Two Bombings Wreak Carnage in Iraqi Capital

[Guest American Woman]

South Viet-Nam was a country. They didn't want to be part of the North. Too young to remember that bit? Or just forgetful?

One doesn't have to be old enough to remember; history tells the story. I'm citing wikipedia because all the information is in that one site, along with their sources, which saves me citing several sources.

The fact is, South Vietnam was not "a country." It was a temporary country, set up by the Geneva Conferences held after Vietnam's stuggle for independence from France. Vietnam was divided by the peace conventions, according to separate interests, with the North being temporarily assigned to the Viet Minh and the south assigned to Bao Dai, who was basically a puppet of the French government. Vietnam was to hold independent elections within one year, deciding their own government and reuniting the the temprorary states of North and South back into one Vietnam.

The division of Vietnam occurred during the Geneva Conference, after the Viet Minh fought to end almost 100 years of colonial rule in French Indochina.

The U.S. refused to sign the agreement, which called for no more military intervention in Vietnam. The U.S. was afraid that the government it didn't want would win the election. The U.S., from everything I've read, did all it could to prevent Vietnam from having the elections; ie reuniting under the 'wrong' rule.

Throughout this period [the year before the election reuniting Vietnam was to take place] the levels of US aid and political support increased, with both South Vietnam and the US agreeing to not hold the July 1956 national elections to reunify Vietnam under one government as set out in the Geneva accords.

So it would be correct to say one can't blame Vietnam for wanting their own country since they were originally fighting for independence as a country; and then the temporary North wanted to remain one country, which it was supposed to under the Geneva conventions. The ensuing war was a result of the U.S. not wanting one Vietnam, because of the fear that it would be communist; against U.S. interests.

Edited February 3, 2008 by American Woman

[jbg]

Was it smart for the US to support any despot that opposed communism ? At the time maybe it was, but I would say that the long term costs were probably underestimated.

Wouldn't you ?

I don't the the Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Georgians, South Koreans, or residents of Hokkaido, et. al. would necessarily agree with you.

[DogOnPorch]

The fact is, South Vietnam was not "a country." It was a temporary country, set up by the Geneva Conferences held after Vietnam's stuggle for independence from France.

It was so temporary that a million Vietnamese from north of the 17th fled to the south rather than be part of the perfect socialist solution going on in the north. I wonder why? Could it have actually been that they didn't want communism? Maybe, hey?

And yes, I know the story of Vietnam and its election to be. Fear of the North tampering with their results + a general dislike of Bao Dai (Americans didn't like him, either) made everyone except Ho Chi Minh worried about the possible results.

To put Viet-Nam to bed...at least for me and this thread...I think America let its ally down. Political expediency was chosen over standing up to the inflitrating NVA and Viet-Cong. Too many hippies chomping at the bit at home...a crook for a President...an energy crisis...etc, etc. South Viet-Nam was setting up to be another South Korea...and that seems to have turned out quite well indeed...for a temporay country. But at least the People Republic has turned out to be a great place to set up your sweat shop. I'm sure the people are pleased.

Meanwhile...over 100 dead in those two bombings. Pretty impressive. I wonder if political expediency is going to win-out again over combating terrorists? Only the new President can say...(?)

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

Would the last soldier out of Viet-Nam please remember to turn-off the light at the end of the tunnel?

---Outhouse Graffiti, Da-Nang

[Guest American Woman]

It was so temporary that a million Vietnamese from north of the 17th fled to the south rather than be part of the perfect socialist solution going on in the north. I wonder why? Could it have actually been that they didn't want communism? Maybe, hey?

And yes, I know the story of Vietnam and its election to be. Fear of the North tampering with their results + a general dislike of Bao Dai (Americans didn't like him, either) made everyone except Ho Chi Minh worried about the possible results.

It was so temporary that it never won independence. That's a fact. Furthermore, the "election to be" is not a "story." It's also a fact. Vietnam was one country prior to the fight for its independence and the resulting Geneva accords, and it was to be one country again after the reunifying election one year later. The U.S. decided not to go along with the accords, encouraging South Vietnam not to have the reunifying election. That doesn't change the fact that the country of South Vietnam was "temporary."

So as I said, the comment in regards to Vietnam wanting to be its own country was an accurate one. Sure some thought they might not like the results of the election had it taken place, but that doesn't mean South Vietnam wasn't set up as a temporary country. Some don't like the outcome of our elections either. Many worry about the outcome. Many worry about tampering in our elections. Trust me on that. That doesn't mean we don't have them and/or become separate countries to avoid results that we question/don't like. The Civil War pretty much proves that. The fact is, there was supposed to be a reunifying election in Vietnam and the U.S. prevented that from happening. South Vietnam was not a "country," but a temporary country fighting for independence in a war that was lost.

Edited February 3, 2008 by American Woman

[DogOnPorch]

The fact is, there was supposed to be a reunifying election in Vietnam and the U.S. prevented that from happening. South Vietnam was not a "country," but a temporary country fighting for independence in a war that was lost.

No worries...I think we agree on most of the points. You're a well educated person...and I respect that.

Cheers.

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

You n' me in my garbage dump...you n' me in my garbage dump...

---Charles Manson

[Guest American Woman]

No worries...I think we agree on most of the points. You're a well educated person...and I respect that.

Cheers.

Thank you. And ditto.

Edited February 3, 2008 by American Woman

[jbg]

To put Viet-Nam to bed...at least for me and this thread...I think America let its ally down. Political expediency was chosen over standing up to the inflitrating NVA and Viet-Cong. Too many hippies chomping at the bit at home...a crook for a President...an energy crisis...etc, etc. South Viet-Nam was setting up to be another South Korea...and that seems to have turned out quite well indeed...for a temporay country. But at least the People Republic has turned out to be a great place to set up your sweat shop. I'm sure the people are pleased.

We let the South Vietnamese down as soon as we didn't take the war to the enemy, and fight it as a real war.

[Ergonomic]

We let the South Vietnamese down as soon as we didn't take the war to the enemy, and fight it as a real war.

The problem was not with military strategy. The problem was with political acumen. The US let Vietnam down when it saw a Communist Insurgency rather than a Civil War. Read your history. The Vietnamese have never had any truck with the Chinese, nor anybody who tried to force their way across the mountains from the North.

[Muddy]

Well you folks sure got off topic some how. Or was it deliberate! Who knows!

It is reported that two Downsyndrome females were used in the manner described. I guess they ran out of gullible horny young men willing to sacrafice themselves to get laid by all those promised virgins.

The Islamic terrorists in this world are not targetting their hated enemy the infidels ,but their own fellow Muslims,innocent men ,women and children. This is pretty depraved for a religion of peace one would think.

well as you were ,go back to fighting Vietnam so you don`t have to concentrate on the latest savergy of Islam.

[bush_cheney2004]

Granted, but doesn't it seem that the cost of a pawn such as Afghanistan has soared over the past 30 years ?

Pawns being harder to find, the cost has gone up. Pawns use to be a dime a dozen.

[jbg]

The Islamic terrorists in this world are not targetting their hated enemy the infidels ,but their own fellow Muslims,innocent men ,women and children. This is pretty depraved for a religion of peace one would think. well as you were ,go back to fighting Vietnam so you don`t have to concentrate on the latest savergy of Islam.

So true. The Left loves the Muslims and their savagery, not understanding the utter contempt that these savages hold them in. This has nothing to do with Bush, Israel, or Blair. The Muslims clearly are into death for the sake of death.

[Guest American Woman]

The Left loves the Muslims and their savagery, not understanding the utter contempt that these savages hold them in.

You don't say.

Personal Info

jbg

Resident Left-Wing Yank

[Muddy]

I am not sure the left loves the Islamic terrorists,but they are so anti Bush that they will not recognize the real enemy of freedom. In fact when the terrorists do these awful attacks the left will spin the whole incident away as we have seen in this thread. How does anyone not horrified by such attacks as this one? I am astounded.

[Peter F]

I am not sure the left loves the Islamic terrorists,but they are so anti Bush that they will not recognize the real enemy of freedom. In fact when the terrorists do these awful attacks the left will spin the whole incident away as we have seen in this thread. How does anyone not horrified by such attacks as this one? I am astounded.

As a pinko ex-commie I will confirm that I do not love terrorists - whatever thier creed or rationalization. I am anti-Bush et al, though.

The real enemy of freedom is not terrorists but ourselves. Terrorists have no power over any government - all they can do is terrorize.

It is we ourselves who will restrict our own freedoms in order to feel safer. The terrorists can't do a thing except kill - and because its easy, kill indesciminantly.

Who's been spinning? All terrorism is horrific. What is more horrific about this particular attack as opposed to the usual run-of-the-mill terrorism? Doe's anyone here think terrorists are picky about who gets killed?

I'm glad you qualified 'Islamic' with 'terrorists'. There are many here who believe the two terms are interchangeable.

[bush_cheney2004]

As a pinko ex-commie I will confirm that I do not love terrorists - whatever thier creed or rationalization. I am anti-Bush et al, though.

The real enemy of freedom is not terrorists but ourselves. Terrorists have no power over any government - all they can do is terrorize....

Ummm...OK...but what does "Bush" have to do with your freedom? Does et al include Parliament, PM, GG, NATO, RCMP, Interpol, etc. etc.? Is "Bush" just the face of your fears, no matter how distant it may be?

[Melanie_]

So true. The Left loves the Muslims and their savagery, not understanding the utter contempt that these savages hold them in. This has nothing to do with Bush, Israel, or Blair. The Muslims clearly are into death for the sake of death.

You seem to like sweeping generalizations. I'm fairly left leaning, yet I agree with you that these bombings were terrible. I'm even more outraged that the bombers used 2 women with Down Syndrome as the vehicles for the bombs - they were marginalized, seen as expendable, and probably had no idea what was happening. I can't speak for everyone on the left, but I've yet to see a post on these forums that indicates anyone approves of this kind of action, or loves savagery. But I do think that you love the opportunity to take a horrible tragedy and use it to condemn all Muslims, regardless of where they are or how they feel about what happened.

[Peter F]

Ummm...OK...but what does "Bush" have to do with your freedom? Does et al include Parliament, PM, GG, NATO, RCMP, Interpol, etc. etc.? Is "Bush" just the face of your fears, no matter how distant it may be?

I am anti-Bush because he is the figurehead of the fuckedup war on terrorism. But I could be mistaken. Perhaps it will all work out in the end...but I doubt it.

In any event, since I am not a citizen of the USofA, President Bush has sweet bugger-all to do with my freedoms - such as they are. That is entirely dependant upon the present Canadian government.

[bush_cheney2004]

I am anti-Bush because he is the figurehead of the fuckedup war on terrorism. But I could be mistaken. Perhaps it will all work out in the end...but I doubt it.

He is? Many other nationals would take issue with that, not bowing down to the American head-of-state. What will you do in January 2009 when Bush is gone...find a new make-believe "figurehead"?

In any event, since I am not a citizen of the USofA, President Bush has sweet bugger-all to do with my freedoms - such as they are. That is entirely dependant upon the present Canadian government.

My point exactly...President Bush doesn't have dick to do with your "freedoms" (since the WoT is silly, right?). Do you think Americans sit at home and worry about the PM of Canada or UK?

Edited February 4, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[VIV3LAR3VOLUTION]

As far as I understand it Palestine and Iraq are under occupation, which is illegal isn't it?

A good friend 'o mine is a Muslim from Afghanistan, we we're talking about

"the war" and he said

"Of course the Muslims are upset, lets say Canada was

having major problems, and another army came in to "help", and then Canadian

civilians were getting killed, abused, rapped you name it, and then they tried to

impose their laws, religions or whatever on us. It wouldn't be much of a liberation."

It was more like an invasion.

What chokes my chicken the most is that we(America) are there for no reason

except to take control of the oil. If they were actually there to help them fight

Al-Quada, then fine but, get our troops outta there!

[Peter F]

He is? Many other nationals would take issue with that, not bowing down to the American head-of-state. What will you do in January 2009 when Bush is gone...find a new make-believe "figurehead"?

If my need is strong enough, yes,

My point exactly...President Bush doesn't have dick to do with your "freedoms" (since the WoT is silly, right?). Do you think Americans sit at home and worry about the PM of Canada or UK?

And a valid point it is. Yes, the WoT is silly and No I do not think Americans sit at home and worry about the PM of Canada or the UK...unless they refuse to support the WoT then they worry about why 'they' abandoned America in its time of need, and they worry about wether Canada is doing all it can to secure America's borders or wether Canada allows terrorists to operate within Canada, or wether Canada is exporting too much marjiuana, or how the Canadian health-care system is a bad example etc etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

If my need is strong enough, yes,

Well, good luck with that. I guess every bogeyman needs a face.

And a valid point it is. Yes, the WoT is silly and No I do not think Americans sit at home and worry about the PM of Canada or the UK...unless they refuse to support the WoT then they worry about why 'they' abandoned America in its time of need, and they worry about wether Canada is doing all it can to secure America's borders or wether Canada allows terrorists to operate within Canada, or wether Canada is exporting too much marjiuana, or how the Canadian health-care system is a bad example etc etc.

But Americans, even if engaged in such fearsome worries, do not attach a Canadian face or person to this fear. For instance, most Americans have no idea who Mark Emery is, even after a 60 Minutes broadcast. For the WoT, we have good 'ol Osama Bin Hidin', not the PM of Canada. Manifestations on Bush are indeed a self need.

I simply must stick around here to see what happens when Bush is gone....who will be the new American bogeyman/woman?

Edited February 4, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Peter F]

Well, good luck with that. I guess every bogeyman needs a face.

But Americans, even if engaged in such fearsome worries, do not attach a Canadian face or person to this fear. For instance, most Americans have no idea who Mark Emery is, even after a 60 Minutes broadcast. For the WoT, we have good 'ol Osama Bin Hidin', not the PM of Canada. Manifestations on Bush are indeed a self need.

I simply must stick around here to see what happens when Bush is gone....who will be the new American bogeyman/woman?

No, a Canadian PM would not work as bogeyman - nor would the King of Norway suit the bill. A bogeyman requires vast amounts of power - mythically so. OBL fits, so did Saddam, so does Bush...and, of course, the Illuminati...I'm pretty sure that the next US President will fit the bill also.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, a Canadian PM would not work as bogeyman - nor would the King of Norway suit the bill. A bogeyman requires vast amounts of power - mythically so. OBL fits, so did Saddam, so does Bush...and, of course, the Illuminati...I'm pretty sure that the next US President will fit the bill also.

Well yea, that's what I'm thinking too. It doesn't matter who it is, those who perceive themselves as powerless (as if they should have the power instead...LOL!), need a figurehead for such projections of impotence. Canadians are already buggered so much with all things Americana, it is easy to choose Bush. It keeps things simple, and absolves them of any domestic responsibility for actions associated with the so called WoT.

I really don't know why it matters at all, because the fear of reprisals expressed by some only reinforces the purpose for the WoT to begin with.

[jbg]

No, a Canadian PM would not work as bogeyman - nor would the King of Norway suit the bill. A bogeyman requires vast amounts of power - mythically so. OBL fits, so did Saddam, so does Bush...and, of course, the Illuminati...I'm pretty sure that the next US President will fit the bill also.

I totally agree. One of the few posts of yours where we do see eyeball to eyeball.

[jbg]

You seem to like sweeping generalizations. I'm fairly left leaning, yet I agree with you that these bombings were terrible.****I can't speak for everyone on the left, but I've yet to see a post on these forums that indicates anyone approves of this kind of action, or loves savagery.

I don't think any on this forum loves the savagery. I do think that many on this forum are prepared to lay the blame for the savagery at the feet of the forces of civilized countries such as the US or Israel that refuse to capitulate to barbarians, and to praise appeasement artists such as Europeans or NDPers in Canada. Remember, it was Churchill and Roosvelt who cleaned up the mess left behind by the appeasers. Similarly Reagan and Thatcher cleaned up Carter's mess.

But I do think that you love the opportunity to take a horrible tragedy and use it to condemn all Muslims, regardless of where they are or how they feel about what happened.

Mostly, I think that many people, for reasons of political correctness, refuse to draw obvious connections. One obvious connection that radical Muslims seem to have in common, whether Sunni, Shi'ite, Pakistani, Iraqi, Afghan, Palestininan or otherwise is the technique of causing large-scale, indiscriminate death that serves little or no sttrategic purpose.