John McCain dies

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Thaluikhain:

Saelune:
Lincoln fought a war for black people. I'd like Republicans now to atleast think cops shooting unarmed black people was bad.

Lincoln's aim for most of the wear, in his own words, was "to preserve the union". Only later on did he switch to talking about ending slavery as a moral issue worth fighting for. Unless you mean Lincoln as being ahead of the curve of many of his contemporaries, not his absolute position.

IMHO, McCain was not bad for a Republican leader. But that's mostly because they've set the bar pretty low.

Also, it should be noted, the war didn't even actually end slavery. Only in places where there was active and organized revolt, and even then some states didn't end up as if a hugfest for either the recently liberated or the still indentured.

The reason for the war in the North was preserving the Union, the reasonfor the war in the South was to keep using slaves ... and this disposition was primarily created due to an economic imbalance between the industrial capacities of North and South. But even given the regressive technological state of the South, slavery wasn't exactly doing them many favours. In fact there's an argument that basically the only thing that slavery accomplished was making cotton and tobacco relatively cheap.

And before anybody actually says 'Preserving the Union' = 'War of Northern Aggression' ... the South fired the first shot in anger ...

The South were effectively rebels ... I still fail to see why such a claim is considered contentious at this point.

"We damand to split off from the union."

"Um, no?"

"Rargh, garrr, -boom- ..."

The reason its seen as contentious is primarily because of the Daughters of the Confederacy. They put a ton of effort into text books, statues and media campaigns to rebrand the south and the confederacy in general. If not to make them the good guys, at least to make them sympathetic. Like the plucky rebels trying to fight the faceless and evil north.

Saelune:
I am surprised to see you defend him. You shouldn't defend him though.

It's a simple statement of fact. You can disagree with his political opinions as much as you like, but calling him spineless is still factually wrong. A spineless person doesn't refuse to leave a POW camp unless other prisoners are also getting released. Do you have any idea how much balls it takes to voluntarily remain a prisoner of war? A spineless person is someone who fakes a foot injury to avoid going to war.

Worgen:

The reason its seen as contentious is primarily because of the Daughters of the Confederacy. They put a ton of effort into text books, statues and media campaigns to rebrand the south and the confederacy in general. If not to make them the good guys, at least to make them sympathetic. Like the plucky rebels trying to fight the faceless and evil north.

Yeah, but even then it's not as if being a 'rebel' is automatically bad.I mean, you reserve that critique for the reasons of rebelling. I have a feeling a lot of the complaints might stem from the idea whether they are actually seen historically as 'U.S. soldiers' ... which they provably weren't, they were rebels.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Worgen:

The reason its seen as contentious is primarily because of the Daughters of the Confederacy. They put a ton of effort into text books, statues and media campaigns to rebrand the south and the confederacy in general. If not to make them the good guys, at least to make them sympathetic. Like the plucky rebels trying to fight the faceless and evil north.

Yeah, but even then it's not as if being a 'rebel' is automatically bad.I mean, you reserve that critique for the reasons of rebelling. I have a feeling a lot of the complaints might stem from the idea whether they are actually seen historically as 'U.S. soldiers' ... which they provably weren't, they were rebels.

Err, what I meant was they put a lot of effort into re-branding it as the 'War of Northern Aggression' and that it was a fight for states rights and they were the real freedom fighters. Heroically fighting against the bully north who was trying to destroy their way of life. They are a big reason why we have so many confederate monuments all over the place.

BreakfastMan:
RIP to an american hero, McCain's brain tumor. He was the real troops.

Dank. Very dank

Silentpony:

BreakfastMan:
RIP to an american hero, McCain's brain tumor. He was the real troops.

Dank. Very dank

It's pretty unfortunate that Meghan McCain will probably take his seat. And that John McCain's legacy of devastating imperial war will endure long after he passes.

Seanchaidh:
SNIP

I think as a soldier and war-fighter McCain was fantastic. He is a war hero. But as a politician, as Saelune says, he was all bark no bite. It doesn't really count as being a maverick if he is simply the last Republican to vote for a Trump nominee.
And Sarah Palin was the start of the Trump-era. He helped normalize absolute batshit candidates who proudly didn't know anything, appealing to voters who proudly don't want experts.

In latest Trump Is An Awful Piece Of Shit news -

President Donald Trump nixed issuing a statement that praised the heroism and life of Sen. John McCain, telling senior aides he preferred to issue a tweet before posting one Saturday night that did not include any kind words for the late Arizona Republican.

Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Chief of Staff John Kelly and other White House aides advocated for an official statement that gave the decorated Vietnam War POW plaudits for his military and Senate service and called him a "hero," according to current and former White House aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations. The original statement was drafted before McCain died Saturday, and Sanders and others edited a final version this weekend that was ready for the president, the aides said.

But Trump told aides he wanted to post a brief tweet instead, and the statement praising McCain's life was not released.

"My deepest sympathies and respect go out to the family of Senator John McCain. Our hearts and prayers are with you!" Trump posted Saturday evening shortly after McCain's death was announced.

Sanders declined to comment Sunday afternoon.

More context in the article
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-mccain-20180826-story.html#

Kwak:
In latest Trump Is An Awful Piece Of Shit news -

President Donald Trump nixed issuing a statement that praised the heroism and life of Sen. John McCain, telling senior aides he preferred to issue a tweet before posting one Saturday night that did not include any kind words for the late Arizona Republican.

Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Chief of Staff John Kelly and other White House aides advocated for an official statement that gave the decorated Vietnam War POW plaudits for his military and Senate service and called him a "hero," according to current and former White House aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations. The original statement was drafted before McCain died Saturday, and Sanders and others edited a final version this weekend that was ready for the president, the aides said.

But Trump told aides he wanted to post a brief tweet instead, and the statement praising McCain's life was not released.

"My deepest sympathies and respect go out to the family of Senator John McCain. Our hearts and prayers are with you!" Trump posted Saturday evening shortly after McCain's death was announced.

Sanders declined to comment Sunday afternoon.

More context in the article
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-mccain-20180826-story.html#

Could someone, please, take that fucking smartphone away from him. I mean McCain was in his camp and as has been clearly argued, had a fairly long and distinguished life of service. I think that should warrant a grateful president to actually address the media directly and speak in public eulogy for him.

Kwak:
In latest Trump Is An Awful Piece Of Shit news

Kathy Giffen had a remarkably blunt response to that.

Almost as blunt as that time she held up a decapitated Trump head. Can't say I disagree with her!

Seanchaidh:

It's pretty unfortunate that Meghan McCain will probably take his seat. And that John McCain's legacy of devastating imperial war will endure long after he passes.

Just reading those URLs gave me a chuckle.

I don't think Meghan McCain will run for Senate, however. She's, what - thirty? Thirty-something? In a decade or two, she might be thinking about it, but not now. Right now, McCain's seat will be occupied by an appointee until 2020.

This Kelli Ward character, though - sheesh. She's not likely to win the nomination this year, but I can guarantee she'll pop up again in 2020 to take another shot at McCain's former seat. She's like a goddamn wart.

bastardofmelbourne:
Right now, McCain's seat will be occupied by an appointee until 2020.

Seems the governor is considering Cindy McCain.

bastardofmelbourne:

Kwak:
In latest Trump Is An Awful Piece Of Shit news

Kathy Giffen had a remarkably blunt response to that.

Almost as blunt as that time she held up a decapitated Trump head. Can't say I disagree with her!

Seanchaidh:

It's pretty unfortunate that Meghan McCain will probably take his seat. And that John McCain's legacy of devastating imperial war will endure long after he passes.

Just reading those URLs gave me a chuckle.

I don't think Meghan McCain will run for Senate, however. She's, what - thirty? Thirty-something? In a decade or two, she might be thinking about it, but not now. Right now, McCain's seat will be occupied by an appointee until 2020.

This Kelli Ward character, though - sheesh. She's not likely to win the nomination this year, but I can guarantee she'll pop up again in 2020 to take another shot at McCain's former seat. She's like a goddamn wart.

Arizona's Senate seat is up in the air since the GOP candidates are all awful, and it's a toss up between Joe Arpaio and Kelli Ward being the absolute worst. Kyrsten Sinema might win the seat since she's been in Congress and could make the leap into the Senate, but I have my doubts. Martha McSally will most likely win the seat if any GOP candidate wins since she's not as bad as the others, but at this point it's a toss up since AZ is a very red state.

Ward will probably run again and so will Arpaio if they both lose in the 2019 election, but since they're Trump-lite the momentum for Trump-esque politicians might not be alluring by then. Who knows. AZ is a very weird state when it comes to its politicians, and I suspect Ducey will put someone in that is very right-wing, and I don't miss being in the middle of all that nonsense.

Kwak:
In latest Trump Is An Awful Piece Of Shit news -

President Donald Trump nixed issuing a statement that praised the heroism and life of Sen. John McCain, telling senior aides he preferred to issue a tweet before posting one Saturday night that did not include any kind words for the late Arizona Republican.

Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Chief of Staff John Kelly and other White House aides advocated for an official statement that gave the decorated Vietnam War POW plaudits for his military and Senate service and called him a "hero," according to current and former White House aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations. The original statement was drafted before McCain died Saturday, and Sanders and others edited a final version this weekend that was ready for the president, the aides said.

But Trump told aides he wanted to post a brief tweet instead, and the statement praising McCain's life was not released.

"My deepest sympathies and respect go out to the family of Senator John McCain. Our hearts and prayers are with you!" Trump posted Saturday evening shortly after McCain's death was announced.

Sanders declined to comment Sunday afternoon.

More context in the article
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-mccain-20180826-story.html#

....I can't believe what I'm about to say. To be fair to Trump (eeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhh), if his White House issued any kind of statement praising McCain, people would lambaste it as being disingenuous trash (it would be) considering what he's said about McCain. He did personally say a pretty hollow statement on twitter about his death, which was criticized for being a hollow statement. But, once again, if it was anything more than that then it would get ripped apart for being disingenuous. There was literally no reaction that he could have given that would have satisfied anyone (Fox not included). Other than maybe not saying anything at all...but I can already see the headlines if he went with that option. Honestly this whole situation with him amuses me because no matter what he did, he would literally get the same reaction from the media (Fox not included) and twitter. He's such a garbage person, that all of his options are landmines. Maybe if he gave a "heartfelt" statement some dunce from CNN would say "truly, in times of need, Donald Trump is capable of being a real president", but that's it really.

My point being that he's an awful piece of shit, I don't get why people wanted him to lie and pretend not to be. I don't get the outrage at his response.....what the fuck did people expect? It just feels so disingenuous seeing people getting pissed about it, when they'd be pissed if he did. If you're going to dunk on him, dunk on him for putting himself in a situation where nothing he does will get him the pat on the head that he desperately desires. Although, I would have loved for him to try to make a genuine statement in a public manner. Imagine if he tried to give a "heartfelt" response in an address regarding McCain's death, and then in the middle of it he started rambling about how Kanye "gots it", how he won Wisconsin, how big the crowd is, and how beautiful all the red on the electoral map is. Then just insert a mental image of Donald Trump handing out little electoral maps to people in the crowd grieving McCain's death, followed up with a "thank you everybody, have a great time".

Disrespect for John McCain is literally the best thing about Trump.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/john-mccain-was-not-hero-obituary-war-racism-sexism

Seanchaidh:
Disrespect for John McCain is literally the best thing about Trump.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/john-mccain-was-not-hero-obituary-war-racism-sexism

So...what IS your own opinion of McCain? Cause I cannot tell at this point.

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
Right now, McCain's seat will be occupied by an appointee until 2020.

Seems the governor is considering Cindy McCain.

These are both traditional options for the appointment. It's been a long running practice in the Senate for a governor to appoint the wife or child of a senator who has passed away during their term in office if it is filled by an appointment. It was how most of the first women in the Senate got their seats.

As for the late Senator McCain, I am saddened by his passing. I disagreed with much of his politics outside of campaign finance reform (a real touched-the-stove moment for him that likely pushed him into being one of its leading champions), immigration reform, and the treatment of detainees, but he was a good politician who was willing to work across the parties to get key legislation done. He was often regarded as a broker for bipartisan legislation. He fundamentally was committed to the democratic values of compromise, debate, a free press, and equality more so than adhering to conservative ideology without thought.

He also had one trait that very very few politicians have: the willingness to express regret for their actions publicly. Whether that was his support for the Iraq war, playing politics with the Confederate Battle Flag, or elevating Trumpist patient zero Sarah Palin, he, at least in his last few years, understood that there is nothing to gain by not reflecting and questioning your actions and acknowledging when you fell short of what you should have done.

One quote has stood out in this last year of his life for me:

Excerpt from Sen. John McCain's Full Speech At Liberty Medal Ceremony:
I am the luckiest guy on earth. I have served America's cause, the cause of our security and the security of our friends, the cause of freedom and equal justice, all my adult life. I haven't always served it well. I haven't even always appreciated what I was serving. But among the few compensations of old age is the acuity of hindsight. I see now that I was part of something important that drew me along in its wake even when I was diverted by other interests. I was, knowingly or not, along for the ride as America made the future better than the past.

[Source]

May he rest in peace.

Well...

Condolences to the family.

The Gentleman:
snip

The thing is, did he actually regret going to Iraq or did he just not get the results he wanted? Those are two completely different matters and we should acknowledge it as such.

Tangent: A somewhat popular leftist podcast brought up another recently deceased politician because McCain actually voted against an South African sanctions act to oppose their government?s apartheid who got past both houses of Congress after a Reagan veto from said politician spearheading it. The man was Ron Dellums: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Dellums

http://history.house.gov/People/Listing/D/DELLUMS,-Ronald-V--(D000222)/

How did I never hear about such an awesome person until nearly after a month after he died? An OG Congressional Black Caucus and black socialist marine vet from Berkeley who was in favor of reducing the military budget and a long support of single payer? This is exactly the kind of person we should be memorializing today and whose legacy we should celebrate.

The question was brought up why this guy who was much more on the right side of history is getting forgotten when McCain is now getting sucked off and the conclusion was that media tends to prefer the kind of guy that seesaws between absolute shitty policy and moderately decent position vice a ?boring? person who almost always makes the right choice. You know? Because being ?complicated? is more fascinating than being right or good.

The Gentleman:
but he was a good politician who was willing to work across the parties to get key legislation done.

Such as the bill that enabled his heirs to receive a $22 million fortune tax-free.

I find it funny with some people on my facebook feed how they reacted to McCain's death. They post things about respecting veterans and how they basically worship them, but as soon as one with power doesn't fall in line with Trump they are a traitor. So basically you are a hero for serving but if you go against us then we won't care.

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:
Disrespect for John McCain is literally the best thing about Trump.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/john-mccain-was-not-hero-obituary-war-racism-sexism

So...what IS your own opinion of McCain? Cause I cannot tell at this point.

I'm not terribly interested in receiving a warning is MY opinion. ;)

This is Rania Khalek's:

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:
Disrespect for John McCain is literally the best thing about Trump.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/john-mccain-was-not-hero-obituary-war-racism-sexism

So...what IS your own opinion of McCain? Cause I cannot tell at this point.

I'm not terribly interested in receiving a warning is MY opinion. ;)

This is Rania Khalek's:

I would agree with the criticism of McCain as a warmonger. I disagree with the assertion that he was racist and sexist as well.

The McCains quite famously adopted a Bengali child - Bridget McCain - and in the 2000 Republican primary, they faced quite brutal negative polling from the Bush team insinuating that Bridget was the product of an interracial affair. His record on race, in comparison to other Republicans, is decent - his two most noteworthy black marks being a 1983 vote against creating a holiday to honour Martin Luther King, which he later reversed course on, and a 1990 vote against overriding a presidential veto. In the decades since then, he has been a firm Republican voice pushing for immigration reform, and the immigration package the Senate produced in 2007 would have eventually granted citizenship to anywhere between ten and twenty million undocumented migrants living in the US. His voting record on civil and human rights, which Jacobin cites, was consistently rated in the 10-20% range by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights from 1990 to 2017 - very low, but also consistently much higher than almost all other Republican senators, the majority of whom have a 0% rating. (The exceptions, which bear mentioning, are Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins - the unsung moderate heroes of the Senate, also critical to preventing the passage of ACA repeal in 2017.)

As for him being sexist, the worst I've heard is that he cheated on his first wife, Carol Shepp. The Jacobin article insinuates that he cheated on her because she was disfigured in a car accident while he was in Vietnam; she doesn't look too disfigured in this family photo from the mid-70s. Their divorce, by all accounts, was amicable. The terms of the settlement were incredibly generous to Shepp; he gave her custody of their three children, possession of their two homes, $1,600 a month in child support, and agreed to pay for the child's college tuition and for Shepp's medical bills for the rest of her life. You can be cynical about that and say that he was from a wealthy family and he was planning to remarry into another wealthy family, but what I'm getting at is that it hardly smacks of sexism on his part; adultery is bad, but not necessarily sexist.

The strongest criticisms of McCain have always been aimed at his enthusiastic and often-careless jingoism, his naive lack of understanding of economic matters, and his decision in 2008 to embrace the crazy by nominating Sarah Palin as his running mate. There is no need to slap additional charges of racism and sexism onto that, especially when they're weakly supported.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
So...what IS your own opinion of McCain? Cause I cannot tell at this point.

I'm not terribly interested in receiving a warning is MY opinion. ;)

This is Rania Khalek's:

The strongest criticisms of McCain have always been aimed at his enthusiastic and often-careless jingoism, his naive lack of understanding of economic matters, and his decision in 2008 to embrace the crazy by nominating Sarah Palin as his running mate. There is no need to slap additional charges of racism and sexism onto that, especially when they're weakly supported.

"I hate the gooks," said John McCain, "I will hate them as long as I live." This some several decades after dropping bombs on Vietnamese people. Frankly, McCain's jingoism is a function of global white supremacy to begin with even apart from his racially charged words.

Now to be fair,at the time he was dropping bombs on North Vietnamese people in defense of the United States Allied South Vietnam. It was not a unified country at the time and the North Vietnamese were aggressively fighting the South Vietnamese.

You should also balance McCain's names with what he did, namely spearheading the normalization of relations with Vietnam after the war. Vietnam's government put out a statement praising his efforts in this regard. And this was after he was severely tortured by the North Vietnamese. He probably did hate them, he woke up every morning and lacked full use of his body because of what they did to him, but he moved past his hatred to see their humanity and worked to make lives better.

As far as his warmongering, McCain was a soldier, well naval airman but the same concept, so he will understand that the use of force is a tool to be used. He might have reached for it more than strictly necessary but sometimes that is the only tool that will work. I believe most of those countries that were listed at the time had either ongoing conflicts with one side suppressing another or they were engaged in fostering conflict in another country as part of the geopolitics of the region.

mrglass08:
Now to be fair,at the time he was dropping bombs on North Vietnamese people in defense of the United States Allied South Vietnam.

To be more fair, he made that gooks comment decades later in the year 2000: https://www.sfgate.com/politics/amp/McCain-Criticized-for-Slur-He-says-he-ll-keep-3304741.php

Skatologist:

mrglass08:
Now to be fair,at the time he was dropping bombs on North Vietnamese people in defense of the United States Allied South Vietnam.

To be more fair, he made that gooks comment decades later in the year 2000: https://www.sfgate.com/politics/amp/McCain-Criticized-for-Slur-He-says-he-ll-keep-3304741.php

You remember the part about the torture, right? I think that is important to the full picture. Also he was a sailor, he talked like a sailor. Not saying it is right or that I would use that term but not something I would hold against him. My grandfathers and great uncles called Germans Huns and Jerries until they died. They fought them in the war and that is what they called their enemies.

mrglass08:
Now to be fair,at the time he was dropping bombs on North Vietnamese people in defense of the United States Allied South Vietnam. It was not a unified country at the time and the North Vietnamese were aggressively fighting the South Vietnamese.

That is explicitly untrue. Many resistance personnel weren't even from North Vietnam. They were from South Vietnam. The People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam, for instance, was made up predominantly of South Vietnamese. The People's Army of Vietnam, or 'PAVN', dates back to the French Indochina Wars, and it was considered the central commissariat for both North and South Vietnamese resistance against blatant imperialism.

The U.S. backed (and later assassinated by) President Diem had ignored a Geneva accord to demand the referenda on the reunification of North and South. So there were people everywhere that had risen up to fight what it saw was a war for its own sovereignty almost immediately after both North and South had thrown out the French.

South Vietnam was a junta state backed by the U.S. that neither had the consent of the people to exist and people from both sides were not going to settle for anything less than reunification and full sovereign and democratic rights. This is why South Vietnam utterly collapsed as soon as the U.S. had began to retract forces in the region.

The U.S. had a vested interest in pretending as if everyone that had picked up a gun against it could so conveniently be boxed away under some title of 'NVA' ... but the fact of the matter is that resistance fighters from everywhere had fought the French, and resistance fighters from everwhere were fighting for their sovereignty then, once more.

Even for so many 'true' """NVA""" ... these soldiers didn't see themselves as if invaders fromthe North. Many saw themselves as people wanting to return home.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
snip

The broad statement made remains valid, though. The actions taken were undertaken in the name of the state of South Vietnam, as disagreeable as it was, and against the broad alliance supporting the North Vietnamese led efforts to unify Vietnam.

Don't get me wrong, the Vietnam war was about as dubious as they get, but it's equally inaccurate to imply that the vast majority of the south was anti-US - initially at least. The South Vietnamese support for the North primarily grew later in the war due to the tactics employed by the US and their own state. Along with the US repulsion at its own actions.

Seanchaidh:

The Gentleman:
but he was a good politician who was willing to work across the parties to get key legislation done.

Such as the bill that enabled his heirs to receive a $22 million fortune tax-free.

My god. A conservative voted for a tax cut. What a shocker...

He also spearheaded the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform law, multiple bills trying to address climate change, the detainee treatment act, etc.

The guy had a bit over 30 years in the senate over 6 presidents and had regularly worked with both parties on legislation. The guy was a conservative for sure, but made a point to work with everyone he could and reach a compromise when possible. He had a handful of key issues where he was out of line with his party and leveraged it as best he could, sometimes getting something through, other times not.

Skatologist:

The Gentleman:
snip

The thing is, did he actually regret going to Iraq or did he just not get the results he wanted? Those are two completely different matters and we should acknowledge it as such.

Politico: "In his new memoir, he concedes that the war in Iraq he fought so hard to launch and then escalate now 'can't be judged as anything other than a mistake, a very serious one, and I have to accept my share of the blame for it.'"

I'm inclined to say the former, or at least that's his public sentiment.

Skatologist:

Tangent: A somewhat popular leftist podcast brought up another recently deceased politician because McCain actually voted against an South African sanctions act to oppose their government?s apartheid who got past both houses of Congress after a Reagan veto from said politician spearheading it. The man was Ron Dellums: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Dellums

http://history.house.gov/People/Listing/D/DELLUMS,-Ronald-V--(D000222)/

How did I never hear about such an awesome person until nearly after a month after he died? An OG Congressional Black Caucus and black socialist marine vet from Berkeley who was in favor of reducing the military budget and a long support of single payer? This is exactly the kind of person we should be memorializing today and whose legacy we should celebrate.

The question was brought up why this guy who was much more on the right side of history is getting forgotten when McCain is now getting sucked off and the conclusion was that media tends to prefer the kind of guy that seesaws between absolute shitty policy and moderately decent position vice a ?boring? person who almost always makes the right choice. You know? Because being ?complicated? is more fascinating than being right or good.

Generally, unless they held the speakership or were the "face" of a particular high-profile moment, most congresspeople (House, not Senate) don't get more than a local news article of their passing. I do agree he was a congressperson of note, but he's also 20 years removed from his time in office.

Also not helping is his time lobbying in between his times as congressman and mayor of Oakland and his passing last month, including for companies and projects that weren't exactly the most liberal in nature, and being accused of Russian lobbying efforts in the US.

He should have gotten at least a mention on most shows, but I'm not surprised he didn't, especially between the California wildfires and the Manafort trial picking up.

Catnip1024:
The broad statement made remains valid, though. The actions taken were undertaken in the name of the state of South Vietnam, as disagreeable as it was, and against the broad alliance supporting the North Vietnamese led efforts to unify Vietnam.

Don't get me wrong, the Vietnam war was about as dubious as they get, but it's equally inaccurate to imply that the vast majority of the south was anti-US - initially at least. The South Vietnamese support for the North primarily grew later in the war due to the tactics employed by the US and their own state. Along with the US repulsion at its own actions.

But there wasno clear divisions between North and South. It didn't exist. No one from South Vietnam would have lookedat the map and pretended it represented a clear cut division of the political landscape. For starters so many of the people from 'South Vietnam' had merely gone North as per conventions after the fall of French Indochina.

The Viet Minh and its military branches was a cross 'Vietnamese' party. As Iwas saying before. U.S. mighthave wanted to paint the 'PAVN' as merely 'NVA' ... but that was unmitigated bullshit. It didn't matter if you were 'NVA' or Viet Cong, youcame from 'both sides' of Vietnam, and only through blatant imperialist land grab and a literal junta established by Western powers could you pretend that was actually reflective of the people's desires.

Everybody wanted reunification. The South Vietnam junta would not allow it because it knew it did not have the consent of the people to even survive.

The reason why Le Duan was never going to compromise on a unified Vietnam is because it would have destroyed any support that he had from below. No one saw South Vietnam as a 'natural partition' of political interests. Le Duan would never compromise on reunification because there was no compromise possible. Nobody saw South Vietnam as legitimate, both within it and to the North. They saw it as an extension of colonialism once more.

The Viet Cong was predominantly a Revolutionary Democratic Force.

You can draw a line on a map and pretend like 'people are invading you' but that's myopic and broken an idea. It wasn't even realistic. 'NVA' were always in South Vietnam. That's where their homes were.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
But there wasno clear divisions between North and South. It didn't exist. No one from South Vietnam would have lookedat the map and pretended it represented a clear cut division of the political landscape. For starters so many of the people from 'South Vietnam' had merely gone North as per conventions after the fall of French Indochina.

The Viet Minh and its military branches was a cross 'Vietnamese' party. As Iwas saying before. U.S. mighthave wanted to paint the 'PAVN' as merely 'NVA' ... but that was unmitigated bullshit. It didn't matter if you were 'NVA' or Viet Cong, youcame from 'both sides' of Vietnam, and only through blatant imperialist land grab and a literal junta established by Western powers could you pretend that was actually reflective of the people's desires.

Everybody wanted reunification. The South Vietnam junta would not allow it because it knew it did not have the consent of the people to even survive.

The reason why Le Duan was never going to compromise on a unified Vietnam is because it would have destroyed any support that he had from below. No one saw South Vietnam as a 'natural partition' of political interests. Le Duan would never compromise on reunification because there was no compromise possible. Nobody saw South Vietnam as legitimate, both within it and to the North. They saw it as an extension of colonialism once more.

When?

At the time the French were involved, it was all part of French Indochina. The divisions occurred afterwards. Once the various factions were established, the North and the South were distinguished and separate entities, control of which could be largely defined in the context of the major population areas at least.

It's like modern day Syria - a lot of people from government controlled areas may be fighting for the rebels, or have moved out of them for whatever reason, but the areas themselves are Syrian government controlled. They belong to the state at that moment in time.

Wanting reunification and wanting a government controlled by largely communist former rebels are different things. Considering that at that point, the examples from China and North Korea were present to see what to expect, it's probable that a good number of citizens, particularly in the more affluent areas, would not want a North Vietnamese led re-unification, or even re-unification at all if it led down that route.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Catnip1024:
The broad statement made remains valid, though. The actions taken were undertaken in the name of the state of South Vietnam, as disagreeable as it was, and against the broad alliance supporting the North Vietnamese led efforts to unify Vietnam.

Don't get me wrong, the Vietnam war was about as dubious as they get, but it's equally inaccurate to imply that the vast majority of the south was anti-US - initially at least. The South Vietnamese support for the North primarily grew later in the war due to the tactics employed by the US and their own state. Along with the US repulsion at its own actions.

But there wasno clear divisions between North and South. It didn't exist. No one from South Vietnam would have lookedat the map and pretended it represented a clear cut division of the political landscape. For starters so many of the people from 'South Vietnam' had merely gone North as per conventions after the fall of French Indochina.

The Viet Minh and its military branches was a cross 'Vietnamese' party. As Iwas saying before. U.S. mighthave wanted to paint the 'PAVN' as merely 'NVA' ... but that was unmitigated bullshit. It didn't matter if you were 'NVA' or Viet Cong, youcame from 'both sides' of Vietnam, and only through blatant imperialist land grab and a literal junta established by Western powers could you pretend that was actually reflective of the people's desires.

Everybody wanted reunification. The South Vietnam junta would not allow it because it knew it did not have the consent of the people to even survive.

The reason why Le Duan was never going to compromise on a unified Vietnam is because it would have destroyed any support that he had from below. No one saw South Vietnam as a 'natural partition' of political interests. Le Duan would never compromise on reunification because there was no compromise possible. Nobody saw South Vietnam as legitimate, both within it and to the North. They saw it as an extension of colonialism once more.

I would tend to think quite a few of the Vietnamese Refugees preferred South Vietnam. And all of those people left behind at the American Embassy in Saigon sure looked like they did not want to be a part of a united Vietnam. Let's not pretend that every single person in the south was eager to join with those in the north, that is categorically untrue.

Seanchaidh:
"I hate the gooks," said John McCain, "I will hate them as long as I live." This some several decades after dropping bombs on Vietnamese people.

And yet, he was one of the first members of Congress to call for postwar sanctions on Vietnam to be repealed, and a key Republican voice in support of the eventual normalisation of US-Vietnam relations. One common - and true - criticism I hear of McCain is that the substance of his actions in Congress occasionally contradict his statements of principle; here we have a strange reversal, where his statements are said to taint the substance of his actions.

Also, minor nitpick; the quote lacks the important context that the "gooks" McCain was referring to were the ones running the prison camp, not the population of Vietnam in general. Which doesn't excuse him from the use of the slur itself, but it was a common term amongst members of the military during the war, and people don't always change as quickly as the standards of the time do.

Seanchaidh:
Frankly, McCain's jingoism is a function of global white supremacy to begin with even apart from his racially charged words.

This seems to be the actual logic behind that Jacobin article and other criticisms of McCain as a racist or supporting racism; the assertion that US overseas military intervention, by its very nature, involves going to countries full of brown people and blowing them up, and that racial animus is a necessary part of the process.

I'm not in a state to get into that whole debate right now; it's half past 3 in the morning down here. I kinda agree, and I kinda don't agree, and frankly I used too much of my brain in the earlier paragraphs to hash it out right now.

Catnip1024:
When?

When what?

When the PAVN was established? 1944/1945.

Establishment of the Viet Minh (Well, both the Anti-Japanese Guerrilla Force and League of Vietnamese Independence)? 1941.

When you had the mobilization North? 1954. The Geneva Accord demanded 'communist' (or basically anti-French backed State of Vietnam fighters) had to move north, and pro-State of Vietnam fighters had to move south.

Birth of the Viet Cong in response? 1954.

When Diem basically told the Geneva accords to shove it and there would be no ballot to determine reunification? 1955.

Renewed pro-democratic skirmishes? 1955.

At the time the French were involved, it was all part of French Indochina. The divisions occurred afterwards. Once the various factions were established, the North and the South were distinguished and separate entities, control of which could be largely defined in the context of the major population areas at least.

Established by whom? The French? The UN mandate on the cessation of hostilities? There was fuck all legitimacy to the State of Vietnam and you damn well know it.

For starters, do you know who was the one to give recognition of the 'Republic' of Vietnam? France. In 1949. Once again, it was never seen as a legitimate nation barring Western powers. In 1941, the Viet Minh had proclaimed it wanted to create a democratic nation after repelling the Japanese, with a pro-independence platform modelled on the U.S. 1776 DoI.

And so was born the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in Hanoi in late 1945. This was bitterly contested by the 'State of Vietnam' to the south, of which routinely engaged Viet Minh.

Given that both North or South weren't entirely recognized countries, the UN passed a decree that there should be a ballot on the reunification of Vietnam.

Then President Diem who had deposed his predecessor refused to comply with the Geneva Accords. Which lead to the spurring on of a South Vietnamese democratic resistance. Of whom would take the brunt of South Vietnam guerrilla activity. The Viet Cong were assisted with materiel and intelligence from the PAVN, which was basically a way of co-ordinating the activities of communist and anti-colonial militias.

It's like modern day Syria - a lot of people from government controlled areas may be fighting for the rebels, or have moved out of them for whatever reason, but the areas themselves are Syrian government controlled. They belong to the state at that moment in time.

How was it anything like Syria? Seriously, paint me a picture here.

Wanting reunification and wanting a government controlled by largely communist former rebels are different things. Considering that at that point, the examples from China and North Korea were present to see what to expect, it's probable that a good number of citizens, particularly in the more affluent areas, would not want a North Vietnamese led re-unification, or even re-unification at all if it led down that route.

Wow, a handful of beneficiaries of a junta worried about pissed off locals retaking their sovereignty, what a shock.

No ... Le Duan doesn't actually call them 'communist' in 1960... he does refer to them as 'Revolutionary Democratic Forces' in the South.

Because that's precisely who they were. Many of these people were simply anti-Japanese fighters in the past, or opposed the French playing silly buggers in their backyard, and future generations would be people who were fighting a U.S. backed illegitimate government in their country. Once again, it wasn't 'NVA' that simply entered Saigon in 1975. It was NVA and Viet Cong.

There is also a reason why Vietnam's political landscape after the war was not reflective ofthe one in postwar China. There were non-communist reasons to oppose 'South Vietnam' ... whatever 'collectivism' that was espoused by the PAVN was more often that not inthe form of retaking a sovereignty and ending a foreign backed entity from within.

Everything looks communist when you're basically telling an impoverished people they can adminster to their lands, that there will be land and industry reform, and they will have a government backed by the consent of the people.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here