Dai-Uy@hawaii.rr.com (Dai Uy) wrote in message news:<63323b03.0311071731.914a597@posting.google.com>...
> Cao_Ky@beer.com (Tran Cao Ky) wrote in message news:...
> > Dai-Uy@hawaii.rr.com (Dai Uy) wrote in message news:<63323b03.0311062046.5a78f201@posting.google.com>...
> One measure might be to consider refugee flow as an indicator of
> which side posed, and poses, the least threat to the average
> Vietnamese citizen.
There were about 800,000 refugees in 1954. I would not call those
800,000 refugees "average Vietnamese citizen" though and you know why.
Still that is the minority compared to the North Vietnam population at
the time. I understood that when Vietminh marched in to Hanoi in 1954,
the whole city erupted in celebration. Does this answer your question?

For the refugee flow the other way, why they need to move. The
agreement was to unify Vietnam after two years anyway and giving the
popular support of Vietminh by the AVERAGE VIETNAMESE, their winning
of the general election required by the Geneva agreement would be a
very sure thing in their minds.

> Where are you posting from, and why?
I know what you are coming from but I am not a refugee and actually is
thinking of moving back to Vietnam. Hope this answer your question.

> Does it still bother you? The answer is very apparent. If
> you'll be honest, and consider the questions above, it's very easy to
> arrive at that answer.
No, it does not. Looking at all available facts, I am very confident
where I stand on this issue.

Are we going through the same old tic-for-tac here? I have seen such
arguments and rebuttals many times before. Is there any new evidence
surfaced recently? If not, could we close this issue? Thank you.