WordPress database error: [Expression #1 of ORDER BY clause is not in GROUP BY clause and contains nonaggregated column 'oldsite_dcvwp.wp_posts.post_date' which is not functionally dependent on columns in GROUP BY clause; this is incompatible with sql_mode=only_full_group_by]
SELECT YEAR(post_date) AS `year`, MONTH(post_date) AS `month`, count(ID) as posts FROM wp_posts WHERE post_type = 'post' AND post_status = 'publish' GROUP BY YEAR(post_date), MONTH(post_date) ORDER BY post_date DESC

 
|

Bài nói chuyện của Tướng Nguyễn Cao Kỳ tại Đại Học DeAnza, Cupertino, California

Speech by Gen Nguyen Cao Ky, 13 Jun 2003 

Students, faculty, administrators and staff, I thank you for this opportunity to share a few thoughts. I am particularly indebted to President Martha Kanter and to Dean John Swensson for your kind invitation to speak today.
Twenty-seven years ago last April, after 20 years of heroic resistance, South Vietnam fell to the enemy. Much has happened since. Many of you were not yet born-but those who still recall that dark day, those to whom over the years time has added lines to your faces and gray to your heads, who served through those difficult times with honor-you have not lost the dedication to liberty inspired by your high ideals. You have matured, and the sacrifices and passions of your youth have given way to the rewards and responsibilities that accompany your positions of esteem in American society. As for me, as you can see, I am no longer wearing my purple scarf, my flight suit, my six-shooter. I have put them all away at the bottom of my trunk, memorabilia of a time past.
If the war has faded into history, democracy’s defeat in Vietnam has left deep marks in the consciousness of both nations. The questions asked since 1975 have yet to bring satisfactory answers. How could an alliance of the 25 million people and armed forces of South Vietnam with the colossal American political, economic and military apparatus, along with the forces of other allied nations, have been defeated by the small, impoverished people and army of North Vietnam?
Today I will offer my own answers to those questions. 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: 

American history books postulate that the war was lost because it lacked legitimacy, because of corruption in the government and armed forces of South Vietnam, because of the cowardliness of South Vietnamese troops, because America abandoned South Vietnam, and so forth. None of these, however, is accepted as definitive.
I say to you now: We lost the war for two reasons: Because of the ill-conceived, unequal, and often condescending relationship between the United States and South Vietnam.
And because our overall strategy was defensive war, a strategy that by itself would have led to failure and eventual defeat.
And how did this happen, exactly? As someone born and raised during that war, one who participated in and led it, who has witnessed and shared in the sufferings of his country and of his people, I will attempt to present as objectively as I can the facts and observations that lead me to such a bold statement. Tonight, as difficult as it may be to face them, you will hear facts that you have not heard before, and I trust you will share my conclusions.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: 

After the 1954 Geneva international conference, Vietnam was divided into two parts. On paper, North and South Vietnam were twin countries born at the same moment. Compared to the sophisticated North, however, the government of South Vietnam was a very young and innocent sibling. To explain: Many years prior to the partition, through participation in a series of international conferences, and by pursuing a guerrilla war against a European power, the Hanoi leadership had demonstrated that they were a formidable political reality. 

Through leadership of the fight against French colonialism, Ho Chi Minh had made a name for himself in the international political arena. The Hanoi government took power with a record of resistance against the colonialists and of struggle for national independence.
Claiming to be the liberators of the people, the North Vietnamese enjoyed from the beginning the admiration and sympathy of the majority of the Third World’s non-aligned nations, which suffers from “oppressed peoples’ complex” and are naturally against such mighty and wealthy countries as France and the United States. 

Furthermore, the North Vietnamese had the full support of the two communist superpowers-the Soviet Union and Communist China-and this gave them absolute confidence in their final victory.
I would like to dwell a little on that support. We all know that without the massive assistance of the communist superpowers, North Vietnam could not have prolonged its war of invasion for so many years. But the Soviet Union and Communist China were very quiet about their aid. Indeed, during the entire war, no Soviet or Chinese official made any statement that sounded like instructions or smacked of interference in the internal affairs of North Vietnam. Quite the contrary.  North Vietnamese leaders were always pushed into the international limelight, presented as nationalists, as patriots, as fighters in a noble cause, seeking to overthrow colonialists and imperialists, and to liberate the oppressed people of Vietnam.
When they were later revealed as Marxist-Leninists, the Hanoi regime lost some sympathy around the world, but continued to benefit from lingering admiration. If they no longer had a just cause-the expulsion of a colonial power-they maintained the appearance of legitimacy because they had no significant political opposition. They had none, because they had taken great pains to eliminate it.
In the South, however, things were very different. South Vietnam had to be built from scratch and, from the very beginning, depended far too much on the Western superpowers. As in the case of a person on public welfare, this dependency, which became greater with each day, was quite difficult to shake.
During the Fifties, political and military activities in Vietnam were heavily influenced by the French, who as recent colonial masters, made all-important decisions. The French installed as the first head of state Bao Dai, last emperor of the Nguyen dynasty that ruled  Vietnam when it was under French domination. All the men selected to assist Bao Dai had a past that was closely linked with the French colonial era. They had no support among those they governed.
Only with the advent of Mr. Ngo Dinh Diem did South Vietnam have a worthy regime and a dignified leadership. It is regrettable that within a few short years, as power corrupts, the South Vietnamese regime deteriorated into a family dictatorship. But it was no match for the dictatorship of the communist party in the North. At a time when the French influence was fading and when the American presence was directly affecting even day-to-day decisions in South Vietnam, a stubborn radical nationalist like Mr. Diem was bound to be overthrown.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: 

The relationship between the US and South Vietnam never appeared to be a partnership between equals. Instead, our struggle for freedom and independence became “Mr. Johnson’s War.”
From its inception, South Vietnam was only considered to be an outpost in the war against communism. Our fight for freedom was a noble undertaking, but we committed a major political blunder because we did not give top priority to explaining to the American and Vietnamese people that this was not a civil war between the government and rebels in South Vietnam, but a blatant invasion of the country of South Vietnam by another country, a country called North Vietnam.
By the mid-sixties, the United States had poured more than half a million troops into South Vietnam.  Tens of billions of dollars had been spent for military expenditures and economic assistance, and even larger sums were earmarked. The American presence was felt in every field activity, at every level of government. Even the top leaders of South Vietnam, including the President, were each assigned a special advisor. The American presence and influence were strikingly blatant. So much so that the Vietnamese man in the street referred to the US Ambassador as the Governor General, as the French had called their top colonial official. 

The influence of the American media and politicians was even more devastating. Always emphasizing the role of the Americans in Vietnam, they transformed the Vietnam war into a conflict between the United States and North Vietnam, relegating the people, the government and the armed forces of South Vietnam to a subordinate role. This situation was further misrepresented by the propaganda machine of international communists. The government of South Vietnam thus became, in the eyes of the peoples of Vietnam and of the world, a puppet regime serving the interests of American imperialists.
Consequently, although our cause was just, we never acquired the appearance of legitimacy necessary to win the hearts and minds of the people, an essential ingredient of victory.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: 

We all know that in war the political and military factors have to complement each other.  This was particularly true in Vietnam. We were not only politically at a disadvantage, but we also committed a basic blunder in military strategy when we chose to fight a limited and defensive war.
The might of the US Air Force and US Navy was not used in lightning attacks to  force the enemy to his knees, as it was in Afghanistan and in the Gulf War. America did not unleash its vaunted Strategic Air Force or its massive Seventh Fleet to destroy enemy bases, to interdict their lines of supply on land and sea, to blockade enemy ports.
By fighting a limited, defensive war, America permitted the enemy to endlessly re-supply their field armies. American politicians were afraid that the Chinese might intervene and create another Korean war.  The US was and is the world’s leading naval power, but, fearing to offend the Soviets, failed to blockade Haiphong.  A river of munitions flowed through that port to be used against South Vietnam and its allies.
Long before America decided to quit the war, I realized that this would be the inevitable result of America’s lack of commitment to victory. I offered to lead a South Vietnamese attack on North Vietnam, which was defended by a single division of regular troops. All I required from the US was air support, and that US troops already in my country would defend population centers. My purpose was not to conquer, but to force Hanoi to withdraw its divisions from the South in order to defend the North, and thus to bring about genuine peace negotiations.
You and I may not be brilliant strategists, but we should all know that the best defense is a good offense. Moreover, even our defense was passive. So-called “Search and Destroy” operations were kept within our borders. Enemy territory was always a safe rear base. The enemy also used neighboring Laos and Cambodia to establish lines of communication, supply bases, recuperation centers for their troops. The enemy general staff had adopted a plan of action calling on them to always take the initiative. When their troops are strong, they would attack, but when they were tired and weak they would withdraw to their rear bases to rest, recuperate and regroup.
On our side, because the American people had waited too long without seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, they became impatient. They demanded glorious military victories, an impossible achievement in view of our totally defensive posture. Troop morale plunged because they were asked to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. In spite of the fact that they were beaten back and suffered great losses, the Tet offensive of 1968 was a major enemy victory.  Even though they lost on the battlefield, they accomplished an essential strategic objective by breaking the resolve of the U.S. government and American people, and giving maximum impetus to the anti-war movements.
The White House and the Pentagon directly conducted the war from thousands of miles away, issuing contradicting policies with ever- changing directives that created confusion in commanders at the front. The B-52 carpet bombings ordered by President Nixon toward the end came too late and were too short-lived. They served only to pressure the Communists to come to the Paris peace talks so that America could prepare for an honorable withdrawal from Vietnam.   After Watergate, America was a ship without a rudder. Vietnam was left to its own devices, drifting along towards its fate. The disintegration of April 1975 was an unavoidable conclusion. Our only regret and sorrow was that that ending was shameful and tragic. 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: 

Among the reasons apologies have advanced to explain the defeat was the corruption and the fighting capability of the troops in South Vietnam. Of course there was corruption in Vietnam. But please name one country, including the most democratic and the most advanced societies, where there is no corruption to take its toll. I recognize, however, that due to the war and poverty, the degree of corruption in South Vietnam was somewhat above the international average.  But allow me to open a parenthesis here and report that, since taking over the control of all Vietnam, the Communists have shown themselves quite adept at the game of corruption.
Concerning the will to fight of the South Vietnamese troops, if you take my military career as typical for most of the fighting men of South Vietnam, you will find that my achievements will compare favorably to those of any other military man in any other country.   I must say that the majority of my comrades-in-arms have the same spirit and the same fighting capability as I do. Look at the number of our soldiers killed in action. Consider the privations and the sacrifices of these South Vietnamese fighting men during 25 years of war, and you will have to recognize that they were our best and brightest. It’s too bad that they were not used and supported adequately, and that they were shamelessly abandoned.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: 

Some liberal intellectuals used to criticize the South Vietnamese regime as a military dictatorship. The century just past is one in which sheer force always ruled. Every economic or doctrinal difference had to be resolved by force. Military strength is necessary to protect sovereignty, the freedom and independence of a country. With the exception of those advanced countries that had a long democratic tradition and were lucky to live in peace and prosperity, all the poor, backward, war-torn countries of the Third World lived under the direct influence of the army.
South Vietnam was no exception. To insist that Vietnam fight a war while at the same time building democracy was impractical. Building democracy in the West, in England and then in the United States, took centuries of struggle. We Vietnamese could only begin to build democracy after achieving peace and independence. And even then, democracy could not be achieved overnight, but must be built in stages and in harmony with the cultural, social and economic traditions of each people. To accuse South Vietnam of not establishing a democratic regime and to use that as an excuse for abandoning South Vietnam was a blatant betrayal of a trusting ally that had put all his faith in the word of America.
In 1968, when the communist forces chose the Lunar New Year, known as Tet, to launch a coordinated attack against major South Vietnamese cities, beleaguered and outnumbered South Vietnamese defenders called upon neighboring US forces for fire support, for air support, for troop support. We Vietnamese were met with cryptic explanations that no aircraft or artillery were available, or that the unit had to wait for instructions from high headquarters. I could look out of my house at this time and see rows of US fighter-bombers parked in revetments. Why did our allies not come to our aid immediately? There can be only one explanation, and that is that someone, high in the US Government, anticipated this attack, and wanted it to succeed to the degree where South Vietnam would have to cede territory to the NLF, which, as history has shown, was merely an arm of the North Vietnamese invasion force.
Nevertheless, during the Paris Peace Talks US Ambassador Averill Harriman insisted that the NLF be seated at the negotiating table as an equal to South Vietnam and North Vietnam. He refused to listen to my government’s pleas.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: 

The idea of America – its freedom, its financial and educational opportunities, the lifestyle, wealth and beauty of the country and its people, remains the envy of the civilized world. In Vietnam today the sons and daughters of those who fought against American soldiers for two decades love everything American. Over the last few years, tens of thousands of American veterans have visited Vietnam and encountered a populace that welcomes and admires them. 

When President Bill Clinton visited Vietnam two years ago, Vietnamese from Hanoi in the north to Saigon in the south turned out in droves, eager for even a glimpse of him. Because whatever Vietnam’s leadership may have said in the past, the great masses of Vietnamese people, now numbering 83 million, are for America. The US represents a better life, opportunity, hope – everything that American and South Vietnamese soldiers fought to bring to our country so many years ago. The tremendous outpouring of affection for Mr. Clinton, no less than for all Americans, is proof that those who fought for freedom and democracy were on the right side.
Therefore I say today that the veterans of that lost war, Vietnamese and Americans, Australians and New Zealanders, Thais and South Koreans and all the others who supported our fight for freedom – we have no cause for shame. Thirty years of misrule prove conclusively that we who opposed the Communist regime were right!
So, let us each now put aside our feelings of guilt, the so-called “Vietnam War Syndrome,” and be proud of ourselves and our efforts.
The world has changed a lot in the last dozen years. The formerly Communist nations of Eastern Europe have renounced Marxist dogma and adopted free market principles in their national economies.  And the communist cadres who ran Vietnam for decades now sleep with their ancestors.  Ho Chi Minh is gone. Pham Van Dong is gone. Truong Chinh, Le Duan, Vo Chi Cong – all dead.
And so are the American leaders who fought them: Mr. Richard Nixon and Mr. Lyndon Johnson – both gone.   Of the leaders of the South, Ngo Dinh Diem is gone. Nguyen Van Thieu passed from this world. Duong Van Minh is gone. 

Only I remain. I am the last.
And I say that it is now time for the so-called anti-Communist Vietnamese, my generation, to let go of our pain and anger, to allow the younger generation, our sons and daughters, to have their chance to bring Vietnam together. It is time for my generation to stop preaching hate and bitterness.
Like most of the old Anti-Communists, I am a fighter. I fought hard, and I take pride in what I was able to accomplish during the war. 

I still mourn my brave comrades who died fighting for freedom. And so I understand how my brothers and sisters suffered under Communism. I know that they endured the agonies of the so-called re-education camps, that they lost loved ones, lost their personal liberty, lost their homes and property.  It was unjust. It was humiliating. It was painful.
But our time has passed. We are now too old; the future of Vietnam no longer depends on us. It is only right that the new generation find their path to the future without having to carry the heavy burdens created by their parents. So it is time for my generation to stop preaching hate and bitterness. What is the point in arguing now about who was right and who was wrong?
So I say today, let us older people put aside our own feelings of pain and anger. If we cannot forgive, then let us forget.  Let us allow the new generation to find its own way, because Vietnam will realize its potential only through unity.
Vietnam now approaches a crossroads. China seems to want to turn my country into an economic colony, a source of raw materials, a market for its manufactured goods. Should Vietnam turn toward China, source of much of its cultural heritage, or, by establishing an enduring partnership with America based on a new paradigm of mutual respect and shared interests, remain independent?
What most ordinary Vietnamese want is very clear from the friendly reception given to visiting Americans.
Now everyone knows that Vietnamese Communism is dead. The business of Vietnam is now business. My countrymen want to emulate South Korea and Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong. They want to turn Vietnam into the fifth Small Dragon.
This is not an easy task. Vietnam remains a largely agrarian nation that still needs to develop a modern infrastructure. The problem of corruption remains, though it appears that at long last the Hanoi government realizes what must be done to clean its house and reduces corruption to internationally accepted norms. I am confident that the transformation of Vietnam’s economy and institutions have already begun. 

Vietnam’s economic rebirth has already begun to encourage many exiles to return. There are more than three million of us, two-thirds in North America, and compared to the average Vietnamese we are better educated and have superior skills.
While some worry that the younger generation, those born in exile or who left Vietnam as small children, may not want to give up comparatively easy lives in the US, Canada, France and Australia, I believe that many will want to help develop the land of their fathers. I have crisscrossed America for years, meeting and spending time with this younger generation, telling them that they are important to the future of Vietnam, that the country needs their brains and their hard work. And I am happy to report that among those with whom I have spoken, many young Vietnamese, motivated by patriotism no less than personal ambition, will return to their homeland when they see ways to employ their skills. 

Americans who come to Vietnam to pursue business opportunities will find a much different situation than the soldiers who came during the war. They will not be big brothers come to help fight. They will be partners, contractors. Helping to bridge the inevitable misunderstandings between East and West will be the generation of Vietnamese born or educated in America.  In ten or fifteen years, most successful Vietnamese enterprises will be run by those who have learned American techniques and American thinking.
I am optimistic about the next generation of Vietnamese leaders. Now that the trade agreement is ratified, there has been a sharp increase in contacts between the two countries.  As Communist Party officials see more of America and meet more Americans,  I am confident that they will see the wisdom of moving Vietnam toward the West. I believe that they will soon change the economic rules that have limited Vietnam for decades.
Because political systems are built on a foundation of economic rules, changes in political rule will follow as state ownership gives way to private capitalism. The effects will ripple through every corner of society, including the courts and the legislature. Already, bright technocrats and entrepreneurs have begun to make the day-to-day decisions of government and business. Once Vietnam embraces capitalism, democracy and the rule of law will follow.
Communism in Vietnam lasted less than 50 years. When you consider that Vietnamese culture is thousands of years old, that half-century is really not much more than a temporary pause, the blink of an eye. If I am no longer a young man, my health is good and I expect to live many more years. And so I believe that with the help of America, I will live to see Vietnam reinvent itself.  I invite you to all to find ways to make that possible. 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: 

In conclusion, allow me to say that I am very happy to be here meeting with you. I was born and grew up during war. I have fought alongside American fighting men and women, and together with them I have shed blood, sweat and tears. I have been privileged to share many joys and sorrows with the remarkable men who were the leaders of your country. During my 27 years living in exile, I have worked years of 14-hour days in a liquor store, and I have been a fisherman who spent weeks at a time on the open sea to catch fish and shrimp. I have watched my children grow up and start their own families, and I have experienced enough ups and downs to last a lifetime.
My biggest consolation is that in what were at first alien surroundings, and under any circumstance, I have always been welcomed by Americans. You have accepted me and given me and my family 27 peaceful years in the wealthiest and most beautiful country in the world. Although I am determined to someday return to my homeland, and when my time comes, to return to the soil where my ancestors sleep, I accept America as my second home. I thank each of you for the abundance of kindness and courtesy that you and your countryman have extended.
And, on behalf of all Vietnamese, I thank the 58,000 Americans who so many years ago made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of my country’s liberty. I am equally grateful to the millions of others who risked life and limb for my country, who put aside careers and personal aspirations to come to the aid of desperate people that they did not even know. Thank you for your courage, your compassion, your many painful sacrifices. 

I am 72 years old now, an old soldier, and as Douglas MacArthur, one of your most celebrated generals, has said, “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.” In his fading years, this old soldier still yearns for Vietnam, the land of his ancestors. I offer the remaining years of my life to the service of my motherland and to my people without any ambition and without asking for anything in return. I am appealing to you and especially to my American comrades-in-arms, to try and build this bridge of friendship between our two countries. This love and hate affair has to end. Hate needs to be replaced with a new deep sympathy between our two people.
Thank you for your kind attention, and I will now take a few questions. 

THE END

Pages: 1 2

64 Phản hồi cho “Bài nói chuyện của Tướng Nguyễn Cao Kỳ tại Đại Học DeAnza, Cupertino, California”

  1. tê giác 1/57/3bb says:

    Ai nói gì thì nói , tôi vẫn tin lời của ngài cố tổng thổng Nguyễn văn Thiệu , ngài nói rất hay và chí lý vô cùng

  2. Timsuthat says:

    Trên căn bản những tuyên bố này của NCK, ngoài quan niệm về việc “hòa hợp hòa giải” (HHHG) với ĐCSVN, tôi hoàn toàn đồng ý với ông Kỳ. Nhật xét của ông về chiến tranh VN và những lý do căn bản tại sao VNCH không thể thắng là chính xác. Cảm phục ông về những nhận xét này và mong những người tìm hiểu lịch sử đọc được bài này.

    Tuy tôi vẫn cảm thấy hổ thẹn với cách cư xử của ông ta trong chính trường VN (và ngay cả đời tư) như một anh cao bồi – nhất là sau khi đọc về cuốn sách autobiography của ông chứng minh điều này – không xứng đáng tư cách của một lãnh tụ quốc gia, tôi vẫn cám ơn công nghiệp của ông trong thời chiến, chống CS giữ an ninh cho miền Nam VN được gần 20 năm tự do, và đã cố gắng sống sạch không tham nhũng, ít nhất theo căn bản người VN thời đó. (Đời sống tư của ông sau khi qua Mỹ thì miễn bàn trên forum này, vì đó là đời tư.)

    Việc ông về VN sau khi ông tuyên bố trong bài này để HHHG với ĐCSVN có nhiều khía cạnh đã hoàn toàn bất lợi cho ông:
    1. Ông đã đánh giá sai mục đích chính trị của ĐCSVN trong việc đón nhận ông về. Cái não trạng của ĐCSVN từ lâu nay còn rất xa sự hòa giải, và họ đón nhận ông không ngoài mục đích muốn thu tiếp khối HN vào hàng ngũ họ, phá tan nhóm chống cộng HN. Không có sự hòa hợp với ước mong của nhóm tị nạn, mà chỉ có củng cố quyền lực và ảnh hưởng của ĐCSVN. Tôi không nghĩ ông hoàn toàn ngây thơ về vấn đề này, nhưng ông coi thường sự quyết tâm của ĐCSVN.

    2. Ông hy vọng việc cộng tác kinh tế, giúp VN phát triển sẽ đưa đến thay đổi chính trị (một cách hòa bình), nhưng quả đó là một ảo tưởng, vì họ vẫn đặt niềm tin vào XHCN và chỉ họ có độc quyền vừa yêu nước vừa cai trị. Đó là mặt trận chính trị mà ĐCSVN sẽ chiến đấu đến cùng, dù phải hy sinh trong các lãnh vực khác. Như China và các chế độ độc tài khác, nắm quyền lực là cốt lõi với họ – họ sẽ sẵn sàng dùng đủ mọi thủ đoạn, bạo lực để ngăn chặn ảnh hưởng thay đổi chính trị. Các chế độ này có triển vọng trở thành “fascism” và gây tai họa cho thế giới (như Nazis Germany); chỉ khi dân nổi loạn đến mức xã hội xụp đổ, hoặc bị thua trong chiến tranh với ngoại bang họ mới thay đổi; không có diễn tiến hòa bình!

    3. Ông đã làm phần đông khối người HN mất đi tất cả những tôn trọng, tình cảm mà họ còn lại cho ông, dù không còn bao nhiêu. Với chỗ đứng trong lịch sử của ông, đáng nhẽ ông đừng làm thế thì hay hơn dù ông có ý tốt, mà hãy để những người khác làm thế ông. Nhất là những tuyên bố của ông coi thường những người chống cộng không thương lượng đã làm nhiều người cho là ông đã “sell-out”, chỉ lo tìm tư lợi. Vì ông đã già, tôi không nghĩ như thế, nhưng khi ông mất đi mà không thấy kết quả gì cho việc này, tôi nghĩ ông đã phí đi cả danh dự của ông. Có thể đây là một sự hy sinh, liều mình cuối đời của ông, nhưng chắc lịch sử sẽ chứng minh đây là sự hy sinh uổng phí vô nghĩa, ngay cả tính mạng của ông (dù đã già) – trừ khi ông đã là sứ giả mang tin tối mật mà HK muốn gửi cho các đảng viên lãnh đạo không có quan hệ mật thiết với Trung Quốc!

    Buồn cho ông!

  3. khach quan says:

    Bai noi chuyen rat hay. Quan diem rat ro rang. The he gia nua lien quan den cuoc chien cua hai mien Nam – Bac khong the nao ngoi lai dduoc voi nhau. The he tre sau nay se xich gan nhau hon de xay dung dat nuoc… Nhung cau noi nay rat chi ly,” neu khong tha thu duoc thi hay quen ddi”. va xin nhung ke cuc doan ” Hay ngung rao giang han thu cho gioi tre. ” Nhung ke cong kich ong Ky chang co ten nao noi dduoc loi le cua con nguoi giong nhu ong ta ca.

  4. Nguyễn Tuấn says:

    Tùy người sống thôi ! Mình nghĩ cái này là do gia đình. Tuy nhiên phủ cờ Mỹ thì lạm dụng phi lý và chứng tỏ họ chẳng hiểu gì cả !!! Phủ cờ VNCH thì họ sợ VC hoạnh họe thì họ hết đường làm ăn, vì tay đã lỡ dính chàm. Phủ cờ VC thì VC cũng không cho phép và nếu như thế thì quá muối mặt với cộng đồng tỵ nạn. Đáng lẽ ra không phủ cờ hoặc phủ cờ cấp tướng 2 sao là đúng hơn cả. Theo như diễn tiến thì đáng lẽ phải đưa Lui về VN mới phải, vì những lời Lui đã tuyên bố là ..dzìa… lại quê hương, tổ c..uốc, tổ cò thì Lui phải được chôn tại VN mới là ý nguyện ! Nhưng có lẽ VC không cho, vì chó chết là hết chuyện, VC không khai thác được cái gì nữa trên xác chết, nên chúng vắt chanh bỏ vỏ, thế thôi. Nếu mang xác Lui về, chính quyền VC không làm rình rang thì khó chứng minh là thực tâm hòa hợp, hòa giải. Mà làm rình rang thì là trực tiếp công nhận Cao Cầy ngang hàng đối thoại với chúng. VC KHÔNG BAO GIỜ CHẤP NHẬN NGƯỜI VIỆT QUỐC GIA bàn chuyện đại sự với chúng, vì như vậy là chúng GIÁN TIẾP thú nhận là chúng đã gian ngoan, lưu manh, bôi bác những người yêu nước để chiếm miền Nam, đối với chúng, những người dân miền Nam cầm súng chống lại chúng muôn đời là những kẻ bán nước, tội đồ. Phải coi hồi ký Võ long Triều mới hiểu được là Cao Cầy đã bị VC cho vào xiếc !! Moi đã gởi cái hồi ký này ra mà các Vous nhất định lười không chịu đọc thì làm sao mà hiểu được chuyện chính trị !!!!! Chán các Ngài quá, chỉ ngồi nhà học hỏi mà cũng không xong !!!!! Nên nhớ tin tức đầu tiên đưa ra thì Lui bịnh ở VN chữa không được, đưa qua Mã Lai, nhập viện, 1/2 tiếng sau thì chết. Bây giờ lại nói đang làm việc ở Mã Lai, phát bịnh và chết tại đó !! Nên nhớ bịnh về đường hô hấp không chết ngay như Stroke hay Heart Attack, mà phải diễn tiến từ từ, tuần lễ, 1/2 tháng phổi không làm việc, chứa nước, người ta rút nước ra, chích Steroid kích thích cho phổi làm việc cho bơm oxy vào. Khi nào 2 lá phổi hoàn toàn không làm việc, lúc đó mới chết ! Nếu đúng như vậy thì lúc Lui sắp chết. VC không cho hắn chết ở VN, sang Mã Lai mà chết và đem tro qua Mỹ mà …t…hờ !
    Một bài học cho các Vịt Cừu ..ngây thơ ( Ngu như Vịt, nhút nhát như Cừu ) ! học bao lần mà vẫn không thuộc bài. Để tụi Bắc Cộng nó ăn rồi ỉa trên đầu mà vẫn nhất định không hiểu và không biết !!!!!!!!
    (Đây là email trao đổi về thắc mắc của một ông bạn là theo hình ảnh đám tang thì tại sao gia đình lại phủ cờ Mỹ trên quan tài ông Kỳ !

  5. Nina says:

    Theo ý tôi, hận thù không đến từ phíá người Việt hải ngoại mà đến từ phía nhà cầm quyền CS Hà Nội. Ngay sau khi chiếm được miền Nam, họ đã khơi động, tạo ra hận thù bằng tập trung cải tạo, đốt sách, báo, bắt bỏ tù văn nghệ sỹ, cải tạo tư bản, mại sản, chế độ lý lic̣h với sinh viên, học sinh, với những người xin việc làm……
    Cho đến bây giờ vẫn còn ăn mừng chiến thắng rất hoành tráng, rầm rộ mỗi độ 30.4 về đáng lẽ ra họ phải xin, tôi nói xin nhé, người Việt hải ngoại tha thứ cho họ, cho cái đảng CSNVN. Từ hòa hợp hòa giải cũng đến từ phía Hà Nội mà.

  6. Minh Đức says:

    Trích ông Kỳ nói: “Tôi rất lạc quan về thế hệ lãnh đạo Việt Nam kế tiếp.”

    Ông Kỳ lạc quan về thế hệ trẻ lãnh đạo Việt Nam kế tiếp. Thế nhưng vụ Vinashin bị phá sản thì lại do những cán bộ đã từng điều hành các công ty quốc doanh lỗ lã. Các vụ cán bộ chiếm đất làm giàu, công an đánh dân chết, chính sách bịt miệng dân, lối hành xử không theo pháp luật, lối công an mạng rình mò tung tin sai lạc thì lại là do các đảng viên, cán bộ vẫn hành xử theo cách của thế hệ cũ.

    Còn thế hệ lãnh đạo Việt Nam kế tiếp thì ở đâu? Thế hệ lãnh đạo Việt Nam kế tiếp là những người như Lê Công Định, Trần Huỳnh Duy Thức, Nguyễn Văn Đài, Cù Huy Hà Vũ… những người muốn xây dựng một xã hội thật sự theo nguyên tắc pháp trị, chứ không phải chỉ nói mà không làm. Đáng lẽ ra, ông Kỳ phải có lời lên tiếng bênh vực sự tranh đấu của những người thuộc thế hệ kế tiếp đó, bênh vực những người vì tranh đấu cho một xã hội mới mà bị tù.

  7. Trung Kiên says:

    Theo ngu ý của tôi thì đây là bài phát biểu “dọn đường về VN” của ông Kỳ! Nhận định ở phần đầu của ông làm cho tôi cảm khái khi viết rằng;

    Nguời Pháp đưa ông Bảo Đại ra làm Quốc Trưởng, vị vua cuối cùng của Triều Nguyễn dưới thời bảo hộ Pháp. Tất cả nội các của ông Bảo Đại đều là những người có thời liên hệ với Pháp. Họ không được sự ủng hộ của quần chúng trong nuớc. Chỉ khi ông Ngô Đinh Diệm xuất hiện thì Nam Việt mới có một thể chế và lãnh đạo xứng đáng. Rất tiếc là sau vài năm ngắn ngủi, chính quyền Nam Việt Nam bị băng hoại vì sự áp dụng độc tài gia đình trị. Nhưng so với sự độc tài đảng trị của cộng sản Việt Nam thì sự độc tài ở Miền Nam không thể nào sánh bằng. Khi ảnh hưởng của Pháp bắt đầu mờ dần, sự xuất hiện của Mỹ đã trực tiếp ảnh hưởng hàng ngày vào những quyết định của Nam Việt Nam, thì một vị Tổng Thống có tinh thần quốc gia cấp tiến mà cứng đầu như ông Diệm bắt buộc phải bị lật đổ“.

    Bình luận; Ông Kỳ đã nói thẳng nói thật về toàn cảnh VN lúc đó, và trong phát biểu này ông đã tỏ ra “thương cảm” Tổng Thống Ngô Đình Diệm, một người VN, một vị Tổng Thống “cứng đầu” không chịu khuất phục trước sự trịch thượng của Mỹ nên đã bị lật đổ và sát hại, mà chính ông (Kỳ) cũng là một thành phần đã góp phần, nhúng tay vào máu ông Diệm!

    Trích bài chủ:…”Thưa các bạn,Bang giao giữa Mỹ và Nam Việt Nam chưa bao giờ thể hiện được bình đẳng trong sự hợp tác. Cuộc chiến trở thành “cuộc chiến tranh của Johnson” thay vì chúng ta chiến đấu cho tự do và độc lập. Từ quan niệm trên mà Nam Việt Nam chỉ được xem như là một tiền đồn để chống chủ nghĩa cộng sản“.

    Bình luận: Nhận định của ông Kỳ lý giải cho suy nghĩ của tôi ở trên. Nhưng theo thiển ý của tôi thì những lời lẽ của ông Kỳ đã làm nhiều người khó hiể và bất mãn (?):

    Tập đoàn cộng sản lãnh đạo ở Việt Nam đã qui tiên rồi: “Hồ Chí Minh đã mất, Phạm văn Đồng đã đi, Trường Chinh, Lê Duẩn, Võ Chí Công đã mất. Ngay cả những nhà lãnh đạo cuộc chiến chống họ như ông Richard Nixon và ông Lyndon Johnson đều đã mất. Những nhà lãnh đạo Miền Nam như ông Ngô Ðình Diệm đã qua đời. Ông Nguyễn văn Thiệu đã chết. Ông Dương văn Minh cũng đã chết. Riêng chỉ còn mình tôi. Tôi là người cuối cùng. Và tôi muốn nói rằng đây là lúc mà thế hệ của tôi gọi là “nguời Việt chống Cộng” hãy bỏ quên đau buồn và thù hận để nhường buớc cho thế hệ trẻ hơn, những con em của chúng ta, có cơ hội mang người Việt Nam xích lại với nhau. Đây là thời điểm mà thế hệ của tôi nên chấm dứt kêu gọi hận thù. (do Trung Kiên tô đậm)

    Bình luận: Ông Kỳ đã “cầm nhầm” quyền tuyên bố, đã đứng “nhầm vị trí”… khiến các “chiến sĩ” của ông và NVTN bất bình là phải!

    Người đã gây ra hận thù chia rẽ chính là csvn, lẽ ra ông Kỳ nên… chỉ đường vẽ lối cho lãnh đạo csvn và kêu gọi họ hãy “xin” nhân dân VN xoá bỏ hận thù để tạo sự ĐOÀN KẾT DÂN TỘC mới đúng “vị thuốc” cho con bịnh!

    Rất tiếc và rất đáng tiếc cho ông Kỳ!

    Tuy nhiên ông đã có cái nhìn “viễn kiến” rằng:..”Trung Hoa dường như muốn biến đất nước chúng ta thành một thuộc địa về kinh tế, một nguồn cung cấp tài nguyên, một thị truờng cho các hàng tiêu thụ. Việt Nam sẽ phải quay sang Trung Hoa vì đó là nguồn gốc của đa số di sản văn hóa hay là thiết lập một bang giao bền vững với Hoa Kỳ dựa trên mô thức của sự tương kính và hỗ tương quyền lợi kinh tế mà vẫn giữ được độc lập?“…

    Còn câu…”Bây giờ mọi nguời đã biết là nguời Cộng Sản Việt Nam đã chết” của ông chỉ là “lạc quan tếu”, vì rằng…cây “chết khô” mà chưa đổ thì bóng của nó vẫn còn đó!

  8. boo says:

    Ong Ky dau oc non not qua. Muon hoa hop hoa giai voi ke thu? Doi voi Cong san khong co van de hoa hop hoa giai. Du ong co cui lay chung mot ngan lan,Co dem tanh mang vo con ong ra the thot chung cung chang nghe dau.Ngay tho vua vua chu ong cu. Lanh tien gia va ngoi choi xoi nuoc di. Neu ong don duong cho vo cu va con gai ve Vietnam mo quan cafe hay quan pho thi moi nguoi con tin ong. Foget chuyen hoa giai di ong noi oi.Trong mat tuong khon nhung ma dai

  9. noname says:

    clear sceen

Leave a Reply to khach quan