From: Jeff Davis (jrd1415@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 18:30:25 MST
Extropes,
The following demonstrates why it is so difficult to
have a rational discussion of these sorts of things on
this, or for that matter any, list. The underlying
knowledge base--the supposed truths about the
world--are completeley different from one person to
another. To me this means that one person's truth is
corrupted, ie it is not truth at all, while another's
is the real thing. (To be a bit more generous, I
might say everyone has some degree of error in their
set of facts.) Adding to the problem--perhaps the
decisive element--is the pre-programmed resistance to
modifying one's belief set, the human tendency to
refuse the truth in favor of what they already
believe.
Ron h absorbed his world view in the era of
McCartyism, and never looked back.
Here:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/genevacc.htm
You will find the text of the
AGREEMENT ON THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES IN VIET-NAM,
JULY 20, 1954
Here:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1954-geneva-indochina.html
You will find the text of
The Final Declaration of The Geneva Conference:
On Restoring Peace in Indochina, July 21, 1954
And here:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam.htm
You will find
Documents Relating to American Foreign Policy: Vietnam
More detailed, authentic documentation than you ever
wanted on the subject of 'the business' in Vietnam
--- Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
I will deal with the above passage--the "invade"
issue--at the end of the post.
> ...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...
The "South Vietnamese" Govt never had any legitimate
existence, as it was created in clear violation of the
Geneva accords:
Article 14
(a) Pending the general elections which will bring
about the unification of Viet-Nam, the conduct of
civil administration in each regrouping zone shall be
in the hands of the party whose forces are to be
regrouped there in virtue of the present Agreement
-------end excerpt---------
The idea that a separate sovereign govt in the south
was "justified", as Ron puts it, by "the many people
who fled there to escape" is the usual hysterical
rhetoric -- 'the commies are coming, the commies are
coming! Run for your lives!-- that reached peak
intensity in the McCarthy era and echoes in the words
and minds of Ron and others to this day. Then and now
it was emotional manipulation/hogwash/propaganda.
The real justification for the creation of the
'Republic of Vietnam' is to be found in the agenda of
the foreign policy people of the US, who created
it,...in violation of the Geneva accords.
It has been said that "the devil is in the details",
and that is clearly the case here. The Geneva Accords
peace agreement was between the French and the Viet
Minh, and, as noted parenthetically in the copy cited
at the first link above:
(The Geneva Agreements theoretically ended the war
between French Union forces and the Vietminh in Laos,
Cambodia, and Vietnam. These states were to become
fully independent countries, with the last-named
partitioned near the 17th parallel into two states
pending reunification through "free elections" to be
held by July 20, 1956. The United States and Vietnam
are not signatories to these agreements.)
Note the last: "The United States and Vietnam are not
signatories to these agreements."
Neither the US nor the French-created Vietnamese Govt.
signed onto the agreement. Thus by one arguable
interpretation, neither was bound by the agreement.
I leave it to the judgement of reasonable people to
determine whether this was a 'valid loophole' or a
back door for international mass murderers.
Ron continues:
> and in the treaty that the government of
> North Vietnam freely
> agreed to giving South Vietnam separate existence.
Clearly this is incorrect. A 'north' and 'south'
Vietnam cannot be made real or otherwise legitimized
by merely prepending these words to "Vietnam". The
intent of the agreement was clearly for a
***temporary*** partition for the purpose of
disengaging the combatants, with reunification clearly
intended, stated, and scheduled, and to be effected by
the conduct of free elections.
> 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.
Here Ron continues, but is merely carrying forward his
earlier mistake of accepting as legitimate that which
is not legitimate: a separate and sovereign "South
Vietnamese" govt. This original error then corrupts
all that follows, giving us a cascade of nonsense..
> Then you continue in that vein ignoring
> treaty,
Look at the treaty. Your interpretation of events
fails because you don't look at the treaty. And
consequently you don't know what you're talking about.
Now lets deal with the use of the word "invade".
I encountered it first from Chomsky, and I've never
been comfortable with it. As, Ron points out it is
"loaded" as well as apparently factually unjustified.
But if you look at the peace agreement: the clearly
intended and specified temporary partition of the
country for the rational and pragmatic orderly
disengagement of the combatant parties, the plan for
free elections for the purpose of creating by
peaceful, lawful, and internationally-approved means a
single Vietnamese government legitimized by "the
consent of the governed", and at
Chapter III of the peace agreement, CHAPTER III-BAN ON
INTRODUCTION OF FRESH TROOPS, MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMS
AND MUNITIONS, MILITARY BASES, and compare these to
the actions taken by the US and its 'South' Vietnamese
puppet government, then the word "invade" begins to
look more and more applicable. In the end, it is not
unreasonable to conclude that all the misinformation
(and here the term 'disinformation' could be used to
emphasize the intentionally deceptive nature of the
information) people had been fed had 'predeceived'
them. It is on this basis alone, on the basis of an
entirely false--prefalsified and memetically
'installed'--view, that the term "invade" seems
inapplicable. In light of the truth however, "invade"
seems parsimoniously precise. But only in light of
the truth, which leaves us with the same problem we
started with, the unfamiliarity with or outright
refusal of the truth.
invade
1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: "The principal
of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee
approval" (Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: "About 1917
the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco"
(Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.
First State Department foreign policy people went in,
then the cia went in, then the military equipment went
in, then the declaration of sovereignty, then the
signing of military alliance (SEATO), then the
military 'advisors', then the war of the puppet govt
against its own people, then the foreign (US) troops
went in. Every one of these acts an overt violation
of the peace agreement. Then millions were killed.
Sounds a whole lot like an invasion to me.
Folks get their panties in a twist about holocaust
deniers, even as they deny the holocausts they have
perpetrated. Go figure.
Fifty-four years I been on this planet. Fifty-four
years I've had to listen to lieing, thieving,
murdering scumbags, lie to me--after they've lied to
and deluded themselves--about how they're on the side
of the angels defending me against the (gay, black,
red, yellow, atheist, liberal, etc, your choice)
menace. To the tune of millions dead. As far back in
time as you want to go. The responsible parties?
Fudamentalists. The ruling class. Conservatives.
Reptiles. Cannibals. Selfish, greedy, vicious
killers. Your boys, Ron.
The truth is always "loaded".
Best, Jeff Davis
"You are what you think."
Jeff Davis
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:42 MST