From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 14:48:15 MST
Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 12/12/2002 11:53:18 AM Central Standard Time,
>charleshixsn@earthlink.net writes: It was installing a puppet government
>after the sabatoge of the Geneva Convention (I forget it's real name). This
>was justified by the current at that time anti-communist hysteria (and again,
>I can't think of a better word).
>
>Charles,
> I remember this lesson from English 101. It was the lesson on using
>"loaded language." First you used the word "invade" where factually it is
>totally unjustified. When I called you on it you evaded me with an excuse.
> Then you ignore that the South Vietnamese government basically had its
>justification in the many people that fled there to escape the government in
>the North and in the treaty that the government of North Vietnam freely
>agreed to giving South Vietnam separate existence. This was done freely by
>the Northern government although about five or six years later they suddenly
>decided that the Southern government was illegitimate despite their word
>given in treaty.
> Then you continue in that vein ignoring treaty, ignoring history and
>ignoring common sense. If you wish to prove that the North was right and the
>South Vietnamese with the Americans were totally wrong then I suggest you
>take this argument to an arena where free speech isn't allowed -- otherwise
>your tactics will be shown for what they are.
>Ron h.
>
This is unfair, as I cannot remember the name of my own sources
(probably newspapers), but could you refer me to your sources? Your
description of the history doesn't match my recollections, but these
were mainly shaped by newspapers, and so are of dubious validity.
And I still don't have a better term than invade, though I would
definitely admit that it's use is metaphoric rather than literal.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:42 MST