Vietnam acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea in 1958

[Peter]

Who does not know? Brainwashed Chinese, that is who. If you cannot understand these legal documents to the point where you mistook an incidental archivist note for an element in the document, why should we take you seriously on anything else?

You're just trying to ignore the map that I provided about the 1954's 17th parallel in accordance with the Note. The Note is just a summary of that Accords and you couldn't refute that fact of 1954's 17th parallel so you are trying to divert the issue, isn't it?

It's understandable!

 

[Peter]

No...How dense are YOU? China was in Viet Nam long before the US was. So how 'legal' was that involvement and assistance to the North Vietnamese?

This is how dense you are ... China was there long before US helping Vietnam to fight for Independent from France. No legal aspect was bounded by that, that was the difference ... duh!

 

[gambit]

You're just trying to ignore the map that I provided about the 1954's 17th parallel in accordance with the Note. The Note is just a summary of that Accords and you couldn't refute that fact of 1954's 17th parallel so you are trying to divert the issue, isn't it?

It's understandable!

I have not ignored the map. I explained what its purpose was. I also explained its flexibility while Article 1 does not have the same flexibility. That is why the Agreement does not mention any specific demarcation line but only a guide. So when you jumped on the archivist note as somehow it was a crucial element of the document, you made an obvious fool out of yourself and that foolishness disqualified you from the Paracels and Spratly sovereignty issue due to inability to understand legal documents.

 

[gambit]

This is how dense you are ... China was there long before US helping Vietnam to fight for Independent from France. No legal aspect was bounded by that, that was the difference ... duh!

And therefore no legal aspect was bounded to US assistance to South Viet Nam. You can believe the Chinese propaganda that China helped Viet Nam in gaining independence from France but that does not made China's intrusion into Vietnamese affairs 'legal'. It is clear now that your interpretations of the words 'legal' and 'illegal' are quite flexible to suit Chinese propaganda needs.

 

[Peter]

I have not ignored the map. I explained what its purpose was. I also explained its flexibility while Article 1 does not have the same flexibility. That is why the Agreement does not mention any specific demarcation line but only a guide. So when you jumped on the archivist note as somehow it was a crucial element of the document, you made an obvious fool out of yourself and that foolishness disqualified you from the Paracels and Spratly sovereignty issue due to inability to understand legal documents.

If you have not ignored the map then what I wrote before:

It was the 1954 Geneva Accords (documents) written as such. So, if South Vietnam signed it then it meant South Vietnam agreed to those documents/terms (ex. partition by the 17th parallel line). However, South Vietnam did not sign and that was how Democratic nationwide elections mandated by the Geneva Conference of 1954 having been thwarted by Ngo Dinh Diem whom got aid from U.S.

just reflected appropriately what was happen. Instead, you wanted to bring out the provisional of demilitarized zone would be in the Article 1 of thr 1954 Geneva Accords. However, it is not necessary because we all know what and where the demilitarized zone at, right? 17th parallel. So I got straight to the point, unlike what you have said that I "jumped on the archivist note as somehow it was a crucial element of the document."

As I said, you have lied to us about: South Vietnam was given the sovereignty of the two archipelgos (Paracels & Spratly) when it did not agree/sign to the 1954 Geneva Accords. Furthermore, you just could not accept the fact that we, the U.S., have had used South Vietnam as a PAWN and gave it up for our National Interests. Therefore, your inability to understand common sense by far have dismissed you from defending for Vietnam's Paracels and Spratly sovereignty.

LIE and NOT ACCEPT the TRUTH will not be your best options to argue with me. I advise you to take a break - have a cup of coffee, my dear Gambit.

 

[Peter]

And therefore no legal aspect was bounded to US assistance to South Viet Nam. You can believe the Chinese propaganda that China helped Viet Nam in gaining independence from France but that does not made China's intrusion into Vietnamese affairs 'legal'. It is clear now that your interpretations of the words 'legal' and 'illegal' are quite flexible to suit Chinese propaganda needs.

Yes, there was legal aspect that South Vietnam had not agreed to the terms/documents from the 1954 Geneva Accords. U.S. had assisted South Vietnam to ignore the Accords, that was automatically put the two of them outlaw of what agreed and signed by France, North Vietnam and the related countries. To this date, unified Vietnam still looked at South Vietnam as "ngụy quân, ngụy quyền" - FALSE GOVERNMENT (US's puppet government) - never was in controlled of South Vietnam without U.S. assistance.

 

[gambit]

If you have not ignored the map then what I wrote before:



just reflected appropriately what was happen. Instead, you wanted to bring out the provisional of demilitarized zone would be in the Article 1 of thr 1954 Geneva Accords. However, it is not necessary because we all know what and where the demilitarized zone at, right? 17th parallel. So I got straight to the point, unlike what you have said that I "jumped on the archivist note as somehow it was a crucial element of the document."

As I said, you have lied to us about: South Vietnam was given the sovereignty of the two archipelgos (Paracels & Spratly) when it did not agree/sign to the 1954 Geneva Accords. Furthermore, you just could not accept the fact that we, the U.S., have had used South Vietnam as a PAWN and gave it up for our National Interests. Therefore, your inability to understand common sense by far have dismissed you from defending for Vietnam's Paracels and Spratly sovereignty.

LIE and NOT ACCEPT the TRUTH will not be your best options to argue with me. I advise you to take a break - have a cup of coffee, my dear Gambit.

So wrong, kid. I baited and hooked you like a fish. I wanted to expose your ignorance and incompetence at reading and understanding of legal documents and I succeeded. You are just like many other brainwashed Chinese out there who do not take the time to read and understand what they found on the Internet. You jumped on that paragraph without a clue of what it really mean: Nothing. You jumped on it because you thought you had something on me but in truth the only thing you are better than me is incompetence. On that I will yield to you.

 

[gambit]

Yes, there was legal aspect that South Vietnam had not agreed to the terms/documents from the 1954 Geneva Accords. U.S. had assisted South Vietnam to ignore the Accords, that was automatically put the two of them outlaw of what agreed and signed by France, North Vietnam and the related countries. To this date, unified Vietnam still looked at South Vietnam as "ngụy quân, ngụy quyền" - FALSE GOVERNMENT (US's puppet government) - never was in controlled of South Vietnam without U.S. assistance.

Here is more uncomfortable truth for the Chinese claim to the islands...

Vietnam POW Policy

The United States recognized the sovereignty of South Vietnam, as did some eighty-seven other nations. Indeed, South Vietnam is a member of several special committees of the United Nations, and would have been a member of the United Nations itself had it not been for a Soviet veto in 1957.

South Viet Nam's status as a sovereign state before 1975 is not for dispute. The last part of that sentence is significant because it was the Soviets who originally proposed that both Vietnams be admitted to the UN as full members. Equally significant is that the PRC was not admitted until 1971. So it was possible that South Viet Nam could have been a UN member before the PRC. North Viet Nam realized the political implications of this and appealed to the Soviets who then withdrew their support.

What this means is that even if South Viet Nam did not signed the 1954 Geneva Accords it was very much the legitimate assignee of the Paracels and Spratly islands per Article 14 by popular consent of its sovereignty.

I did told you that I am at least two steps ahead of you in this.

 

[Peter]

So wrong, kid. I baited and hooked you like a fish. I wanted to expose your ignorance and incompetence at reading and understanding of legal documents and I succeeded. You are just like many other brainwashed Chinese out there who do not take the time to read and understand what they found on the Internet. You jumped on that paragraph without a clue of what it really mean: Nothing. You jumped on it because you thought you had something on me but in truth the only thing you are better than me is incompetence. On that I will yield to you.

You're wrong. You have not baited and hooked anyone like a fish but you have demonstrated your inability to argue nothing instead of LIES and AFRAID of the TRUTH.

THE TRUTH:

* Vietnam was divided by the 17th parallel
* South Vietnam was not given the sovereignty of the two archipelgos (Paracels & Spratly)
* South Vietnam was a puppet government being manipulated by U.S. at the other end of a string

So SAD dude, for trying so hard

 

[gambit]

You're wrong. You have not baited and hooked anyone like a fish but you have demonstrated your inability to argue nothing instead of LIES and AFRAID of the TRUTH.

THE TRUTH:

* Vietnam was divided by the 17th parallel
* South Vietnam was not given the sovereignty of the two archipelgos (Paracels & Spratly)
* South Vietnam was a puppet government being manipulated by U.S. at the other end of a string

So SAD dude, for trying so hard

See post 458. Debunked.

 

[Peter]

Here is more uncomfortable truth for the Chinese claim to the islands...

Vietnam POW Policy

South Viet Nam's status as a sovereign state before 1975 is not for dispute.

Who are you trying to fool, huh Gambit!? Yourself, perhap ...

VIETNAM STUDIES
LAW AT WAR: VIETNAM 1964-1973


by
Major General George S. Prugh



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WASHINGTON, D.C., 1975

Have I not shown you how was the South Vietnam's government was? * South Vietnam was a puppet government being manipulated by U.S. at the other end of a string. Who wrote the "Vietnam Studies" that you have linked as hilarious truth? Spare the audiences with your childish defending tactic ...

The last part of that sentence is significant because it was the Soviets who originally proposed that both Vietnams be admitted to the UN as full members. Equally significant is that the PRC was not admitted until 1971. So it was possible that South Viet Nam could have been a UN member before the PRC. North Viet Nam realized the political implications of this and appealed to the Soviets who then withdrew their support.

Here is more uncomfortable truth for you, dear Gambit ...

Major General George S. Prugh was entitled to his personal opinion, just like you and everybody else here See, you can LIE and AFRAID of the TRUTH and your personal opinon is worthy of anything.

More fact in which I already pointed out for you already:

Member_states_of_the_United_Nations

to see when did Vietnam became a UN member.

Viet Nam - 20 September 1977

... not "So it was possible that South Viet Nam could have been a UN member before the PRC."

What this means is that even if South Viet Nam did not signed the 1954 Geneva Accords it was very much the legitimate assignee of the Paracels and Spratly islands per Article 14 by popular consent of its sovereignty.

South Vietnam did not sign, meaning South Vietnam had not agreed to any terms/documents - let alone Article 14 or any Article had any thing to do with SVN.

I did told you that I am at least two steps ahead of you in this.

Give it up, Gambit! You are going no where with your imagination "two steps ahead."

 

[Peter]

See post 458. Debunked.

See post 461. Debunked

 

[gambit]

Who are you trying to fool, huh Gambit!? Yourself, perhap ...



Have I not shown you how was the South Vietnam's government was? * South Vietnam was a puppet government being manipulated by U.S. at the other end of a string. Who wrote the "Vietnam Studies" that you have linked as hilarious truth? Spare the audiences with your childish defending tactic ...




Here is more uncomfortable truth for you, dear Gambit ...

Major General George S. Prugh was entitled to his personal opinion, just like you and everybody else here See, you can LIE and AFRAID of the TRUTH and your personal opinon is worthy of anything.

More fact in which I already pointed out for you already:



... not "So it was possible that South Viet Nam could have been a UN member before the PRC."




South Vietnam did not sign, meaning South Vietnam had not agreed to any terms/documents - let alone Article 14 or any Article had any thing to do with SVN.



Give it up, Gambit! You are going no where with your imagination "two steps ahead."

The laugh is still on you, kid.

STATISTICS OF VIETNAMESE GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

As a result of the 1954 Geneva Agreements that formally ended the Indochina War, Vietnam was officially split into North Vietnam and South Vietnam, all be it until Vietnam wide elections were to be held. As the possibility of these elections receded and both Hanoi and Saigon took on all the domestic and international functions of permanent governments, South Vietnam was also diplomatically recognized by a number of countries and carried out formal diplomatic interaction. Moreover, in the Paris Agreement of 1973 signed with the United States, North Vietnam officially recognized the sovereignty of South Vietnam. Thus North Vietnam's democide in South Vietnam is treated as foreign democide, not domestic.

So if North Viet Nam recognized South Viet Nam's sovereignty in 1973, that recognition at that time negate whatever arguments you may have about the 1954 non-signatory status for South Viet Nam. That recognition is why North Viet Nam did nothing in 1974 when China intruded into the islands...

Office of the Historian - Historical Documents - Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969

Adm. Moorer: A South Vietnamese patrol in the area observed some Chinese ships headed for the islands, went in, and put about seventy-five men ashore at Duncan Island. That’s one of the southern islands of the Crescent Group. They were engaged by two companies of Chinese troops. The South Vietnamese were forced to withdraw to the other nearby islands. Four South Vietnamese ships and some eleven Chinese ships then engaged in a battle at sea as the South Vietnamese troops withdrew. The place has been an area of tension for some time. The Chinese have been sending regular MIG patrols over almost every day.

Mr. Colby: The key to the whole area is the Paracels. There are two groups of islands, the Crescent Group in the south, and the Amphitrite Group in the north.

Secretary Kissinger: What has North Vietnam’s reaction been to all of this?

Mr. Colby: They’ve ignored it, said it’s below the 17th Parallel and thus doesn’t affect them. In general, they didn’t take a position, didn’t come out on either side.

So yes, you are still ignorant and incompetent in this debate.

 

[gambit]

Here is more uncomfortable truth for you, dear Gambit ...

Major General George S. Prugh was entitled to his personal opinion, just like you and everybody else here See, you can LIE and AFRAID of the TRUTH and your personal opinon is worthy of anything.

That was not an opinion. Prugh stating the number of countries that recognized South Viet Nam as a sovereign state was not an opinion. It was a fact. Not very smart, are you?

More fact in which I already pointed out for you already:



... not "So it was possible that South Viet Nam could have been a UN member before the PRC."

Definitely not very smart. The point was that even though South Viet Nam was never a UN member, the fact that both North and South Viet Nams could have been a UN member before the PRC was a significant factor on how to view this sovereignty issue.

The more you continue the more foolish you look, especially when evidences are planted right in front of you.

 

[Peter]

The laugh is still on you, kid.

Morelikely, you are the comedian of this show ...

Let's see, you are pulling another opinion from an author ...

STATISTICS OF VIETNAMESE GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Moreover, in the Paris Agreement of 1973 signed with the United States, North Vietnam officially recognized the sovereignty of South Vietnam.


So if North Viet Nam recognized South Viet Nam's sovereignty in 1973, that recognition at that time negate whatever arguments you may have about the 1954 non-signatory status for South Viet Nam. That recognition is why North Viet Nam did nothing in 1974 when China intruded into the islands...

Dude, we are talking about the 1956 letter of Pham Van Dong - way before 1973 - and the two largest islands Phu Lam (Woody Is.) and Linh Con from Paracel archipelgo were taken and controlledby China already in 1956 up until the present day. Also, have you read the 1973 Paris Peace Accords? Or just blindly quoted the author's words carelessly?

1973 Paris Peace Accords

Article 1

The United States and all other countries respect the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Viet-Nam as recognized by the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Viet-Nam.

What is that mean in red, you dense-dude? Recognize what?

Office of the Historian - Historical Documents - Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969

Mr. Colby: The key to the whole area is the Paracels. There are two groups of islands, the Crescent Group in the south, and the Amphitrite Group in the north.

Secretary Kissinger: What has North Vietnam’s reaction been to all of this?

Mr. Colby: They’ve ignored it, said it’s below the 17th Parallel and thus doesn’t affect them. In general, they didn’t take a position, didn’t come out on either side.

Did I not laugh at you for that info in one of the past posts?

Actually, NORTH VIET NAM ALREADY SIGNED OFF THOSE ISLAND TO CHINA - thus, it shown how ignorance of Secretary Kissinger for asking such a question: What has North Vietnam’s reaction been to all of this?. Private Gambit, show Secretary Kissinger the letter of PM Pham Van Dong.

So yes, you are still ignorant and incompetent in this debate.