Vietnam acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea in 1958

[gambit]

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

Correct...Am exposing your ignorance and incompetence at debates.

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

You need to prove how his facts are incorrect. Are you saying that his mention of the 1973 Paris Accords is a lie?

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?

Yes. Have you? Heck...Am willing to bet that you did not know about it.

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

Yes, it talked about Viet Nam. Not North Viet Nam. Not South Viet Nam. But simply Viet Nam. What it means is that the Paris Accords demand that everyone recognized a country called 'Viet Nam'.

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

Your cackling was more to cover up your ignorance and incompetence at debates.

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.

Wrong...It is still only a baseless assumption that the 1958 Phạm Văn Đồng letter 'signed' anything away to China.

I have provided far more sources to support my arguments than you have for yours. So yes, you are still ignorant and incompetent in this debate.

 

[Peter]

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?

I thought people grow older, they get wiser - but you get a Budweiser instead and too much of drinking that dull your mind dude?

* South Vietnam and U.S. did not sign the 1954 Geneva Accords
* U.S. aided South Vietnam to be her puppet government

* "The United States recognized the sovereignty of South Vietnam," - US Major General George S. Prugh - no ..duh!!!
* "as did some eighty-seven other nations" - US Major General George S. Prugh - why not hundred-and-three or more ?

Who is doing the counting and confirming anyway? It was a fact or a made-up. Who's care ... Not very smart, are you?

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.

First of all, it's your opinion - not fact!
Secondly, there is fact that you have to avoid like:

Member_states_of_the_United_Nations

to see when did Vietnam became a UN member. Vietnam became a member:

Viet Nam - 20 September 1977

You think you are smart but you're not with FACTS, dear Gambit!

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

As I have told you: LIE and NOT ACCEPT the TRUTH will not be your best options to argue with me. Move along, kiddo

 

[Peter]

Correct...Am exposing your ignorance and incompetence at debates.

That is not an excuse to blame others for your LIE and NOT ACCEPT the TRUTH characteristics!

You need to prove how his facts are incorrect. Are you saying that his mention of the 1973 Paris Accords is a lie?

Dude, could you read or your reading comprehension is having trouble again? What did I say? - "Let's see, you are pulling another opinion from an author ..."

Yes. Have you? Heck...Am willing to bet that you did not know about it.

If you did read the 1973 Paris Peace Accords then you must know what is meant in red:

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.

1973 Paris Peace Accords reminded of the 1954 Geneva Accords to have Vietnam partitioned in two zones. It was not about just simply Vietnam. It was about North Vietnam and South Vietnam; otherwise, there was no need to reminded of recognized by the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Viet-Nam.

1973 Paris Peace Accords just simply stated: The United States and all other countries respect the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Viet-Nam . (period)

Instead of blah blah ... on the 1954 Geneva Accords subject.

You can fool yourself, dear Gambit but you can not fool others - especially ME!

Yes, it talked about Viet Nam. Not North Viet Nam. Not South Viet Nam. But simply Viet Nam. What it means is that the Paris Accords demand that everyone recognized a country called 'Viet Nam'.

Liar liar pants on fire

Your covering-up was so clumsy as to hide your ignorance and incompetence at debates unsuccessfully. Game Over. Try again, better next time!?

Wrong...It is still only a baseless assumption that the 1958 Phạm Văn Đồng letter 'signed' anything away to China.

Dude, only North Vietnam signed the 1954 Geneva Accords while South Vietnam did not and refused its independent from France. South Vietnam then depended on U.S. to setup a FALSE GOVERNMENT (US's puppet government) - never was in controlled of South Vietnam without U.S. assistance. History has shown what has happended to South Vietnam in 1975. We all know, Gambit so spare us the LIES!

I have provided far more sources to support my arguments than you have for yours. So yes, you are still ignorant and incompetent in this debate.

Useless sources that you provided only to dig yourself a deeper hole kiddo!

 

[gambit]

I thought people grow older, they get wiser - but you get a Budweiser instead and too much of drinking that dull your mind dude?

From your pathetic performance so far, looks like you should take some of that Budweiser.

* South Vietnam and U.S. did not sign the 1954 Geneva Accords
* U.S. aided South Vietnam to be her puppet government

Fine, then North Viet Nam was the Soviets' and China's puppet.

* "The United States recognized the sovereignty of South Vietnam," - US Major General George S. Prugh - no ..duh!!!
* "as did some eighty-seven other nations" - US Major General George S. Prugh - why not hundred-and-three or more ?

Hey, buddy...The PRC was voted into the UN with only 2/3 of the membership. Why not all? The point here was that South Viet Nam's status as a sovereign state was incontestable and Prugh's pointing out the fact that a major global power, the US, and over eighty other sovereign nation-states, approved that status made it incontestable.

Did anyone challenged China's status as a sovereignty despite NOT being a UN member and despite having two parties declaring themselves legitimate representative of China? No. Despite those two facts, NO ONE declared China a 'non-state'. Repeat -- NO ONE CHALLENGED CHINA'S STATUS AS A SOVEREIGNTY. So what make you think you have any credible arguments as to why South Viet Nam was not a sovereignty? Zilch, you have no credible arguments.

Who is doing the counting and confirming anyway? It was a fact or a made-up. Who's care ... Not very smart, are you?

Made up fact? Care to provide sources on that?

First of all, it's your opinion - not fact!

No, it was not an opinion. It was a fact that the Soviets vetoed South Viet Nam's UN membership. They cannot veto unless it was proposed in the first place. Does not matter who proposed it. Only that it was proposed. So BOTH North and South Viet Nams were proposed to be UN full members. The fact that they were vetoed does not negate the truth that they could have been UN members before the PRC was accepted as representative for China. So no, what I said was not an opinion. I did not say that South Viet Nam WAS a UN member. I said that South Viet Nam 'could have'. That is 'could have'. Do you understand what those words mean?

As I have told you: LIE and NOT ACCEPT the TRUTH will not be your best options to argue with me. Move along, kiddo

Not only have successfully argued with you, I destroyed you with your own ignorance and incompetence.

- You tried to disqualify South Viet Nam as a sovereign state when the PRC itself was not even accepted as China's representative, therefore we could argue that the PRC's claim to the islands is questionable at best.

- You did not know that South Viet Nam's status as a sovereignty was accepted and respected by over eighty nation-states REGARDLESS of the 1954 Geneva Accords.

- You did not know that in 1973, North Viet Nam signed the Paris Peace Accords and that included a concession that South Viet Nam was a sovereign state.

- You did not know that after 1973, North Viet Nam acknowledged that it was South Viet Nam's responsibility to defend the islands against Chinese intrusion.

- Not one -- NOT ONE -- Chinese have provided anything more substantive than that 1958 Phạm Văn Đồng letter that was so vague that it is being disputed today, whereas Viet Nam can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there has been 300 years of recorded administrative presence by various Vietnamese regimes, independent and under colonial protection, upon the islands.

So here is the final judgement of your debate, based upon your ignorance as outlined above, and of China's claim on the Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa islands...

 

[gambit]

Dude, only North Vietnam signed the 1954 Geneva Accords while South Vietnam did not and refused its independent from France. South Vietnam then depended on U.S. to setup a FALSE GOVERNMENT (US's puppet government) - never was in controlled of South Vietnam without U.S. assistance. History has shown what has happended to South Vietnam in 1975. We all know, Gambit so spare us the LIES!

Kid, whoever is advising you in this debate: Fire him. Because there is not one legal scholar in international affairs will support that argument.

 

[Peter]

From your pathetic performance so far, looks like you should take some of that Budweiser.

It doesn't help you much by having your pathetic performance so far to lable on me like that, dear Gambit! I know you have tried your best to outwit me, but failed ... again. hihihi...

Fine, then North Viet Nam was the Soviets' and China's puppet.

Wrong .. dude! North Vietnam used Soviet and China's assistances to unify Vietnam as a whole and they succeeded, not like the US's puppet (South Vietnam). The goal is completed that what made the difference - if you're still .... duh, about it. hehehehe...

Hey, buddy...The PRC was voted into the UN with only 2/3 of the membership. Why not all? The point here was that South Viet Nam's status as a sovereign state was incontestable and Prugh's pointing out the fact that a major global power, the US, and over eighty other sovereign nation-states, approved that status made it incontestable.

Who cares if 2/3 or 3/3 of the membership from UN? UN is just another puppet organization set up by the super power countries whom control it for their politcal purposes. If you are too naive not to know that then it is your problem.

However, face the fact Gambit, South Vietnam was nothing if without the assistance of the U.S. South Vietnam was never be able to control her (what you lied about) sovereignty state once U.S. left Vietnam. Too much of what is called sovereignty state huh, poor Gambit! Therefore, whatever the US guy, Prugh's pointing out the fact that a major global power, the US, and over eighty other sovereign nation-states, approved that status made it fabricated lie. That's all. Facts dude, prove it!

Did anyone challenged China's status as a sovereignty despite NOT being a UN member and despite having two parties declaring themselves legitimate representative of China? No. Despite those two facts, NO ONE declared China a 'non-state'. Repeat -- NO ONE CHALLENGED CHINA'S STATUS AS A SOVEREIGNTY. So what make you think you have any credible arguments as to why South Viet Nam was not a sovereignty? Zilch, you have no credible arguments.

Did China care at the time? Do you think if the World or the United Nations care? Of course, NO ONE CHALLENGED CHINA'S STATUS AS A SOVEREIGNTY because no one can strip off her sovereignty. As far as Taiwan is concerned, Taiwan is going to be just like South Vietnam back then. Without US assistance, sovereignty is a laughing stock

Made up fact? Care to provide sources on that?

Dude, don't try to pass the buck when you are the one who quoted some US guy's data. You have the responsibilty to prove it man... "as did some eighty-seven other nations" hehehe.

You LIE and AFRAID of the TRUTH, and now even try to CHEAT!? Sad, very sad ....

No, it was not an opinion. It was a fact that the Soviets vetoed South Viet Nam's UN membership. They cannot veto unless it was proposed in the first place. Does not matter who proposed it. Only that it was proposed.

No, it does matter for who has had proposed South Vietnam (have no sovereignty) to the UN's membership? If it was from US then the answer is clear ... a puppet government would get a veto from Soviet was appropriate ...

So BOTH North and South Viet Nams were proposed to be UN full members.

You still have not answer who proposed South Vietnam to be UN member, and yet stated your opinion such as BOTH North and South Viet Nams were proposed huh, Gambit? Who proposed North Vietnam then?

The fact that they were vetoed does not negate the truth that they could have been UN members before the PRC was accepted as representative for China. So no, what I said was not an opinion. I did not say that South Viet Nam WAS a UN member. I said that South Viet Nam 'could have'. That is 'could have'. Do you understand what those words mean?

Dude, your LYING become a HABIT now ... or was it naturally!?

Read what you have said:

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

Was that an opinion or fact when South Vietnam was not even a UN member and will never be?

In fact, Vietnam as a whole became a UN member and recorded as of September 20th, 1977.

Member_states_of_the_United_Nations

Viet Nam - 20 September 1977

And you went on further to express your opinion as such that

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.

Strange wasn't it!? It was the Soviets who originally proposed that both Vietnams be admitted to the UN as full members - and yet - Soviets vetoed South Vietnam according to Prugh's ???

Not only have successfully argued with you, I destroyed you with your own ignorance and incompetence.

Realities are not for you to judge. Members here are not blind, deaf or mute

However, if keep thinking like that makes you happier and to boost your self-esteem up; why not - keep thinking - so that you have the strength to keep the argument with me .... hehehehee...

- You tried to disqualify South Viet Nam as a sovereign state when the PRC itself was not even accepted as China's representative, therefore we could argue that the PRC's claim to the islands is questionable at best.

It is like this:

- You LIED about South Vietnam was not given the sovereignty of the two archipelgos (Paracels & Spratly); when South Vietnam was not even agree to the 1954 Geneva Accords.

- You LIED about South Viet Nam's status as a sovereign state before 1975 is not for dispute; fact - never was in controlled of South Vietnam without U.S. assistance as history has shown.

- You AFRAID to ACCEPT the TRUTH that 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; yet, blah blah about China PRC's claim to the islands is questionable.

SAD! SAD! SAD!

- You did not know that South Viet Nam's status as a sovereignty was accepted and respected by over eighty nation-states REGARDLESS of the 1954 Geneva Accords.

You LIED and have not PROVEN who are those over eighty nation-states was accepted and respected sovereignty of South Vietnam according to Prugh's.

You also LIED about the Soviets who originally proposed that both Vietnams be admitted to the UN as full members - and yet - Soviets vetoed South Vietnam according to Prugh's ???

- You did not know that in 1973, North Viet Nam signed the Paris Peace Accords and that included a concession that South Viet Nam was a sovereign state.

- If South Vietnam was a sovereign state then why did it has two parties were fighting for it while awaiting for democratic general elections under international supervision, according to 1973 Paris Peace Accords?

- You did not know that after 1973, North Viet Nam acknowledged that it was South Viet Nam's responsibility to defend the islands against Chinese intrusion.

You need to provide fact, not from ureliable websites or books. Fact like, the 1958 Letter of PM Pham Van Dong already acknowledged those islands were China's etc ... Logically, if South Vietnam want to fight with China for those islands then defend them if South Vietnam could.

- Not one -- NOT ONE -- Chinese have provided anything more substantive than that 1958 Phạm Văn Đồng letter that was so vague that it is being disputed today, whereas Viet Nam can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there has been 300 years of recorded administrative presence by various Vietnamese regimes, independent and under colonial protection, upon the islands.

In history of the two archipelgos Paracel and Spratly:

* China had claimed those islands in the 19th and early 20th century
* Japan had claimed those islands during World War II
* In 1947, China produced map with 9 undefined dotted lines, and claimed all of the islands within those lines.

Had North or/and South Vietnam ever spoken up or protested against China? - Not one -- NOT ONE


* In 1956, two largest islands Phu Lam (Woody Is.) and Linh Con from Paracel archipelgo were taken and controlledby China already up until the present day
* In 1958 Declaration, China restated her claims of those islands
* In 1974, more chain of islands of the Paracels were controlled by China
* In 1988, Johnson South Reef Skirmish (Hải chiến Trường Sa 1988) belong to China along with other islets

So here is the final judgement of your debate, based upon your ignorance as outlined above, and of China's claim on the Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa islands...

Realities spoke for themselves, childish Gambit

 

[Peter]

Kid, whoever is advising you in this debate: Fire him. Because there is not one legal scholar in international affairs will support that argument.

Fire him or you are on fire huh dear Gambit?

Apparently, you might find some US soldiers however whom would not support that argument ...

 

[gambit]

Wrong .. dude! North Vietnam used Soviet and China's assistances to unify Vietnam as a whole and they succeeded, not like the US's puppet (South Vietnam). The goal is completed that what made the difference - if you're still .... duh, about it. hehehehe...

Puppets do not change what they are despite whatever goals accomplished. If China did not aid the Viet Minh, they would have been wiped out by other non-communist Vietnamese nationalists at the end of WW II. So when the Soviets entered the conflict, that made North Viet Nam very much as much a puppet as you try to portray South Viet Nam.

Who cares if 2/3 or 3/3 of the membership from UN? UN is just another puppet organization set up by the super power countries whom control it for their politcal purposes. If you are too naive not to know that then it is your problem.

YOU cared. It was YOU who made the number of approval states an issue back on post 467. Now you found out that only 2/3 of the UN approved the PRC's membership you are trying to dismiss the issue.

However, face the fact Gambit, South Vietnam was nothing if without the assistance of the U.S. South Vietnam was never be able to control her (what you lied about) sovereignty state once U.S. left Vietnam. Too much of what is called sovereignty state huh, poor Gambit! Therefore, whatever the US guy, Prugh's pointing out the fact that a major global power, the US, and over eighty other sovereign nation-states, approved that status made it fabricated lie. That's all. Facts dude, prove it!

So was North Viet Nam without the assistance of the Soviets and China: Nothing. Another fact you are ignorant about: American ground combat troops left Viet Nam in 1973 in accordance with the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. Chinese ground troops never did. The only active US military branch in South Viet Nam was the USAF. South Viet Nam defeated North Viet Nam in several major battles. So if you want to use assistance as a disqualifier, then make it applicable to North Viet Nam as well. But of course you are intellectually dishonest so we should not expect too much from you.

Did China care at the time? Do you think if the World or the United Nations care? Of course, NO ONE CHALLENGED CHINA'S STATUS AS A SOVEREIGNTY because no one can strip off her sovereignty. As far as Taiwan is concerned, Taiwan is going to be just like South Vietnam back then. Without US assistance, sovereignty is a laughing stock

Then why should we care about your argument that South Viet Nam was not a sovereign state? You are not a very effective debater. You cannot keep track of your own argument, let alone any logic contain therein.

Dude, don't try to pass the buck when you are the one who quoted some US guy's data. You have the responsibilty to prove it man... "as did some eighty-seven other nations" hehehe.

That is not some guy's data. That was the truth. And you cannot dispute it.

You still have not answer who proposed South Vietnam to be UN member, and yet stated your opinion such as BOTH North and South Viet Nams were proposed huh, Gambit? Who proposed North Vietnam then?

It was the Soviets who proposed BOTH sides to be UN members.

Was that an opinion or fact when South Vietnam was not even a UN member and will never be?

You are confused between being a sovereign state versus being a UN member. A country does not need the latter to be accepted as the former. I guess the philosophical and politcal distinctions are too difficult to grasp.

In fact, Vietnam as a whole became a UN member and recorded as of September 20th, 1977.

I was talking about South Viet Nam. Not Viet Nam. You are utterly incompetent at debates.

Strange wasn't it!? It was the Soviets who originally proposed that both Vietnams be admitted to the UN as full members - and yet - Soviets vetoed South Vietnam according to Prugh's ???

What is strange is your inability to keep track of the debate. In post 458 I explained why.

Realities are not for you to judge. Members here are not blind, deaf or mute

Yes, they can see that I have exposed your ignorance of relevant facts many times over. That is the reality.

It is like this:

- You LIED about South Vietnam was not given the sovereignty of the two archipelgos (Paracels & Spratly); when South Vietnam was not even agree to the 1954 Geneva Accords.

Then we can say that the PRC's claim to the islands are illegitimate because the PRC was never accepted by the UN as representative for China. You lose.

- You LIED about South Viet Nam's status as a sovereign state before 1975 is not for dispute; fact - never was in controlled of South Vietnam without U.S. assistance as history has shown.

The fact that the US repeatedly bombed North Viet Nam proved that North Viet Nam was never in controlled of its territory, therefore, we can use your own argument to say that North Viet Nam was never a sovereign state and could not give away the islands to China as you claimed. You lose again.

- You AFRAID to ACCEPT the TRUTH that 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; yet, blah blah about China PRC's claim to the islands is questionable.

Since the PRC was never accepted by the UN as representative for China, we can say that this constitute theft. You lose again.

SAD! SAD! SAD!

Yes, it is sad for you.

- If South Vietnam was a sovereign state then why did it has two parties were fighting for it while awaiting for democratic general elections under international supervision, according to 1973 Paris Peace Accords?

Why were there two parties fighting for China? By your own argument, if we disqualify South Viet Nam as a sovereign state, we must disqualify North Viet Nam and China as well. You lose again.

You need to provide fact, not from ureliable websites or books.

And what make your crap any more reliable? Because YOU are Chinese?

Fact like, the 1958 Letter of PM Pham Van Dong already acknowledged those islands were China's etc ...

That is not a fact. That is an interpretation. The question remain: If it was a fact, then why nothing to support China's claim from North Viet Nam in 1974 and today? Now that is a fact.

Logically, if South Vietnam want to fight with China for those islands then defend them if South Vietnam could.

Yes...To defend against theft.

In history of the two archipelgos Paracel and Spratly:

* China had claimed those islands in the 19th and early 20th century

Claim alone does not make a proof.

* Japan had claimed those islands during World War II

Then Japan gave them up.

* In 1947, China produced map with 9 undefined dotted lines, and claimed all of the islands within those lines.

That is funny and revealing of your illogical thinking. Dotted lines are not proofs. I can make any maps with dotted lines with China under US jurisdiction as well.

You have been spectacularly debunked.

 

[gambit]

Fire him or you are on fire huh dear Gambit?

Apparently, you might find some US soldiers however whom would not support that argument ...

Show everyone a credible legal source that says because South Viet Nam did not signed the 1954 Geneva Accords, therefore only North Viet Nam was independent from France. Keep in mind that France left anyway so even if that can be legally argued, the fact that France effectively abandoned a territory, South Viet Nam became a sovereign state by virtue of abandonment. I can see that this is way over your head.

 

[Peter]

Show everyone a credible legal source that says because South Viet Nam did not signed the 1954 Geneva Accords, therefore only North Viet Nam was independent from France. Keep in mind that France left anyway so even if that can be legally argued, the fact that France effectively abandoned a territory, South Viet Nam became a sovereign state by virtue of abandonment. I can see that this is way over your head.

What is over your head was that you dare not faced the TRUTH, Gambit!

South Viet Nam became a sovereign state by virtue of abandonment from France only to replace by the United States. When the U.S. effectively abandoned South Vietnam no more Republic of Vietnam (US's Puppet Government) - Gone - Done

You dare to talk about South Vietnam being a sovereign state without shame! SAD!

 

[gambit]

What is over your head was that you dare not faced the TRUTH, Gambit!

Like I said, this subject is clearly over your head.

South Viet Nam became a sovereign state by virtue of abandonment from France only to replace by the United States.

Same for North Viet Nam. France abandoned ALL of IndoChina, which are Viet Nam, Laos, and Cambodia. That mean no one needed to sign anything to achieve independence. All France had to do was simply signed off, which she did. That mean your argument that South Viet Nam was not a sovereign state is again -- DEBUNKED. Did I not told you I am at least two-steps ahead of you in this?

When the U.S. effectively abandoned South Vietnam no more Republic of Vietnam (US's Puppet Government) - Gone - Done

Fine. But that does not mean North Viet Nam was authorized to give anything away to China. But now that we established that South Viet Nam was a sovereign state and was in possession of the islands, and that North Viet Nam finally unified the country, that mean the islands rightly belongs to Viet Nam. Not China. Did I not told you I am at least two-steps ahead of you in this?

 

[Peter]

Puppets do not change what they are despite whatever goals accomplished. If China did not aid the Viet Minh, they would have been wiped out by other non-communist Vietnamese nationalists at the end of WW II. So when the Soviets entered the conflict, that made North Viet Nam very much as much a puppet as you try to portray South Viet Nam.

What goals did puppet South Viet government accomplish? Surrendered to the North Vietnamese Army when US abandoned in 1973?

Ify is condition dude, while US did aid South Vietnam and why couldn't South Vietnam wipe out China then?

You don't have a point to argue here kiddo ...

YOU cared. It was YOU who made the number of approval states an issue back on post 467. Now you found out that only 2/3 of the UN approved the PRC's membership you are trying to dismiss the issue.

Funny kid! You threw out unreliable number of 87 nations, no one counted in which I didn't care - then you came back with 2/3 thing like real FAKE again. So, if it is true then it must have a record of it; thus, you would have no problem to provide me the list of 87 nations that recoginized sovereignty of South Vietnam, right!? hahahhehehe...

So was North Viet Nam without the assistance of the Soviets and China: Nothing. Another fact you are ignorant about: American ground combat troops left Viet Nam in 1973 in accordance with the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. Chinese ground troops never did. The only active US military branch in South Viet Nam was the USAF. South Viet Nam defeated North Viet Nam in several major battles. So if you want to use assistance as a disqualifier, then make it applicable to North Viet Nam as well. But of course you are intellectually dishonest so we should not expect too much from you.

This is the SAD part: So was South Viet Nam with the assistance of the United States: Nothing.

Yes, using the 1973 Paris Peace Accords to exchange for POW and US safely withdrew from South Vietnam only; what did USAF or President Nixon had promised to protect South Vietnam if North Vietnam started the war against the South?

To DO NOTHING, even the 1974 event of Paracels matter while the US ships were there just as an observer to let China Navy slaughtered South Vietnam Navy. So much of a PROMISE, wasn't it! SAD!

Then why should we care about your argument that South Viet Nam was not a sovereign state? You are not a very effective debater. You cannot keep track of your own argument, let alone any logic contain therein.

There is one difference. It was you that claimed South Vietnam was a sovereign state while she had US claimed her after France abandoned her ... China, on the other hand, independently from foreign's claim. That shows why you are not a very effective debater, instead kiddo. hehehee...

That is not some guy's data. That was the truth. And you cannot dispute it.

If there is the truth to it then you can provide the data, would you? hahahhehhehee....

It was the Soviets who proposed BOTH sides to be UN members.


You are confused between being a sovereign state versus being a UN member. A country does not need the latter to be accepted as the former. I guess the philosophical and politcal distinctions are too difficult to grasp.

You couldn't grasp the point when I was mocking you abouth South Vietnam was and never be a UN member. Back then (Republic of Vietnam) South Vietnam was not, and never be (no more Republic of Vietnam); got it!? You are slow man ....

I was talking about South Viet Nam. Not Viet Nam. You are utterly incompetent at debates.

Read what I have just said above to see how shallow your ability to argue anything ....

What is strange is your inability to keep track of the debate. In post 458 I explained why.

You have provided no data - just stated your hollow opinion only.

Yes, they can see that I have exposed your ignorance of relevant facts many times over. That is the reality.

Sure, that what you claimed while no one agreed with you yet ..hehehee

Then we can say that the PRC's claim to the islands are illegitimate because the PRC was never accepted by the UN as representative for China. You lose.

Did China need UN to say okay or not okay to her claim? UN can't do jack about it. You are the one that is a loser, instead. hihihiiihi...

The fact that the US repeatedly bombed North Viet Nam proved that North Viet Nam was never in controlled of its territory, therefore, we can use your own argument to say that North Viet Nam was never a sovereign state and could not give away the islands to China as you claimed. You lose again.

When North Vietnam did not have the right weapon to counter acttack the bombing, so be it took the hit. Once, North Vietnam got the right weapon - B-52 got shot down and US quickly got out ahhahehehe... You lose again, if you try to defend for the South Vietnam.

Since the PRC was never accepted by the UN as representative for China, we can say that this constitute theft. You lose again.

Thief!? Who said, the UN or Vietnam (as a whole today) or South Vietnam (before)? Look who has lost many islands kiddo ... Chinese called you a thief, Philippine called you a thief, Cambodian called you a thief - who are thieves?

Yes, it is sad for you.

Why were there two parties fighting for China? By your own argument, if we disqualify South Viet Nam as a sovereign state, we must disqualify North Viet Nam and China as well. You lose again.

Those two parties in the South Vietnam were fighting to gain its sovereignty in which South Vietnam, abandoned territory again. So, North Vietnam just took those two useless parties out. You lose again.

And what make your crap any more reliable? Because YOU are Chinese?

Regardless of race, reliable sources must have solid data to support it.

That is not a fact. That is an interpretation. The question remain: If it was a fact, then why nothing to support China's claim from North Viet Nam in 1974 and today? Now that is a fact.

North Vietnam (before) and (now) Vietnam is cheating her way out from the fatal fate letter of PM Pham Van Dong ... That is always a fact!

Yes...To defend against theft.

No, you have no sovereignty from those islands.

Claim alone does not make a proof.

Who can disclaim what China has under control?

Then Japan gave them up.

So, they did ...

That is funny and revealing of your illogical thinking. Dotted lines are not proofs. I can make any maps with dotted lines with China under US jurisdiction as well.

You have been spectacularly debunked.

Who stops you!? But you can't do what China has done .. so basically, you have debunked jacks!

 

[Peter]

Like I said, this subject is clearly over your head.

Useless comment!

Same for North Viet Nam. France abandoned ALL of IndoChina, which are Viet Nam, Laos, and Cambodia. That mean no one needed to sign anything to achieve independence. All France had to do was simply signed off, which she did. That mean your argument that South Viet Nam was not a sovereign state is again -- DEBUNKED. Did I not told you I am at least two-steps ahead of you in this?

Wrong, it was not the same. US claimed South Vietnam and when US gone, no more South Vietnam. North Vietnam was and then is Vietnam. Back to square one, you haven't move step.

Fine. But that does not mean North Viet Nam was authorized to give anything away to China. But now that we established that South Viet Nam was a sovereign state and was in possession of the islands, and that North Viet Nam finally unified the country, that mean the islands rightly belongs to Viet Nam. Not China. Did I not told you I am at least two-steps ahead of you in this?

South Vietnam was and never a sovereignty state, instead South Vietnam was a US's puppet ... Ouch!!!

 

[gambit]

What goals did puppet South Viet government accomplish? Surrendered to the North Vietnamese Army when US abandoned in 1973?

Ify is condition dude, while US did aid South Vietnam and why couldn't South Vietnam wipe out China then?

You don't have a point to argue here kiddo ...

Now that is an absolutely stupid and irrelevant question. What reasons were there for South Viet Nam to engage in a war against China? If South Viet Nam was a puppet to America, then North Viet Nam was a puppet to the Soviets and China. Remember, China was in North Viet Nam long before the US was in South Viet Nam. China was already pulling the political strings on the Viet Minh to the point where Chinese imposed land reform program created a famine in North Viet Nam. Cannot get any more being a puppet than that. The 'kiddo' here is YOU, kid.

Funny kid! You threw out unreliable number of 87 nations, no one counted in which I didn't care - then you came back with 2/3 thing like real FAKE again. So, if it is true then it must have a record of it; thus, you would have no problem to provide me the list of 87 nations that recoginized sovereignty of South Vietnam, right!? hahahhehehe...

Really? Here it is...

China and the United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a result of these trends, on October 25, 1971, Resolution 2758 was passed by the General Assembly, withdrawing recognition of the ROC as the legitimate government of China, and recognizing the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. PRC received support from two-thirds of all United Nations' members including approval by the Security Council members excluding the ROC.

If the PRC can be accepted as a UN member with 2/3 votes, then South Viet Nam can be accepted as a sovereign state by 10, 20, 30, or 87 other countries. You have proven yourself to be woefully ignorant and inept at research so I am going to leave you hanging in the wind just for kicks. What a funny kid you are.

This is the SAD part: So was South Viet Nam with the assistance of the United States: Nothing.

And equally sad was that even after reunification, Viet Nam continued to received assistance from BOTH the Soviets and China. Am willing to bet you did not know that either.

Yes, using the 1973 Paris Peace Accords to exchange for POW and US safely withdrew from South Vietnam only; what did USAF or President Nixon had promised to protect South Vietnam if North Vietnam started the war against the South?

Dang...Talk about a sorry understanding of military affairs. The point was that just as South Viet Nam received aid from the US, North Viet Nam received aid from the Soviets and China. If you are trying to disqualify South Viet Nam as a sovereign state, then the same disqualification applies to North Viet Nam. Have any sense of logical thought process?

There is one difference. It was you that claimed South Vietnam was a sovereign state while she had US claimed her after France abandoned her ... China, on the other hand, independently from foreign's claim. That shows why you are not a very effective debater, instead kiddo. hehehee...

Wrong. Where did I said that the US 'claimed' South Viet Nam? Making up someone else's words because you are losing the debate by your own ignorance? Assistance does not qualify as a 'claim' of any country. What an illogical mind...

If there is the truth to it then you can provide the data, would you? hahahhehhehee....

I have provided far more sources to support my arguments than you have for yours.

List of sovereign states in the 1950s - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both North and South Viet Nams were recognized as independent states in the 1950s.

You couldn't grasp the point when I was mocking you abouth South Vietnam was and never be a UN member. Back then (Republic of Vietnam) South Vietnam was not, and never be (no more Republic of Vietnam); got it!? You are slow man ....

You mocked me? Only in your deluded mind. Heck...You could not even keep track of the debate and cannot see your own illogical arguments.

You have provided no data - just stated your hollow opinion only.

Really...??? Here is where I further embarrass you...

The Pentagon Papers, Chapter 5, "Origins of the Insurgency in South Vietnam, 1954-1960"

But domestic difficulty was not the only crisis to confront the Lao Dong leaders in early 1957. In January, when the Soviet Union proposed to the United Nations the admitting of North and South Vietnam as separate states, it signalled that the USSR might be prepared in the interests of "peaceful coexistence," to make a great power deal which would have lent permanency to the partition of Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh, in evident surprise, violently dissented.

Is that clear enough? Am willing to bet that you have never heard of famous 'Pentagon Papers'. In 1957, the Soviets proposed to the UN that both Vietnams be admitted as full UN members. If that actually happened, it would cripple North Viet Nam's war efforts because it would mean North Viet Nam was conducting an aggressor war against another member state. The Soviets and the PRC would be compelled to withdraw support. That was why North Viet Nam had to petition the Soviets to veto what they originally proposed. The Vietnam War had to remain a civil war, not a war between nation-states. You are proven again to be way over your head in this debate.

Did China need UN to say okay or not okay to her claim? UN can't do jack about it. You are the one that is a loser, instead. hihihiiihi...

If you want to dismiss the UN, then we have every right to dismiss your argument that South Viet Nam was not a sovereign state, as if you had any credible for that to start. So yes, you lose again.

When North Vietnam did not have the right weapon to counter acttack the bombing, so be it took the hit. Once, North Vietnam got the right weapon - B-52 got shot down and US quickly got out ahhahehehe... You lose again, if you try to defend for the South Vietnam.

Another piece of evidence of an illogical mind. The US violated North Vietnamese airspace at will regardless of losses. By your own argument, that mean North Viet Nam did not have control of its territory and therefore was not a sovereign state. Remember, this is the standard you want to apply to South Viet Nam.

Those two parties in the South Vietnam were fighting to gain its sovereignty in which South Vietnam, abandoned territory again. So, North Vietnam just took those two useless parties out. You lose again.

What a sorry line of debate. Again...You asserted that since there were two parties fighting for control of Viet Nam, that disqualify South Viet Nam as possessor of the islands. By the same standard, since the PRC was NOT a UN admitted representative for China because of the civil war between the PRC and ROC, that division disqualified the PRC from making any claim upon the islands. Your illogical mind made you clearly the loser here.

Regardless of race, reliable sources must have solid data to support it.

Good...Then so far the Chinese have provided no credible evidences that China had CONTINUOUS administrative presence on the islands. Viet Nam does.

Who can disclaim what China has under control?

Viet Nam does.

...you have debunked jacks!

Wrong...I absolutely debunked your arguments left and right, up and down, and inside out. I provided sources for my arguments while you have nothing for yours.

 

[gambit]

Wrong, it was not the same. US claimed South Vietnam and when US gone, no more South Vietnam. North Vietnam was and then is Vietnam. Back to square one, you haven't move step.



South Vietnam was and never a sovereignty state, instead South Vietnam was a US's puppet ... Ouch!!!

How is assistance qualify as a denial of sovereignty? Show everyone a credible legal source for international affairs to support this argument.