Henry Kissinger, tên cáo già Do Thái, hèn nhát, gian xảo…
Kẻ đã bán đứng Việt Nam Cộng Hòa …cuối cùng đã nói, mới chỉ …một phần… sự thật….
Lại còn tán dương kẻ thù…không biết nhục..
Lâu lâu mở miệng nói, (nói thì ngồm ngào…trong họng …khó mà hiểu lảo già nói cái gì…) nói thúi hoắc...
Tại sao tên già lưu manh này sống lâu thế…
Bao giờ hắn mới đền tội…đã tiếp tay giết hại biết bao Quân, Dân, Cán Chính VNCH …
Tên già này chết sẽ không nhắm mắt…
Xin mời Quý Vị , Quý NT và CH xem phần góp ý và bài viết của A.P dưới đây…
BMH
Washington, D.C
============================
From: Minhha Pham
Sent: Fri 10/01/10 4:38 PM
To: Quoc Tran
From: Quoc Tran
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 10:31 AM
Subject: Cáo già Kissinger cuối cùng đã nói thật
Đọc bài viết bằng Anh Ngữ trên tờ Boston Herald, người VN chắc không khỏi cay mắt bùi ngùi. Cuối cùng, “người của Nobel Hòa Bình” đã chịu nói thật.
Nói thật rằng THẤT BẠI Ở VIỆT NAM LÀ DO CHÍNH NGƯỜI MỸ GÂY RA. Cái chết của ông Diệm, nổi oan ức của Thiếu úy Nghĩa (người bị cho là đã ra tay sát hại ông Diệm và Nhu) Tướng Dương Văn Minh, TT Nguyễn Văn Thiệu, Tướng Nguyễn Ngọc Loan bắn chết Bảy Lốp………..Tất cả rồi cũng ra ngoài ánh sáng. Phải do chính miệng đạo diễn công nhận thì mới có giá trị phải không?? Ừ chua chát quá. “American wanted Compromise. Hà Nội wanted Victory” Cả lang sói lẫn kên kên đều đã hưởng lợi trên xác chết của mẹ VN rồi đó. Có lẽ vì đó mà ngài Nixon còn xót thương chưa “cắt đầu” TT Thiệu như đã hăm dọa.
Sinh linh của bao nhiêu người dân và binh sĩ miền Nam đã chết không phải trong chiến cuộc mà sau cuộc chiến nữa. Nếu vong linh họ vẫn chưa đầu thai, không biết họ có biết được chuyện này!! Người Việt hải ngoại đòi đủ thứ hết nhưng chưa bao giờ đòi công đạo cho kẻ đã chết. Giờ này khi Trung Cộng lăm le, VC lại chuẩn bị sang đây lạy “đàn anh” một lần nữa !! Thượng đế hỡi có thấu cho Việt Nam này……………………..
Henry Kissinger : Vietnam failures ’we did to ourselves’
Kẻ đã bán đứng Việt Nam Cộng Hòa …cuối cùng đã nói, mới chỉ …một phần… sự thật….
Lại còn tán dương kẻ thù…không biết nhục..
Lâu lâu mở miệng nói, (nói thì ngồm ngào…trong họng …khó mà hiểu lảo già nói cái gì…) nói thúi hoắc...
Tại sao tên già lưu manh này sống lâu thế…
Bao giờ hắn mới đền tội…đã tiếp tay giết hại biết bao Quân, Dân, Cán Chính VNCH …
Tên già này chết sẽ không nhắm mắt…
Xin mời Quý Vị , Quý NT và CH xem phần góp ý và bài viết của A.P dưới đây…
BMH
Washington, D.C
============================
From: Minhha Pham
Sent: Fri 10/01/10 4:38 PM
To: Quoc Tran
From: Quoc Tran
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 10:31 AM
Subject: Cáo già Kissinger cuối cùng đã nói thật
Đọc bài viết bằng Anh Ngữ trên tờ Boston Herald, người VN chắc không khỏi cay mắt bùi ngùi. Cuối cùng, “người của Nobel Hòa Bình” đã chịu nói thật.
Nói thật rằng THẤT BẠI Ở VIỆT NAM LÀ DO CHÍNH NGƯỜI MỸ GÂY RA. Cái chết của ông Diệm, nổi oan ức của Thiếu úy Nghĩa (người bị cho là đã ra tay sát hại ông Diệm và Nhu) Tướng Dương Văn Minh, TT Nguyễn Văn Thiệu, Tướng Nguyễn Ngọc Loan bắn chết Bảy Lốp………..Tất cả rồi cũng ra ngoài ánh sáng. Phải do chính miệng đạo diễn công nhận thì mới có giá trị phải không?? Ừ chua chát quá. “American wanted Compromise. Hà Nội wanted Victory” Cả lang sói lẫn kên kên đều đã hưởng lợi trên xác chết của mẹ VN rồi đó. Có lẽ vì đó mà ngài Nixon còn xót thương chưa “cắt đầu” TT Thiệu như đã hăm dọa.
Sinh linh của bao nhiêu người dân và binh sĩ miền Nam đã chết không phải trong chiến cuộc mà sau cuộc chiến nữa. Nếu vong linh họ vẫn chưa đầu thai, không biết họ có biết được chuyện này!! Người Việt hải ngoại đòi đủ thứ hết nhưng chưa bao giờ đòi công đạo cho kẻ đã chết. Giờ này khi Trung Cộng lăm le, VC lại chuẩn bị sang đây lạy “đàn anh” một lần nữa !! Thượng đế hỡi có thấu cho Việt Nam này……………………..
Henry Kissinger : Vietnam failures ’we did to ourselves’
Kissinger & Lê Đức Thọ
By Associated Press
Thursday, September 30, 2010 - Updated 2 days ago
WASHINGTON — Henry Kissinger, who helped steer Vietnam policy during the war’s darkest years, said Wednesday he is convinced that "most of what went wrong in Vietnam we did to ourselves" — beginning with underestimating the tenacity of North Vietnamese leaders.
Offering a somber assessment of the conflict, which ended in 1975 with the humiliating fall of Saigon, Kissinger lamented the anguish that engulfed a generation of Americans as the war dragged on.
And he said the core problem for the U.S. was that its central objective of preserving an independent, viable South Vietnamese state was unachievable — and that the U.S. adversary was unbending.
"America wanted compromise," he said. "Hanoi wanted victory."
Kissinger spoke at a State Department conference on the history of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia. The department in recent months has published a series of reports, based on newly declassified documents, covering U.S. decision-making on Vietnam in the final years of the war.
Kissinger was national security adviser and secretary of state under President Richard M. Nixon and continued in the role of chief diplomat during the administration of President Gerald R. Ford.
In introducing Kissinger, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton — who opposed the war as a college student and has written that she held contradictory feelings about expressing her opposition — spoke in broad terms about how the conflict influenced her generation’s view of the world.
"Like everyone in those days, I had friends who enlisted — male friends who enlisted — were drafted, resisted, or became conscientious objectors; many long, painful, anguished conversations," she said. "And yet, the lessons of that era continue to inform the decisions we make."
Kissinger offered a more personal, extensive assessment of the war that killed more than 58,000 U.S. servicemen.
He said he regretted that what should have been straightforward disagreements over the U.S. approach to Vietnam became "transmuted into a moral issue — first about the moral adequacy of American foreign policy altogether and then into the moral adequacy of America."
"To me, the tragedy of the Vietnam war was not that there were disagreements — that was inevitable, given the complexity of the (conflict) — but that the faith of Americans in each other became destroyed in the process," he said.
He called himself "absolutely unreconstructed" on that point.
"I believe that most of what went wrong in Vietnam we did to ourselves," he said, adding, "I would have preferred another outcome — at least another outcome that was not so intimately related to the way that we tore ourselves apart."
In hindsight, Kissinger said, it is clear just how steadfast the North Vietnamese communists were in their goal of unification of the North and the South, having defeated their French colonial rulers in 1954.
Historians are coming to the same conclusion.
In his account of the conflict, "Vietnam: The History of an Unwinnable War, 1945-1975," military historian John Prados wrote, "The (North) had a well-defined goal — reunification of the country — and an absolute belief in its cause."
Kissinger credited his North Vietnamese adversary in the peace negotiations — Le Duc Tho — with skillfully and faithfully carrying out his government’s instructions to outmaneuver the Americans.
"He operated on us like a surgeon with a scalpel — with enormous skill," Kissinger said.
Washington and Hanoi signed a peace accord in January 1973, and Kissinger and Tho were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace prize that year for their role in the negotiation. Tho declined the award.
The peace accords provided a way out of Vietnam for the U.S., but it left South Vietnam vulnerable to a communist takeover.
"We knew it was a precarious agreement," Kissinger said, and that the conflict was not really over. But Washington also was convinced that the South Vietnamese could hold off the communists, barring an all-out invasion.
Kissinger joked that his long negotiating sessions with Tho took a heavy and lasting toll.
"I would look a lot better if I had never met him," he said.
A flavor of the negotiating difficulties is revealed in a newly declassified transcript of a meeting between Kissinger and Tho in Paris on May 21, 1973, in which they discussed problems implementing the peace accords.
"We have been meeting for only 45 minutes and already you have totally confused us," Kissinger told Tho.
To which Tho replied: "No, you are not confused yourself. You make the problem confused."
Tro ve dau trang
V. Discussion
ReplyDeleteLets plaintiff- appellant argues with the defendants. When they are governmental employees, they've had oaths. For them do not only realize for the national independence, for national interests and for valued justice but also respect the US Constitution that these sublime subjects are expressed by the America constitution, American independence and America justice. if in all of them did not perform perfectly, Americanism seems to be demagogy.
See: 44 U.S.C § 3507- May 22,1995 (52)
At some point in, the appellant was hardly earned for the six quarters in work in the US, but the lack of the four quarters. The appellant could entirely retire policy. But he was lacked the four quarters, the US did not count the six imprisoned years. In fact, the time of imprisoned war was serviced for a core of interests of the US, which is why the US did not count the six years of prisoner of war, he was exploited labor by modern slavery war. On the other hand, the labor merits of Bright Quang were entirely exploited by the Vietnam War. As we understand about humankind that no parents of the worldly who were born the child, let the child serviced war without compensates imprisoned benefit insurance.
See: 5 U.S.C. § 3579 -Nov. 5, 1990 (53)
The appellant, Bright Quang, was coming to the US in November, 22, 1993, the American government did not allow him enroll for studying because it told that the education did not like the job. When he studied full-time and did a dirty job in Goodwill Company Agency, he was earned the thirty -six dollars per month. He worked with many metal cases and criminal guys. But he tried to work because he thought and said, "Art is long lasting, but money's power looks like the wind and the cloud." As him hear for
_______________________________
52. He retired by 65 years when he was the six quarters. But the US did not count the six years of prisoner of war of the Vietnam War.
53. He was loaned by $ 12,763.00, but he could pay for more than $50,000.00. He was unable to repayment because their mental case was put on his head.
the defendant has declared and said, "The Vietnam War required us to emphasize the national interest rather than abstract principles. What President and I tried to do was unnatural and that is why we didn't make it." And therefore, the appellant has quotes, “No ancestors found a state, let foreign invader put on the market her to others foreign nation.,” For example, the Revolution took a toll on Jackson family. His family heard a cry for help from the nation, and then his family volunteered to save the nation. As a result, all three boys active service, One of Andrew’s older brothers, Hugh, died in 1779 after Battle of Steno Ferry, in South Carolina, and two years Andrew and his other brother Robert were taken prisoner for a few weeks in April of 1781. While the family members of President were captured by a British Officer, the British enemy ordered them to clean his boots. A family member of President refused and then the British Officer struck at them with his sword; Andrew's hand was cut to the bone.
In opinion that the appellant realizes oneself that he's stupid Vietnamese American artist, sculptor and writer which is why the defendant did not only rob his nation but also sell his Republic of Vietnam to communism. Let him come to the US. He makes modern slavery war. When he loans one, he must pay for profit's tenfold. At the meanwhile, he was loaned with highest profits let him re-earn his Bachelor in Art that is why he must not claim imprisoned Benefit Insurance of the Vietnam War. Meanwhile, the US Constitution is displaying for Federal Tort Claims Act: The US has respecting others independence when the US is accepted compensation 's injured war and imprisoned of war by its negligent duty and liability.
See: 28 USC 1346 - June 25, 1948 ( 54).
We together highly respect the US Congress and Constitution
ReplyDelete31/ Pages.14
1 U.S.C. § 113. July 30,1947
In his opinion that the justice of a super nation is highly expressed by the Constitution, but it did not perform perfectly, it is arrogant. Because the all of edition of laws and treaties; slip laws; Treaties and other international Acts series or the so-called is "Little and Brown" of the other foreign nations and the Defendant- the US were admissibility in evidences which is why between Republic of Vietnam and defendant-the US of edition of laws and treaties; slip laws; Treaties and other international Acts series; the Paris Peace Accords did not only perform at least but also were torn in all- and for example, the Paris peace Accords of International Treaty was torn by the defendant-the US. Why did the US Congress enact the laws when the defendant-the US did not respect them? Because of the Congress of a super nation did not look like a pirate group in which was undisciplined soldier. That is why, the US Congress has been enacting the laws in which were to be Constitutional Rights, the defendant-the US was all torn the laws of between Republic of Vietnam and the defendant-the US. What did whom respect the US Constitution? the See this law:
1 U.S. Code § 113 - “Little and Brown’s” edition of laws and treaties; slip laws; Treaties and Other International Acts Series; admissibility in evidence
· US Code
· Notes
· Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
The edition of the laws and treaties of the United States, published by Little and Brown, and the publications in slip or pamphlet form of the laws of the United States issued under the authority of the Archivist of the United States, and the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent evidence of the several public and private Acts of Congress, and of the treaties, international agreements other than treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof.
(July 30, 1947, ch. 388, 61 Stat. 636; Pub. L. 89–497, § 1, July 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 271; Pub. L. 98–497, title I, § 107(d), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2291.).
In my opinion that I do respect former President Obama, but I'm not believing him. Because his two terms, the Obama had invaded to Libya and killed Qaddafi when the US Constitution did not allow any the American president did this.
ReplyDeleteSecond, the Obama was supporting for Syria when the foreign Assistance Act did not have it.
Third, when traveling to Vietnamese communist regime, the Obama had declared and said, " Today does not have a super nation, it invades to a small nation." Ironically, the Obama has forgotten when his U.A. Army had been come to Vietnam for thirty years in the past, killed his partnership was Republic of Vietnam. In compare, we think about 911 terrorism, it attacked to our national America only one day and one time when our nation was destroying in Republic of Vietnam for the thirty years and selling the South Vietnam to communism, but our national America did not compensate any pennies for injuries and prisoners of war and wounded soldiers. Therefore, I have been proving for the Vietnam War case, which is:
31/ Pages.14
1 U.S.C. § 113. July 30,1947
In his opinion that the justice of a super nation is expressed by the Constitution, but it did not perform perfectly, it is arrogant. Because the all of edition of laws and treaties; slip laws; Treaties and other international Acts series or the so-called is "Little and Brown" of the other foreign nations and the Defendant- the US were admissibility in evidences which is why between Republic of Vietnam and defendant-the US of edition of laws and treaties; slip laws; Treaties and other international Acts series; the Paris Peace Accords did not only perform at least but also were torn in all- and for example, the Paris peace Accords of International Treaty was torn by the defendant-the US. Why did the US Congress enact the laws when the defendant-the US did not respect them? Because of the Congress of a super nation did not look like a pirate group in which was undisciplined soldier. That is why, the US Congress has been enacting the laws in which were to be Constitutional Rights, the defendant-the US was all torn the laws of between Republic of Vietnam and the defendant-the US. What did whom respect the US Constitution? the See this law:
1 U.S. Code § 113 - “Little and Brown’s” edition of laws and treaties; slip laws; Treaties and Other International Acts Series; admissibility in evidence
· US Code
· Notes
· Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
The edition of the laws and treaties of the United States, published by Little and Brown, and the publications in slip or pamphlet form of the laws of the United States issued under the authority of the Archivist of the United States, and the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent evidence of the several public and private Acts of Congress, and of the treaties, international agreements other than treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof.
(July 30, 1947, ch. 388, 61 Stat. 636; Pub. L. 89–497, § 1, July 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 271; Pub. L. 98–497, title I, § 107(d), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2291.
28 U.S. Code § 2677 - Compromise / Pages 24
ReplyDeleteThat's why, the appellant would like to petition the defendant-the US resolving for the Vietnam War case because each people on the world that who has own place for living as an American President who has quotes, " The world has many places, many dreams, and many roads, but in all of there's no place like home." Which is why the defendant- the US has chosen the Republic of Vietnam in order to played war game and then did not only tear the Paris Peace Accords in order to sell the appellant to communism let the defendant-the US protected a core of interests. Especially, the appellant did not only lose fatherland but also mistreated in his second mother of the American without benefits of imprisoned benefits Insurance, during the US Congress has been approved for prisoners of war. Therefore, the appellant must seek the America justice without animosity and hates . If the defendant - the US should compromise for the appellant that is a best chance, when, the appellant has was accepted the United States of America to be his second mother of American already. However, the human dignity of the appellant is high more than everything in his life . Because the life of the appellant, yet, has his ancestors, ex-fatherland and his offspring again, he can not nod his face in shameful forever. Therefore, the defendant-the Us and the appellant should compromise compensation, which is a good way of the petitions.
28 U.S. Code § 2677 - Compromise / Pages 24
· US Code
· Notes
· Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
The Attorney General or his designee may arbitrate, compromise, or settle any claim cognizable under section 1346(b) of this title, after the commencement of an action thereon.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 984; Pub. L. 89–506, § 3, July 18, 1966, 80 Stat. 307.)
28 U.S.C. § 1346- the US as Defendant ( Federal Tort Claims Act )
ReplyDeleteProved clearly for the case of the appellant, he is entirely performing exact the bills, because of, ironical, the powerful is in the theory of complications - in fact, when the US as the defendant already which is why the local courts do not stand behind their government, but they always created difficulties with the plaintiff. Perhaps, they seemed not believe to their government when the local courts decide an important case, but without results. For example, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b)(2) - during, the statute above did not allow any plaintiffs who carry out any civil laws to against the Government, but this sections have reminding for the plaintiff by civil active laws in the use. In the meantime, the criminal doubts of the government has been waiting for judge, if the plaintiff does not carry out any civil laws - so, somehow the court understand about to criminal doubts exactly. Therefore, the appellant would like to make available for the more exact laws. Let's understand about it.