Sen. John McCain diagnosed with brain cancer

[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.