Sen. John McCain diagnosed with brain cancer

[GMDino]

(07-24-2017, 09:15 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: John Belushi's character in "1941" (which was directed by Steven Spielberg, BTW)?

I thought it was Wolfman Jack.

[Dill]

(07-24-2017, 04:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to give you credit for the attempt, but there is a huge distinction between these two scenarios.  Vietnam was on the cusp of nationhood as we now know it.  It was not a country with an established history of self governance or sovereignty.  Unless you want to count their successive monarchies.  If you do then you're opening the door to arguing for their resumption after the overthrow of colonialism as the last legitimate sovereign government of Vietnam.

The United States was both a well established nation and had operated under the same form of government for close to a century.  Hence the South was the aggressor in the sense that they annexed United States territory in clear defiance of the well established government of the United States.

A quick note in response to these points. Vietnam was Annam before the French conquered in in the 19th century, along with rest of Indochina. And it was certainly self-governing. It was in fact the position of Bao Dai that he was the legitimate ruler of Vietnam as descendant of the Nguyen dynasty. But as a puppet leader of the French colonial state, he had no backers.

To the Confederates, the fact the the US was well established nation with the same form of gov. etc., hardly mattered, any more than the fact Great Britain was a well established nation when the colonies rebelled against it. The perceived grievances against state authority, along with "natural rights" to independence, dissolved legitimacy in their eyes. To the North, of course, the South was annexing US territory.  To the South, "US territory" was Virginia and Texas and South Carolina--their home states and first allegiance. I don't agree with that interpretation, so I reject the claims of northern aggression--even though the North plainly invaded the South as was the aggressor in their eyes. But the question of "aggression" in such cases is always and indissolubly linked to the question of legitimacy. One cannot separate them at all.

The legitimacy of countries like the Koreas and the Vietnams is not tied to how long they were countries. Rather it is tied to how the governments were formed after WWII and whom they represented. The DRV defeated the French, winning independence for Vietnam and the acclaim of the majority, but it agreed to a provisional partition so the French and their supporters could evacuate.  There was no other legitimate contender for statehood in 1954, only an agreement between them and the French, and then the UN for national elections. There was no State of Vietnam or Republic of South Vietnam, since the former was simply a French appendage and the latter non existent.

Diem's seizure of power, execution and imprisonment of thousands of opponents--especially the Vietminh who had liberated the country--was an act of aggression.  A rigged plebiscite in 1955 and his refusal to hold national elections supervised by the UN did not help his claims to legitimacy. The DRV had not the power to prevent Diem's takeover 1955, just as the US could not prevent the Confederate seizure of Ft Sumter in 1861.  When it could finally act, it did.

Ho Chi Minh saw the analogy between his defeat of the French and the US defeat of Great Britain during the Revolutionary War--colonies throwing off the yoke of colonization.  Do you find this analogy invalid?

The RVN, its army generaled by the very people who had fought the Vietiminh on the French side, certainly lacked the DRV's legitimacy to the mass of Vietnamese. Yet you see it as a legitimate government, or you would not be insisting the DRV was "clearly the aggressor" for continuing to unite Vietnam under one government controlled by no foreign powers, the goal of most Vietnamese. And you apparently don't see "clear aggression" in seizing power in a coup, killing and arresting opponents, and abrogating the French agreement to hold national elections. In your view, what is the source of the South's legitimacy? For whom did it exist? It would have fallen in '61 or '62 without US backing. Was it somehow legitimate without that backing?

[Dill]

(07-24-2017, 09:15 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: John Belushi's character in "1941" (which was directed by Steven Spielberg, BTW)?

Ha ha, no. That's Earthquake McGoon. Maybe that's not the best picture of him. I know you know who he was. He was an ex-US Airman who died ferrying supplies to the French at Dien Bien Phu. He was a colorful character who flew for the US during WWII then remained in Asia to ferry supplies to Chiang Kai Chek during the Chinese civil war.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/honors-war-pilot-lost-bureaucracy-article-1.249071

Here is painting of his final flight by Jeffrey Bass.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2017, 10:48 PM)Dill Wrote: But the question of "aggression" in such cases is always and indissolubly linked to the question of legitimacy. 

No doubt, but it's irrelevant for the simple fact that it's subjective.  Additionally, what is "legitimate" is often decided by the victor.  The poor kid who robs people at ATMs can believe his actions legitimate by dint of income disparity.  There are even some victims who would agree with him.  I, again, return to this; if you are the aggressor then you very likely have little to no legitimacy.  There are exceptions, but I'd cite US v. Iraq part two as an excellent example of the counter.  Iraq was headed by a vile government, it didn't make our aggression in that war valid.  
Hamas believes its suicide bombings in Israel to be legitimate, would you agree?

[Bengalzona]

(07-24-2017, 11:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No doubt, but it's irrelevant for the simple fact that it's subjective.  Additionally, what is "legitimate" is often decided by the victor.  The poor kid who robs people at ATMs can believe his actions legitimate by dint of income disparity.  There are even some victims who would agree with him.  I, again, return to this; if you are the aggressor then you very likely have little to no legitimacy.  There are exceptions, but I'd cite US v. Iraq part two as an excellent example of the counter.  Iraq was headed by a vile government, it didn't make our aggression in that war valid.  
Hamas believes its suicide bombings in Israel to be legitimate, would you agree?

Overall, true. But another thing to add to the equation is whether you won or not. Historically when you win, you often have the opportunity to 'rewrite' the narrative.

[Vas Deferens]

(07-24-2017, 11:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No doubt, but it's irrelevant for the simple fact that it's subjective.  Additionally, what is "legitimate" is often decided by the victor.  The poor kid who robs people at ATMs can believe his actions legitimate by dint of income disparity.  There are even some victims who would agree with him.  I, again, return to this; if you are the aggressor then you very likely have little to no legitimacy.  There are exceptions, but I'd cite US v. Iraq part two as an excellent example of the counter.  Iraq was headed by a vile government, it didn't make our aggression in that war valid.  
Hamas believes its suicide bombings in Israel to be legitimate, would you agree?

I don't think you would sit back and see your land taken, medical aid stopped and general civil liberties stripped.

Unfortunately money corrupts our system absolutely. There was a time when we would stick up for these poor people.

[Dill]

(07-24-2017, 11:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No doubt, but it's irrelevant for the simple fact that it's subjective.  Additionally, what is "legitimate" is often decided by the victor.  The poor kid who robs people at ATMs can believe his actions legitimate by dint of income disparity.  There are even some victims who would agree with him.  I, again, return to this; if you are the aggressor then you very likely have little to no legitimacy.  There are exceptions, but I'd cite US v. Iraq part two as an excellent example of the counter.  Iraq was headed by a vile government, it didn't make our aggression in that war valid.  
Hamas believes its suicide bombings in Israel to be legitimate, would you agree?

I don't agree with the specific tactic of suicide bombing, but I think Hamas has a right to defend itself. All displaced Palestinians do.

Certainly victors write history. But so do losers. The French recognized the DRV (as did most of the rest of the world) because they had little choice--especially while the Vietminh held thousands of French prisoners. The United States refused to recognize the DRV as the legitimate government of Vietnam for almost decade. Since 1955, in the official US military version of Vietnamese history, the RVN was a legitimate government; so the DRV was, of course, defined as the aggressor by definition. And it is only from this particular national/military perspective, shared to some degree by US allies in that war, that the DRV appears so. But it is a view that was much contested in the US even during the war. It was not until 1995 that relations between Vietnam and the US were normalized and the countries exchanged ambassadors.

As far as "subjective" goes--We need to recall the distinction between questions of fact and questions of value.  Whether or not one group uses violence against another is generally a question of fact. Did Diem imprison thousands of former Vietminh in 1956? Did the DRV send x number of divisions across the 38th parallel in 1973?  Those are questions of fact.  Was either the "aggressor" in so acting? That is a question of value, which we settle with reference to existing ethical-legal definitions, which structure international law. These definitions are only "subjective" to the degree that all law is. If you arrest your ATM thief and confiscate his money for the court, few define you as aggressor if you are a duly sworn officer upholding the law--so long as people see the law as something working for everyone and policemen as upholding it.

 As soon as you speak of the DRV as "the aggressor," you are applying an ethical-legal definition to its actions and presuming the legitimacy of the RVN. Everything turns on that last point. ONLY if the RVN is a legitimate government can the DRV be called and "aggressor" acting against a sovereign state and its people. That determination is not irrelevant. It is the essence and foundation of any claim the DRV was the aggressor.  And that determination is essentially a value judgment. It is made with reference to facts, which are then judged against criteria for legitimacy.

[Dill]

(07-24-2017, 04:10 PM)Bengalzona Wrote:  After the French agreed to leave Vietnam, we had made an agreement that there would be a national referendum. When we didn't like the reports we received about the "North" (namely that they were buddying with the Soviets and that they actually had a base of support in the "South") we postponed the election and eventually set up Diem with his own government in the South.

It was at that point, IMO, that things "went South" for the U.S. (pardon the pun). Diem was corrupt, nepotistic and represented only a small minority of the population in the South. He was despised by most of the people in the South because he lost battles against the Viet Cong and because of his governments' anti-Buddhist policies. Also, it is my understanding that even the U.S. supported the coup that overthrew him (i.e. we were fed up with him). But by that time (1963), the damage was done. The Viet Cong were entrenched in the South and the South Vietnam ship was sinking. We only kept it afloat for another decade.

(On a side note: As hated as Diem was, the population in the South still found him better than his predecessor, Bao Dai!)

As far as aggression, I think it is clear that the North were generally the aggressors. They were supplying and supporting the Viet Cong in the South (see 'Ho Chi Mihn Trail'). Their army made some incursions into the South. Although it should be noted that the International Control Commission in 1957 found that both sides were guilty of breaking the terms of the armistice. I think if the South had had a base of support like the Viet Cong in the North, they would have utilized it in the same way that the North did to them. Under that purely hypothetical situation, they would have been the aggressors.

The North felt justified in their aggression because they felt the U.S. and the South had reneged on the promise of a national referendum.

LOL, they didn't just "feel" that. Diem rigged a plebiscite (on CIA advice) to legitimate his rule, then flat out refused to hold the elections. The State of Vietnam, which Diem overthrew, was an extension of France, and so never signed the Geneva Accords in its own name. And Diem overthrew that government anyway. His government was the reconstituted Vietnamese military arm of the French colonial administration.

So here I have to disagree with my long-time forum buddy and dispute the legitimacy of Diem's government. Diem was arresting former Vietminh even before the coup. The CIA agreed that in a national referendum Ho would likely get 90%+ of the vote. So to save democracy in Vietnam the US had to destroy it.

When Diem came to power, people probably liked Bao Dai less, but by '59 that was unlikely. When I began looking into the Vietnam conflict (while we were still in Vietnam!) one of the things which struck me first and most was how different the South was from the North. There were large religious organizations like the Hoa Hao and Cao Dai which had their own armies of thousands, not to mention the Saigon mafia Binh Xuyen--in addition to the Buddhists. Suppressing those organizations created future Viet Cong. Like Trump, he drew family members into government, and went so far as to decree that the birthday of his brother, the archbishop of Vietnam, be celebrated in place of the Buddha's.  When a monk burned himself in protest, Diem's famous sister-in-law Madame Nhu (the dragon lady) sneeringly called it a barbecue.  That's how the upper class of landlords and civil servants viewed "the people." As civil unrest, riots, etc., increased, Diem (and the US military) systematically described all opposition as "Communist." 

I am guessing you remember or have read about all this. Here is a photo of the elegant Madam Nhu at target practice.

[Bengalzona]

(07-25-2017, 04:09 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL, they didn't just "feel" that. Diem rigged a plebiscite (on CIA advice) to legitimate his rule, then flat out refused to hold the elections. The State of Vietnam, which Diem overthrew, was an extension of France, and so never signed the Geneva Accords in its own name. And Diem overthrew that government anyway. His government was the reconstituted Vietnamese military arm of the French colonial administration.

So here I have to disagree with my long-time forum buddy and dispute the legitimacy of Diem's government. Diem was arresting former Vietminh even before the coup. The CIA agreed that in a national referendum Ho would likely get 90%+ of the vote. So to save democracy in Vietnam the US had to destroy it.

When Diem came to power, people probably liked Bao Dai less, but by '59 that was unlikely. When I began looking into the Vietnam conflict (while we were still in Vietnam!) one of the things which struck me first and most was how different the South was from the North. There were large religious organizations like the Hoa Hao and Cao Dai which had their own armies of thousands, not to mention the Saigon mafia Binh Xuyen--in addition to the Buddhists. Suppressing those organizations created future Viet Cong. Like Trump, he drew family members into government, and went so far as to decree that the birthday of his brother, the archbishop of Vietnam, be celebrated in place of the Buddha's.  When a monk burned himself in protest, Diem's famous sister-in-law Madame Nhu (the dragon lady) sneeringly called it a barbecue.  That's how the upper class of landlords and civil servants viewed "the people." As civil unrest, riots, etc., increased, Diem (and the US military) systematically described all opposition as "Communist." 

I am guessing you remember or have read about all this. Here is a photo of the elegant Madam Nhu at target practice.

I don't know that we disagree so much, buddy. The facts you just presented are pretty much accurate. Ho Chi Mihn would have been elected in a national referendum and we didn't want that because he was communist. Hence, we tried to create a new country and set up Diem in the South.

My belief is that that may have worked if the puppet leader we set up in the South would have been willing and able to assemble a governing coalition from the varied and disparate interests in the South. It is pure conjecture, of course, because Diem was not willing. In fact, he did the exact opposite. He tore the separate groups in the South apart making it far easier for the Viet Cong to infiltrate, influence and ultimately win. The question of legitimacy of the South is really a non-question. They were legitimate in the U.S. eyes (which counts for something), but they were never really legitimate among the masses distrusted their own government.

[CageTheBengal]

McCain had a great speech today about reaching across the aisle.

Kudos to him

[Dill]

(07-25-2017, 04:35 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: My belief is that that may have worked if the puppet leader we set up in the South would have been willing and able to assemble a governing coalition from the varied and disparate interests in the South. It is pure conjecture, of course, because Diem was not willing. In fact, he did the exact opposite. He tore the separate groups in the South apart making it far easier for the Viet Cong to infiltrate, influence and ultimately win. The question of legitimacy of the South is really a non-question. They were legitimate in the U.S. eyes (which counts for something), but they were never really legitimate among the masses distrusted their own government.

Agreed. Someone else might have cobbled together a government which was supported by the people. Though I am not sure where that someone could have come from.

The diversity of the South would have been difficult for anyone to manage, and while the Hoa Hao et al would have initially endorsed Ho, the Vietnamese George Washington, they would have eventually the conflicted with the DRV.  There is another point I forgot to add above. The Binh Xuyen gangsters functioned like a private army for Bao Dai, discreetly servicing his vice requirements and directly controlling the police force in Saigon. When the virtuous Diem came to power, he no longer required such services and used the military to destroy the Binh. So while he was guilty of nepotism and his relatives were pretty corrupt, he did clean up Saigon a bit, but in ways that disrupted a thriving economy of kickbacks and under-the-table payment.s

Diem was a strange mix of Confucian mandarin (he was one of the top civil servants in the French administration for decades) and Roman Catholicism. He was always praying bringing his family to church, and via policy furthering Catholicism at the expense of Buddhism. A "personalist," he imagined that if he created a public role of purity (he was probably celibate, never married) and virtue it would "trickle down" to the masses. That was at root a very SEAsian notion of a royal family with a leader at the center whose health radiated out to the rest of society.

When all these CIA types brought their polls and surveys to him, and reports of resistance to the feudal extractions of Delta landowners, and warned him not to unnecessarily antagonize Buddhists by canceling their holidays, he just waived them off and asked for helicopters and howitzers. It was Communists causing trouble. nothing more.

So it was a very difficult situation. On the one hand, Diem only had his Republic of Vietnam because the DRV defeated the French  (and his own ARVN with them, who had fought for the French). Everyone in Vietnam understood that. So to most he appeared beholden to the DRV for his "independence."  On the other hand, his support was from the Francophile Catholics who "collaborated" with the French, and landowners who knew they would lose their land under Ho.  Almost a million of this group had moved south in '54 and staunchly supported Diem. That was not inconsiderable support--they were mostly well educated and know how to manage property. But keeping them happy was exactly what angered 90% of the remaining population. E.g., wherever the Vietminh had controlled territory in the South before '54, they had abolished the practice of landowners extracting 25% of the grain profits from the peasants who worked their land. And for the most part, the landowners had gained ownership of their land from the peasants thanks to the French system of taxation, which the majority of the country thought foreign and unfair (and made them easy converts to Communism). Bao Dai left things as they were in '54, but when Diem took over he immediately restored the 25% "rent" which peasants had not been paying for years.  If you are already poor and paying the guy who took your daddy's land, that's gotta hurt.

Suppose now a different leader had emerged, one less tone deaf to non-Catholics and more interested in exploiting US political science to cobble together coalitions--would he have been able to keep Diem's base AND those they exploited?  I'm not sure that was possible.   Bao Dai let the religious groups keep their private armies, calling them officially members of the Army of the State of Vietnam. Perhaps doing that, courting the Buddhists, and talking land reform, buttressed with US investment in roads and farm equipment would have won over enough people. 

I know I am going on too long, but I'll risk one more point cuz I know you like military history. The US also handled Diem and successive regimes thereafter ineptly. They for the most part had little understanding of the complexity of Vietnamese politics, what drove resistance to Diem and what made Communism attractive to so many Vietnamese. The first half of the war, they only imagined upping firepower would produce results. By the time the US finally realized that the RVN had no chance without winning the hearts and minds of its population, it was largely too late, and impossible to take back all those arc bombings and agent orange.  There is an interesting book by Stuart Harrington called Silence Was a Weapon. He was an intelligence officer helping run Operation Phoenix in 70-71, and makes an interesting case for its belated effectiveness. As one of the few US soldiers actually fluent in Vietnamese, he was out in the hamlets speaking directly to peasants and captured Viet Cong to figure out what the war was about for them. Why did 19-year-old North Vietnamese walk south for months, living on a handful of rice a day, and refuse to retreat in battle while their ARVN counterparts took paychecks till they had to fight, then deserted and sold their weapons on the black market? He answers this question very well. I recommend the book for anyone interested in COIN issues, in fact.

[Bengalzona]

(07-25-2017, 08:35 PM)Dill Wrote: I know I am going on too long, but I'll risk one more point cuz I know you like military history. The US also handled Diem and successive regimes thereafter ineptly. They for the most part had little understanding of the complexity of Vietnamese politics, what drove resistance to Diem and what made Communism attractive to so many Vietnamese. The first half of the war, they only imagined upping firepower would produce results. By the time the US finally realized that the RVN had no chance without winning the hearts and minds of its population, it was largely too late, and impossible to take back all those arc bombings and agent orange.  There is an interesting book by Stuart Harrington called Silence Was a Weapon. He was an intelligence officer helping run Operation Phoenix in 70-71, and makes an interesting case for its belated effectiveness. As one of the few US soldiers actually fluent in Vietnamese, he was out in the hamlets speaking directly to peasants and captured Viet Cong to figure out what the war was about for them. Why did 19-year-old North Vietnamese walk south for months, living on a handful of rice a day, and refuse to retreat in battle while their ARVN counterparts took paychecks till they had to fight, then deserted and sold their weapons on the black market? He answers this question very well. I recommend the book for anyone interested in COIN issues, in fact.

That is sort of what happens when your handlers have no idea about the different types of communism. Also, they really didn't understand about the history of the people. Even powerful Chinese dynasties were not too interested in moving into the area because of the fierce resistance they faced. Unfortunately, their reputation was conveniently forgotten.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-25-2017, 08:19 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: McCain had a great speech today about reaching across the aisle.

Kudos to him

Yes he did. Good for him.

[ballsofsteel]

John McCain, finally an old white Republican in Congress with a set of nuts.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-24-2017, 05:01 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Politics are a bit twisted out here. We usually take the "cold, dead hand" side on the 2nd Amendment. Yet, even the most die-hard conservatives in the state will stand behind legislation to protect our beloved Saguaro Cacti (you don't even want to know the fines for damaging or even illegally moving one!).

It's a Western thing.

John McCain has always got that. That's why he is so well loved and respected out here.

But you can hit golf balls into them to your heart's content.  

[Bengalzona]

(08-02-2017, 02:25 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But you can hit golf balls into them to your heart's content.  

Just don't get caught by the Cacti Police doing it on purpose.


Plus, sometimes the Saguaros themselves get pissed: