Sen. John McCain diagnosed with brain cancer

[Millhouse]

(07-22-2017, 09:58 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: We feel pretty darn good about our judgement.

As you should. McCain is a great American. 

But I dont get why you would want to live in a desert though. 

[StLucieBengal]

(07-22-2017, 09:58 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: We feel pretty darn good about our judgement.

Well alright then.

[ballsofsteel]

(07-22-2017, 10:48 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: All this fawning over McCain is disgusting.   He is a war mongering democrat who should have retired ages ago.

Yeah brain cancer sucks and all that but that doesn't excuse his terrible governance.

When did he change parties?

[GMDino]

(07-22-2017, 08:07 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The good people of Arizona don't want her. That's why the state Senate is as far as she has ever gotten. You can have her, she's a dam nutcase.

What do you know?  You just live there.  You're not on the internet thousands of miles away with an opinion that you are sure is as right as every other opinion you've ever had! 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2017, 08:15 PM)Dill Wrote: Why was the North the invader?

Because the North was invading the South.  If you doubt me, kindly answer this question, how many battles in the Vietnam war took place in North Vietnam?

[Dill]

(07-23-2017, 10:28 PM)tSociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because the North was invading the South.  If you doubt me, kindly answer this question, how many battles in the Vietnam war took place in North Vietnam?

Dien Bien Phu (1954) comes to mind--the most important battle in the long war to free Vietnam of foreign control. Winning there enabled the Vietminh to leverage the French out of Indochina.

The Democratic Republic of Vietnam signed the Geneva Accords with France and the Peoples Republic of China shortly thereafter, drawing a PROVISIONAL border at the 17th parallel to allow the French and the remnant of their colonial government under Bao Dai to disengage from the Vietminh and begin the withdrawal. In 1956, per the Accords, a nationwide election, monitored by the UN, was to be held for a unified government--one Vietnam.

The French withdrawal was completed by 1955. Shortly thereafter, Bao Dai's prime minister, Ngo Dinh Diem, took over in a coup, declared the Republic of Vietnam, and in 1956 refused to hold elections.  The US, though it had previously agreed to the unification, promptly recognized the government of what they called "South Vietnam."

Outside of the Catholic, French-speaking minority which had administrated the colonial government for France, the people of Vietnam, North and South, did not recognize the Diem regime.  As Diem sought to impose control on the largely Buddhist population, protests, riots and armed resistance followed (as B-zona noted above). In 1959, the National Liberation Front was formed. The US began sending advisors, then larger contingents of troops, a whole Marine division in 1965, until, by 1968, 500,000 Americans were propping up the unstable, coup-plagued government.

As you say, there are different "opinions" about the war. If the views of the majority of the Vietnamese count, then the North Vietnamese were not "invaders," since they were fighting for their own country in their own country.  If anything, they were driving out invaders--the foreign soldiers propping up an RVN that did not have popular support. What people in the US call the Vietnam War was a civil war in which the people of both the North and South defeated a weak, illegitimate regime to accomplish what should have been settled in 1956.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-19-2017, 11:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Probably my biggest, within my lifetime, national regret, is that McCain didn't win the 2K GOP nomination.  I firmly believe we'd live in a much better world if that had happened.  Don't bother me with 2008 McCain, that GOP primary broke who he was a person and turned him into a guy solely focused on the objective, damning what it took to reach it.  McCain and Powell were the last two Republicans I had 100% respect for.

Any man who served in combat in Vietnam has my respect.

As anyone who reads these forums may know I'm pretty liberal, but he was one of the greats!  My heart goes out to him, hope things go well for him.


















1

[Vlad]

(07-22-2017, 08:07 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The good people of Arizona don't want her.

Then she should have won handily.

Oh wait, Arizona did go Trump.. lotsa good people in Arizona!

[Vlad]

(07-24-2017, 02:34 AM)Dill Wrote: Dien Bien Phu (1954) comes to mind--the most important battle in the long war to free Vietnam of foreign control. Winning there enabled the Vietminh to leverage the French out of Indochina.

The Democratic Republic of Vietnam signed the Geneva Accords with France and the Peoples Republic of China shortly thereafter, drawing a PROVISIONAL border at the 17th parallel to allow the French and the remnant of their colonial government under Bao Dai to disengage from the Vietminh and begin the withdrawal. In 1956, per the Accords, a nationwide election, monitored by the UN, was to be held for a unified government--one Vietnam.

The French withdrawal was completed by 1955, but in 1956, Bao Dai's prime minister, Ngo Dinh Diem, took over in a coup, declared the Republic of Vietnam, and refused to hold elections.  The US, though it had previously agreed to the unification, promptly recognized the government of what they called "South Vietnam."

Outside of the Catholic, French-speaking minority which had administrated the colonial government for France, the people of Vietnam, North and South, did not recognize the Diem regime.  As Diem sought to impose control on the largely Buddhist population, protests, riots and armed resistance followed (as B-zona noted above). In 1959, the National Liberation Front was formed. The US began sending advisors, then larger contingents of troops, a whole Marine division in 1965, until, by 1968, 500,000 Americans were propping up the unstable, coup-plagued government.

As you say, there are different "opinions" about the war. If the views of the majority of the Vietnamese count, then the North Vietnamese were not "invaders," since they were fighting for their own country in their own country.  If anything, they were driving out invaders--the foreign soldiers propping up an RVN that did not have popular support. What people in the US call the Vietnam War was a civil war in which the people of both the North and South defeated a weak, illegitimate regime to accomplish what should have been settled in 1956.

After all your research I'll give you partial credit here only because of SSF's word choice.
True, the North didn't actually "invade" the South. Rather the North Vietnam armies "infiltrated" the South beginning in 1964.

The word "invade" implies conducting an assault on another sovereign country in which South Vietnam was not.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/north-vietnamese-army-begins-infiltration

Although the war in Vietnam didn't transpire from the same set of circumstances, I've always likened that war to Americas Civil War.  Two regions of a nation at odds with each other.

South Vietnams Ngo Dinh Diem was the South's Jefferson Davis.
The Union army of the North infiltrated (invaded!) the Confederate South.

[Vlad]

McCain is a jackass, but even jackasses don't deserve cancer.

He and Lindsey Graham clearly the two most openly anti-Trump Republican establishment types.
How dare this crude speaking outsider Trump be allowed into our Republican establishment circle jerk.

This honorable man so desperate sent an aide overseas to dig up dirt on Trump.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4114716/Extraordinary-details-ordinary-citizen-John-McCain-actually-dispatched-trusted-aide-Atlantic-dirty-dossier-ex-spy.html

[Dill]

(07-24-2017, 09:24 AM)--Vlad Wrote: After all your research I'll give you partial credit here only because of SSF's word choice.
True, the North didn't actually "invade" the South. Rather the North Vietnam armies "infiltrated" the South beginning in 1964.

The word "invade" implies conducting an assault on another sovereign country in which South Vietnam was not.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/north-vietnamese-army-begins-infiltration

Although the war in Vietnam didn't transpire from the same set of circumstances, I've always likened that war to Americas Civil War.  Two regions of a nation at odds with each other.

South Vietnams Ngo Dinh Diem was the South's Jefferson Davis.
The Union army of the North infiltrated (invaded!) the Confederate South.

Vlad, glad to see you share my interest in history.

1. If you agree the North did not invade the South because they cannot invade their own country, then the same holds true for "infiltration."  I add that there were thousands of demobilized Vietminh in the South after 1954. When Diem refused the elections, they reactivated themselves subordinate to the DRV politburo, who considered them an arm of the Peoples Army of Vietnam.  They can hardly be thought to infiltrate the communities in which they'd lived their whole lives. Also many NVA regulars were also from the South.

2. I believe your History Channel link refers to the first units of NVA regulars sent south in force and in uniform. From 1959 on, and increasingly, the North sent advisors and equipment, hoping to constitute local, division-sized forces by 1964. Again, many of these folks were southerners who had gone north during the partition, per the Accords, and were now returning home.

3. I partially agree with your analogy to the American Civil War. One big difference, though, is that the majority of the Southern white population were behind their government. Not true for the Republic of Vietnam. Also, the Confederacy did not claim it was the government of the whole US, while the RVN did claim to be the government of the whole of Vietnam, North and South--however delusional that sounds in hindsight.

Hope this little excursion into history of the Vietnam War does not seem to off topic on a McCain thread. But the more you know about the war, the more you understand about McCain's career, not to mention US history-- a good thing in a country renowned for its historical amnesia.

*I confess to an error in my previous post. Diem's coup was in '55, not '56. Going back to change that now.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2017, 02:34 AM)Dill Wrote: Dien Bien Phu (1954) comes to mind--the most important battle in the long war to free Vietnam of foreign control. Winning there enabled the Vietminh to leverage the French out of Indochina.

The Democratic Republic of Vietnam signed the Geneva Accords with France and the Peoples Republic of China shortly thereafter, drawing a PROVISIONAL border at the 17th parallel to allow the French and the remnant of their colonial government under Bao Dai to disengage from the Vietminh and begin the withdrawal. In 1956, per the Accords, a nationwide election, monitored by the UN, was to be held for a unified government--one Vietnam.

The French withdrawal was completed by 1955. Shortly thereafter, Bao Dai's prime minister, Ngo Dinh Diem, took over in a coup, declared the Republic of Vietnam, and in 1956 refused to hold elections.  The US, though it had previously agreed to the unification, promptly recognized the government of what they called "South Vietnam."

Outside of the Catholic, French-speaking minority which had administrated the colonial government for France, the people of Vietnam, North and South, did not recognize the Diem regime.  As Diem sought to impose control on the largely Buddhist population, protests, riots and armed resistance followed (as B-zona noted above). In 1959, the National Liberation Front was formed. The US began sending advisors, then larger contingents of troops, a whole Marine division in 1965, until, by 1968, 500,000 Americans were propping up the unstable, coup-plagued government.

As you say, there are different "opinions" about the war. If the views of the majority of the Vietnamese count, then the North Vietnamese were not "invaders," since they were fighting for their own country in their own country.  If anything, they were driving out invaders--the foreign soldiers propping up an RVN that did not have popular support. What people in the US call the Vietnam War was a civil war in which the people of both the North and South defeated a weak, illegitimate regime to accomplish what should have been settled in 1956.

Dien Bien Phu occurred between North Vietnamese forces and French colonial forces.  While I understand your including it, it does not fall under the scope of American involvement in Vietnam.  As to the rest, you can argue how odious the South Vietnamese regime was, why it was propped up or the views of a supposed majority of Vietnamese (btw we have a very sizeable Vietnamese population here and they would take extreme issue with your characterization in this regard); the end result is that the North used military force, both conventional and guerilla, to forcibly occupy territory and overthrow the current government of South Vietnam.

Vlad actually makes a good comparison, it was, in many ways, a civil war.  However, none of that changes one simple, undeniable, fact; that the North was the clear aggressor in this war.  The rest is spin.  South Korean has a very credible claim to the territory of the North, it was stolen from them by the Soviets.  However, if they invaded North Korea tomorrow to reclaim that territory and overthrow the current government then they would be the aggressors.  North Vietnam was the aggressor, this cannot be credibly argued against.

[Dill]

(07-24-2017, 01:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dien Bien Phu occurred between North Vietnamese forces and French colonial forces.  While I understand your including it, it does not fall under the scope of American involvement in Vietnam.  As to the rest, you can argue how odious the South Vietnamese regime was, why it was propped up or the views of a supposed majority of Vietnamese (btw we have a very sizeable Vietnamese population here and they would take extreme issue with your characterization in this regard); the end result is that the North used military force, both conventional and guerilla, to forcibly occupy territory and overthrow the current government of South Vietnam.

Vlad actually makes a good comparison, it was, in many ways, a civil war.  However, none of that changes one simple, undeniable, fact; that the North was the clear aggressor in this war.  The rest is spin.  South Korean has a very credible claim to the territory of the North, it was stolen from them by the Soviets.  However, if they invaded North Korea tomorrow to reclaim that territory and overthrow the current government then they would be the aggressors.  North Vietnam was the aggressor, this cannot be credibly argued against.

I am a bit puzzled by your reading of the Korean situation. The US and the Soviets both occupied the Korean peninsula after WWII. Immediately after the war, the Americans drew the line between North and South for administrative purposes.  Two years later, the South then declared a government and the North followed suit. Each government had a roughly equal claim to legitimacy, each claim supported by an Allied victor of WWII.

The importance of Dien Bien Phu is that that victory legitimized the Vietminh and Ho Chi Minh as liberators of Vietnam and their DRV as the legitimate representative of the Vietnamese people. This was in the eyes of most of the rest of the world and the great majority of the Vietnamese.   No one "stole" the North from the South. The Vietnamese, represented by the Vietminh/DRV, took Vietnam, the whole of Vietnam, back from the French.

The State of South Vietnam was the colonial puppet government formed after the French reoccupied Vietnam post 1945.  As a French puppet, it did not have the support of the people and was not regarded as a player at the Geneva conference. It was effectively represented by France, so the players at the Geneva signing were France and the Vietminh/DRV, not the State of Vietnam. Diem's Republic of Vietnam (not "South Vietnam") was just an attempt to hijack and nationalize the puppet state under a new name after 1955. Its supporters would be rich landowners and Catholics--about 5% of the population, many of whom had fought with or otherwise worked for the French, who were hated by the majority.

To continue the Civil War analogy, if you think the South's secession was legitimate, then you see the US as "clearly the aggressor"--hence the "War of Northern Aggression" as it is still known in the South. If you don't think the secession was legitimate, then you don't think the US was the aggressor, clear or otherwise.

Same deal for Vietnam. "Clarity" when determining aggression depends upon legitimacy accorded the various actors in the war.

If you think 1) the DRV was the legitimate government of all Vietnam which had agreed to nation wide elections for a unified government to be held in 1956, and 2) that the upstart RVN which hijacked the South, abrogated that agreement to elections, and began actively persecuting and imprisoning former Vietminh, was not a legal government, then the DRV won't appear to be "clearly the aggressor" when it takes back its own territory from what amounts to a rebel government sustained wholly by a foreign power.

If you think the Republic of Vietnam was justified in refusing national elections and was the legitimate government/representative of the Vietnamese people--whether they supported it or not--then of course you think of the DRV as "the clear aggressor" and talk of the DRV's claim to the South mere "spin."

[Bengalzona]

(07-24-2017, 01:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dien Bien Phu occurred between North Vietnamese forces and French colonial forces.  While I understand your including it, it does not fall under the scope of American involvement in Vietnam.  As to the rest, you can argue how odious the South Vietnamese regime was, why it was propped up or the views of a supposed majority of Vietnamese (btw we have a very sizeable Vietnamese population here and they would take extreme issue with your characterization in this regard); the end result is that the North used military force, both conventional and guerilla, to forcibly occupy territory and overthrow the current government of South Vietnam.

Vlad actually makes a good comparison, it was, in many ways, a civil war.  However, none of that changes one simple, undeniable, fact; that the North was the clear aggressor in this war.  The rest is spin.  South Korean has a very credible claim to the territory of the North, it was stolen from them by the Soviets.  However, if they invaded North Korea tomorrow to reclaim that territory and overthrow the current government then they would be the aggressors.  North Vietnam was the aggressor, this cannot be credibly argued against.

I think it can be argued that Dien Bien Phu was the point where we officially chose to stick our necks into Vietnam. The Eisenhower admin brokered peace by threatening with nukes (back in the 50's, we weren't real shy about threatening to drop the bomb on those dam commies!). But even before that, we had provided some support for the French such as transport planes, etc. 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.

Our first ground battle in Vietnam 1965 (Ia Drang Valley) was against NVA regulars. They only made sporadic appearances in force on the battlefield after that. They wanted to test us out. A lot of the fighting was brutal small unit fighting, often against Viet Cong or a mix of NVA and VC. For the most part, the North was content in wearing down the South and U.S. resolve with a war of attrition (see 'George Washington vs England'). The real military invasion of the South wouldn't occur until 1975 as we left.  

I think it is correct to say that our soldiers and military didn't lose the war. It was lost through politics and by backing the wrong horse. If we had set up Someone other than Diem, this might have gone a whole lot different.

[Bengalzona]

(07-24-2017, 03:20 PM)Dill Wrote: I am a bit puzzled by your reading of the Korean situation. The US and the Soviets both occupied the Korean peninsula after WWII. Immediately after the war, the Americans drew the line between North and South for administrative purposes.  Two years later, the South then declared a government and the North followed suit. Each government had a roughly equal claim to legitimacy, each claim supported by an Allied victor of WWII.

The importance of Dien Bien Phu is that that victory legitimized the Vietminh and Ho Chi Minh as liberators of Vietnam and their DRV as the legitimate representative of the Vietnamese people. This was in the eyes of most of the rest of the world and the great majority of the Vietnamese.   No one "stole" the North from the South. The Vietnamese, represented by the Vietminh/DRV, took Vietnam, the whole of Vietnam, back from the French.

We sort of stepped in after Dien Bien Phu before Ho Chi Mihn had an opportunity to take the whole country. Hence, they weren't really the liberators of the "whole country". We did that on purpose because.... communists!!!! Dominoes!!! Argghhhh!!!!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2017, 03:20 PM)Dill Wrote: I am a bit puzzled by your reading of the Korean situation. The US and the Soviets both occupied the Korean peninsula after WWII. Immediately after the war, the Americans drew the line between North and South for administrative purposes.  Two years later, the South then declared a government and the North followed suit. Each government had a roughly equal claim to legitimacy, each claim supported by an Allied victor of WWII.

 I'd take issue with your assertion that the South was occupied by the United States, they were liberated by the United States.  This is an important distinction as Korea was not a belligerent in the war and the South was left to develop as its own nation.  This is evidenced by the fact that South Korea has, and had, complete autonomy from the US.  It would be fair to say that both superpowers used Korea as a buffer zone against the other.  What is equally true is that North Korea invaded the South, which would make them the aggressor, hence our, and the UN's, defense of South Korea.  Whether both governments once had equal claim to legitimacy I don't think any rational person would say that is still the case.  Yet, if the South invaded the North tomorrow they would be the aggressors.

Quote:The importance of Dien Bien Phu is that that victory legitimized the Vietminh and Ho Chi Minh as liberators of Vietnam and their DRV as the legitimate representative of the Vietnamese people. This was in the eyes of most of the rest of the world and the great majority of the Vietnamese.   No one "stole" the North from the South. The Vietnamese, represented by the Vietminh/DRV, took Vietnam, the whole of Vietnam, back from the French.

What about the Vietnamese who did not want to live under communism?  Would they have been given an opportunity to voice their dissent or carve out their own area to live?  The actions of the North after the war (reeducation camps anyone?) would seem to indicate that would be a foolish hope to have possessed.

Quote:The State of South Vietnam was the colonial puppet government formed after the French reoccupied Vietnam post 1945.  As a French puppet, it did not have the support of the people and was not regarded as a player at the Geneva conference. It was effectively represented by France, so the players at the Geneva signing were France and the Vietminh/DRV, not the State of Vietnam. Diem's Republic of Vietnam (not "South Vietnam") was just an attempt to hijack and nationalize the puppet state under a new name after 1955. Its supporters would be rich landowners and Catholics--about 5% of the population, many of whom had fought with or otherwise worked for the French, who were hated by the majority.

All of which I have essentially acknowledged.  Yet again, none of this detracts from the fact that the North subsequently used military force to conquer South Vietnam.  I ask again, who was the aggressor?  You can argue the legitimacy of their claim to governance all day.  You can throw numerous historical facts at this argument.  None of this will change the unalterable fact that the North was the clear aggressor in the Vietnam war.  Whether you think their aggression was justifiable, which I'm getting the impression you do, or not doesn't change the fact that they initiated armed conflict.

Quote:To continue the Civil War analogy, if you think the South's secession was legitimate, then you see the US as "clearly the aggressor"--hence the "War of Northern Aggression" as it is still known in the South. If you don't think the secession was legitimate, then you don't think the US was the aggressor, clear or otherwise.

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.

Your analogy would be closer to the mark if the North and the South of what became the United States formed separate countries and governments at the end of the revolution.  If then, at a later date the North decided to invade the South and remove their government and annex their lands the North would absolutely, without a doubt, be considered the aggressor.  This would almost be a direct parallel to the situation in Vietnam, a former colony gains independence and forms its own sovereign state.  Your issue is with the how and why of the founding of South Vietnam, which I get.  Regardless, this does not excuse the North's aggression nor does it in any way make them less of the belligerent in this conflict.  You can be 100% convinced you're in the right and still be the aggressor, such is the case here.

 

Quote:Same deal for Vietnam. "Clarity" when determining aggression depends upon legitimacy accorded the various actors in the war.

I essentially addressed this above.

Quote:If you think 1) the DRV was the legitimate government of all Vietnam which had agreed to nation wide elections for a unified government to be held in 1956, and 2) that the upstart RVN which hijacked the South, abrogated that agreement to elections, and began actively persecuting and imprisoning former Vietminh, was not a legal government, then the DRV won't appear to be "clearly the aggressor" when it takes back its own territory from what amounts to a rebel government sustained wholly by a foreign power.

You're arguing the same point here, which is the issue of legitimacy.  I'm not arguing any of these points, they are all conceded.  None of this changes the fact that the North was the armed aggressor in this conflict.  We get it, they saw themselves as legitimate unifiers of an unjustly fractured country.  "Just" aggression is still aggression and you cannot make a factual argument that the South attempted to usurp the North by force of arms. 

Quote:If you think the Republic of Vietnam was justified in refusing national elections and was the legitimate government/representative of the Vietnamese people--whether they supported it or not--then of course you think of the DRV as "the clear aggressor" and talk of the DRV's claim to the South mere "spin."

Again, arguing legitimacy is not in the cards for me.  I'll end by reiterating, justified aggression is still aggression.  If you think the likely hundreds of thousand of dead were justified by the North's need to be the sole government of a unified Vietnam then that's certainly your prerogative.  It sill wouldn't change the fact that they initiated armed conflict over the issue.

[Bengalzona]

(07-24-2017, 08:36 AM)Vlad Wrote: Then she should have won handily.

Oh wait, Arizona did go Trump.. lotsa good people in Arizona!

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.

[Dill]

(07-24-2017, 04:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I'd take issue with your assertion that the South was occupied by the United States, they were liberated by the United States.  This is an important distinction as Korea was not a belligerent in the war and the South was left to develop as its own nation.  This is evidenced by the fact that South Korea has, and had, complete autonomy from the US.  It would be fair to say that both superpowers used Korea as a buffer zone against the other.  What is equally true is that North Korea invaded the South, which would make them the aggressor, hence our, and the UN's, defense of South Korea.  Whether both governments once had equal claim to legitimacy I don't think any rational person would say that is still the case.  Yet, if the South invaded the North tomorrow they would be the aggressors.

Just a quick note on this side issue, cuz I like history. I don't disagree with your claim that if the South invaded the North it would be an "invasion." I just say that the formation of each state took a very different path from that of North and South Vietnam.

The Korean Peninsula was controlled by Japan in 1945, as it had been a "protectorate" of Japan since 1910. That is why it was not a belligerent during the war. It was the Soviets who defeated the Japanese land army in Manchukuo and occupied northern sections of the peninsula on the day Japan formally surrendered, in Sept. of '45. As it was pressure from the Soviet Union and the United States which forced the surrender of Japan, they equally "liberated" Korea.

A provisional government of Korea had been organized in China during the war, and with the surrender immediately went back to Korea where it appears to have had considerable support. But the US arrived in late September '45 to occupy the peninsula and disbanded it. In '46 the US put down a peasants rebellion too. So most Koreans at the time would not take issue with the claim that the US had occupied Korea. It set up a military government which was in control of Korean affairs for three years after the war, then threw support behind an anti-Communist authoritarian who had lived much of his life in the US. It is hard to say that the South was left to "develop as its own nation" any more than the North, at least up until 1956.

[Dill]

(07-24-2017, 04:10 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think it can be argued that Dien Bien Phu was the point where we officially chose to stick our necks into Vietnam. The Eisenhower admin brokered peace by threatening with nukes (back in the 50's, we weren't real shy about threatening to drop the bomb on those dam commies!). But even before that, we had provided some support for the French such as transport planes, etc.

Recognize this guy?

[Bengalzona]

(07-24-2017, 07:45 PM)Dill Wrote: Recognize this guy?

John Belushi's character in "1941" (which was directed by Steven Spielberg, BTW)?