Vietnam acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea in 1958

[gambit]

Read it for yourself, Gambit

Lập trường của Quốc gia Việt Nam

* the former South Vietnamese Minister of Foreign Affairs - Tran Van Do, whom refused to sign the 1954 Geneva Accords. Not the Viet Minh that did not want partition.

This is why you are a joke in this debate. In any business transaction, the parties may have a common goal but details may convince one side that agreeing to the contract may not be in its self interests. This happens every day. South Viet Nam did not signed the Accords for some reasons and am not going to tell you what they are. Not telling a fool like you does not constitute telling any lie. It was the Viet Minh who did not want partition. Does that mean South Viet Nam wanted partition?

Let us take a look at your argument again...

South Vietnam did not sign because South Vietnam did not agree to have Vietnam divided into two zones...

If South Viet Nam did signed, does that mean South Viet Nam wanted and agreed to a partition? Heck...Am willing to bet you never read the entire document in the first place. So here is your homework, find the full text of the 1954 Geneva Accords conference and present it here. Then we will continue...

 

[gambit]

We, the U.S. interveined and aided South Vietnam illegally - that's all ....

If US assistance to South Viet Nam was 'illegal', then you MUST explain how were Soviet and Chinese aid to North Viet Nam 'legal'? Let me guess, you did not know that the Viet Minh had Soviets and Chinese aid? You did not know that China was in Viet Nam long before the US was?

 

[Peter]

This is why you are a joke in this debate. In any business transaction, the parties may have a common goal but details may convince one side that agreeing to the contract may not be in its self interests. This happens every day. South Viet Nam did not signed the Accords for some reasons and am not going to tell you what they are. Not telling a fool like you does not constitute telling any lie. It was the Viet Minh who did not want partition. Does that mean South Viet Nam wanted partition?

It is simple and clear then, South Vietnam did not signed the Accords because the contract may not be in its self interests So, it relected through the former South Vietnamese Minister of Foreign Affairs - Tran Van Do, whom refused to sign the 1954 Geneva Accords. Not the Viet Minh that did not want partition. This hard fact IS kind of not easy for you to swallow huh Gambit! SAD though ...

Let us take a look at your argument again...

South Vietnam did not sign because South Vietnam did not agree to have Vietnam divided into two zones...

If South Viet Nam did signed, does that mean South Viet Nam wanted and agreed to a partition? Heck...Am willing to bet you never read the entire document in the first place. So here is your homework, find the full text of the 1954 Geneva Accords conference and present it here. Then we will continue...

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.

If you can't stated the reasons why South Viet Nam did not signed the Accords - then why should we continue for? The facts that you are not going to tell it because you'd know better that you would sink deep down further into your pointless argument and how sad SVN was to be a CHESS's PAWN in the hand of U.S.

 

[Peter]

If US assistance to South Viet Nam was 'illegal', then you MUST explain how were Soviet and Chinese aid to North Viet Nam 'legal'? Let me guess, you did not know that the Viet Minh had Soviets and Chinese aid? You did not know that China was in Viet Nam long before the US was?

Of course, I knew about Soviet and Chinese aid to North Viet Nam. On the 'legal' side, North Vietnam signed the 1954 Geneva Accords and awaited for the mandated Democratic nationwide elections, but U.S. and South Vietnam did not signed for a reason to against the North Vietnam's Communist known as "Domino Effect" illegally. Chineses have been always in Vietnam for centuries, so what is the point?

 

[gambit]

It is simple and clear then, South Vietnam did not signed the Accords because the contract may not be in its self interests So, it relected through the former South Vietnamese Minister of Foreign Affairs - Tran Van Do, whom refused to sign the 1954 Geneva Accords. Not the Viet Minh that did not want partition. This hard fact IS kind of not easy for you to swallow huh Gambit! SAD though ...

What is truly sad here is someone imposing his own interpretations of a legal document that he NEVER READ. For example...Article 1 stated clearly that a demilitarized zone will be established for the purpose of keeping the warring sides apart. Article 1 never stated where that zone will be. In fact, NOWHERE in the Agreement On The Cessation Of Hostilities does the 17th parallel even mentioned. Am willing to bet that you did not know this.

If you can't stated the reasons why South Viet Nam did not signed the Accords - then why should we continue for? The facts that you are not going to tell it because you'd know better that you would sink deep down further into your pointless argument...

Absolutely I can.

...and how sad SVN was to be a CHESS's PAWN in the hand of U.S.

And North Viet Nam being a pawn of the Soviets and Chinese is not sad?

 

[gambit]

Of course, I knew about Soviet and Chinese aid to North Viet Nam.

Then how were they 'legal'? Do you even know how to use those words 'legal' and 'illegal' in their proper contexts? You said that US aid to South Viet Nam were 'illegal'. Explain how Soviet and Chinese aid to North Viet Nam were either 'legal' or 'illegal'.

 

[Peter]

What is truly sad here is someone imposing his own interpretations of a legal document that he NEVER READ. For example...Article 1 stated clearly that a demilitarized zone will be established for the purpose of keeping the warring sides apart. Article 1 never stated where that zone will be. In fact, NOWHERE in the Agreement On The Cessation Of Hostilities does the 17th parallel even mentioned. Am willing to bet that you did not know this.

Gambit, Gambit ... how much more lying are you going to perform?

AGREEMENT ON THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES IN VIET-NAM, JULY 20, 1954

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(The Genera Agreements theoretically ended the war between French Union forces and the Vietminh in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. These states were to become fully independent countries, with the last-named partitioned near the 17th parallel into two states pending reunification through "free elections" to be held by July 20, 1956. The United States and Vietnam are not signatories to these agreements.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER I-PROVISIONAL MILITARY DEMARCATION LINE AND DEMILITARIZED ZONE

Article 1

A provisional military demarcation line shall be fixed, on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal, the forces of the People's Army of Viet-Nam to the north of the line and the forces of the French Union to the south.

The provisional military demarcation line is fixed as shown on the map attached.

It is also agreed that a demilitarized zone shall be established on either side of the demarcation line, to a width of not more than 5 kms. from it, to act. as a buffer zone and avoid any incidents which might result in the resumption of hostilities.

Absolutely I can.

No, you can't and don't even try

And North Viet Nam being a pawn of the Soviets and Chinese is not sad?

No, it is not for North Vietnam had cleverly used the aids from Soviet and China to accomplish its task. South Vietnam was a different scenerio and you knew it better

 

[Peter]

Then how were they 'legal'? Do you even know how to use those words 'legal' and 'illegal' in their proper contexts? You said that US aid to South Viet Nam were 'illegal'. Explain how Soviet and Chinese aid to North Viet Nam were either 'legal' or 'illegal'.

In the proper "1954 Geneva Accords" contexts where is 'legal' or 'illegal' based on.

It was about the independent of Vietnam from France in which French signed the Accords with North Vietnam while South Vietnam had refused it. South Vietnam then has no legal activity in the matter of Vietnam but an add-on to Dien Bien Phu victory that gained independent from France. Remember what I said about Bao Dai, a puppet governement from France!?

 

[gambit]

Gambit, Gambit ... how much more lying are you going to perform?

And how long will you continue to make a fool out of yourself? This passage that you highlighted...

(The Genera Agreements theoretically ended the war between French Union forces and the Vietminh in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. These states were to become fully independent countries, with the last-named partitioned near the 17th parallel into two states pending reunification through "free elections" to be held by July 20, 1956. The United States and Vietnam are not signatories to these agreements.)

...Was never a part of the Agreement but A NOTE INSERTED BY THE SOURCE THAT ARCHIVED the Agreement.

This is hilarious. The Agreement was in year 1954. If that paragraph was part of the Agreement, then how did the people back in 1954 knew that the US and South Viet Nam did not signed the document. They could not. Therefore, that paragraph cannot be considered to be part of the document.

Do not feel bad. You are not the first Chinese to make this horribly embarrassing mistake in his eagerness to show off his (feeble) knowledge of the Vietnam War.

No, you can't and don't even try

Considering how sad are you from the above, we can only laugh at your understanding of the issue. And yes, I can absolutely state why South Viet Nam did not signed the Agreement.

No, it is not for North Vietnam had cleverly used the aids from Soviet and China to accomplish its task. South Vietnam was a different scenerio and you knew it better

What a circular argument. Soviet and Chinese aid to North Viet Nam was 'legal' because North Viet Nam won. What 'logic'...

 

[gambit]

In the proper "1954 Geneva Accords" contexts where is 'legal' or 'illegal' based on.

It was about the independent of Vietnam from France in which French signed the Accords with North Vietnam while South Vietnam had refused it. South Vietnam then has no legal activity in the matter of Vietnam but an add-on to Dien Bien Phu victory that gained independent from France. Remember what I said about Bao Dai, a puppet governement from France!?

Am going to ask you again: If you asserted that US aid to South Viet Nam was 'illegal', then for clarity's sake, you MUST provide an example of how such aid is 'legal' in other situations, so for this issue, you MUST explain how Soviets and Chinese aid to North Viet Nam were 'legal'.

 

[gambit]

Am going to show you how to read these legal documents. Take this sentence in the Agreement...

The provisional military demarcation line is fixed as shown on the map attached.

The document is to outline certain principles that all parties can come to an agreement. The map with the 17th parallel was meant to illustrate that how that demilitarized zone could be established and where. If there are disagreements to that provision, the document could still be signed but WITH AN AMENDMENT that may state the 18th or 19th parallel. The amendment does not change the principle of the document, which is to establish a demilitarized zone. The amendment only change a detail. That is why it is called 'provisional', to mean that it can be changed and that the zone is to be temporary. That is why Article 1 does not definitively state the 17th parallel. If you cannot understand this, there is no hope for you in this debate.

 

[Peter]

Am going to show you how to read these legal documents. Take this sentence in the Agreement...



The document is to outline certain principles that all parties can come to an agreement. The map with the 17th parallel was meant to illustrate that how that demilitarized zone could be established and where. If there are disagreements to that provision, the document could still be signed but WITH AN AMENDMENT that may state the 18th or 19th parallel. The amendment does not change the principle of the document, which is to establish a demilitarized zone. The amendment only change a detail. That is why it is called 'provisional', to mean that it can be changed and that the zone is to be temporary. That is why Article 1 does not definitively state the 17th parallel. If you cannot understand this, there is no hope for you in this debate.

Duh... who doesn't know why it is called 'provisional' but have you seen it changed to 18th or 19th parallel since 1954's 17th parallel? NIL, Gambit - so much for your 'smart-alex' have not assisted you much then

It is you who have been trying so hard to lie about sovereignty of the two archipelgos (Paracels & Spratly) were giving to South Vietnam that led to the 1954 Geneva Accords and its provisional military demarcation line is fixed as shown on the map attached

Accept the fact and move on dear Gambit!

 

[gambit]

Duh... who doesn't know why it is called 'provisional' but have you seen it changed to 18th or 19th parallel since 1954's 17th parallel? NIL, Gambit - so much for your 'smart-alex' have not assisted you much then

It is you who have been trying so hard to lie about sovereignty of the two archipelgos (Paracels & Spratly) were giving to South Vietnam that led to the 1954 Geneva Accords and its provisional military demarcation line is fixed as shown on the map attached

Accept the fact and move on dear Gambit!

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?

 

[Peter]

Am going to ask you again: If you asserted that US aid to South Viet Nam was 'illegal', then for clarity's sake, you MUST provide an example of how such aid is 'legal' in other situations, so for this issue, you MUST explain how Soviets and Chinese aid to North Viet Nam were 'legal'.

Gambit, how dense are you going to be?

North Vietnam agreed to the 1954 Geneva Accords legally while South Vietnam did not sign it to have any legality in the matter of Vietnam independent from France. Therefore, whatever Vietnam teamed up with the U.S. to go against Vietnam was definitely "illegal." Basically, South Vietnam did not follow the legal aspect of the Accords. Got it!?

 

[gambit]

Gambit, how dense are you going to be?

North Vietnam agreed to the 1954 Geneva Accords legally while South Vietnam did not sign it to have any legality in the matter of Vietnam independent from France. Therefore, whatever Vietnam teamed up with the U.S. to go against Vietnam was definitely "illegal." Basically, South Vietnam did not follow the legal aspect of the Accords. Got it!?

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?