 Macpherson St Footscray VIC 3011 Australia.

duyviet@optusnet.com.au

 

TB-

V́ tôi biết sẽ có rất nhiều ngựi bạn Mỹ gốc Việt của ông sẽ dịch lá thư này giúp ông.. Và nhất là v́ Tôi không  muốn đồng bào Việt nam của tôi có thể ngộ nhận tôi, nếu tôi viết bằng Anh ngữ. Cho nên Tôi viết bằng tiếng Việt.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: VNHR Focus

To: DD-Ngo Van Hieu

Sent: Sunday, 09 November, 2003 22:14

Subject: Don't Quit as We Did in Vietnam

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: jetsurf@jps.net

To: jetsurf@jps.net

Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 7:08 PM

Subject: [Chinh Luan] Don't Quit as We Did in Vietnam

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-gelernter9nov09,1,4735142.story

November 9, 2003 

IRAQ
Don't Quit as We Did in Vietnam

By David Gelernter, David Gelernter is a professor of computer science at Yale University and a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard.


NEW HAVEN, Conn. — U.S. policy in Iraq is haunted by Vietnam, no question about that. That's why Americans support the war and will keep on supporting it until we win. ("Win" is a verb you rarely heard in the Vietnam era.)

We are haunted by the image of Vietnamese who trusted and supported us trying frantically to grab a place on the last outbound helicopter; by Vietnamese putting to sea in rowboats rather than enjoy Uncle Ho's "Workers' and Peasants' Paradise" one more day. We are haunted by the consequences of allowing South Vietnam to collapse. Tens of thousands of executions (maybe 60,000), re-education camps where hundreds of thousands died, a million boat people.

We put them in those rowboats — we antiwar demonstrators, we sophisticated, smart guys. The war was nearly over when I graduated from high school. But high school students were old enough to demonstrate. They were old enough to feel superior to the fools who were running the government. And they were old enough to have known better. They were old enough to have understood what communist regimes had cost the world in suffering, from the prisons of Havana to the death camps of Siberia.

Today we are haunted, in thinking about Iraq, by the fact that a noisy, self-important, narcissistic minority talked the United States into betraying its allies. (Loyalty didn't mean a lot to antiwar demonstrators; honor didn't mean a lot.) We betrayed our allies and hurried home, to introspect. They stayed on, to suffer. We were eager to make love, not war, but the South Vietnamese weren't offered that option. Their alternatives were to knuckle under or die.

It was my fault, mine personally; I was part of the antiwar crowd and I'm sorry. But my apology is too late for the South Vietnamese dead. All I can do is join the chorus in shouting, "No more Vietnams!" No more shrugging off tyranny; no more deserting our friends; no more going back on our duties as the strongest nation on Earth.

Before the switch of commanders from William C. Westmoreland to Creighton Abrams, we conducted the Vietnam War stupidly; that thought haunts us too, and that's why people like Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld are running the Iraq war and his Vietnam-era counterpart Robert S. McNamara and his friends and disciples aren't. We are haunted by our having gotten into Vietnam without really meaning to, without having thrashed it out first in a nationwide conversation. That's why the Bush administration laid out exactly what it wanted to accomplish (regime change) beforehand — and why the nation chewed the thing over for months before we opened fire. Regime change is what America wanted and what we fought for and won. Regime change is what we will defend, whatever it takes.

Does Iraq bring back memories of Vietnam? The president's critics say yes, and they are right. Vietnam came to mind when we saw Saddamites torturing their captives on camera. Do President Bush's opponents grasp that those are (or were) real people getting beaten to a pulp, mutilated, tortured, murdered? (If they did, wouldn't they be overjoyed now that the smug murderers have been thrown out, and radiantly proud of America?) Our moral obligations as the world's most powerful nation come strongly to mind when we hear about rape rooms and children's prisons; when we read about captives fed into industrial shredders, and swaggering princelings dragging women off the street to the torture houses.

Voltaire once felt obliged to rouse all Europe over the judicial torture of one man. Europe today reacts with the same charming befuddlement it felt back then: What's all the fuss? Surely, it's none of our business.

The president's critics say that he has made mistakes; right again. He was too optimistic about the difficulties of hunting down a man or a biological weapon in a large country. He might well have been too optimistic about the difficulties of managing postwar Iraq. He was certainly too optimistic about the rest of the world's joining us; too many people were making too much money from Hussein's Iraq for the case by Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair against Hussein ever to be popular, for the world at large to care much about Kurdish infants choking to death on poison gas or about a political dissenter with his tongue cut out. But suppose we sweep up all the administration's mistakes and dump them in one pan of the moral balance. We'll put just one fact on the other side: Hussein is overthrown. What do all the president's mistakes amount to? How much do they count when we step back and take in the big picture? They count zero.

People ask: Are you proposing to overthrow every sadist tyrant on Earth? No, only proposing to be proud that we overthrew one.

Some Bush critics tell us that "Iraqification" is bound to be a failure and a "losing strategy," like "Vietnamization." They are wrong on the facts. Vietnamization was a winning strategy. Several years ago, political commentator Fred Barnes reviewed, in an article for the Weekly Standard, the findings of two books on Vietnam that challenged the conventional wisdom on the war. Barnes wrote, in summary: "What really worked was Vietnamization, the reliance on Saigon's forces as American troops were gradually brought home." He quoted Lewis Sorley, one of the authors: "There came a time when the war was won. The fighting wasn't over, but the war was won. This achievement can probably best be dated in late 1970, after the Cambodia incursion."

But then we got fed up and pulled the plug. We left the bill on the table and walked out, and our allies paid in blood. Yes, we are haunted by Vietnam, and God forbid we should ever again betray our friends to tyrant murderers. Or ever again walk out on a nation whose people are struggling merely to live and be let alone. Or ever again inform the natives prissily over our shoulders on our way out: Look, it's your choice; if you choose to be governed by blood-sucking murderers, it's none of our business.

Yes, America is haunted by Vietnam. It always will be.


Ends ./.