Peace Protesters

Well the information has come from somewhere - whether you are in possession or have access to it or not. Information is given or mis-given as and when required.

The UK is not in the pocket of the US as much the world likes to think.

You take or leave what you like it is of no consequence to me dear.

Moon Maiden

Originally posted by Moon Maiden

...The UK is not in the pocket of the US as much the world likes to think...Moon Maiden

The UK isn't - hence the thousands of demonstrators - but dictator Blair certainly is.

Yip - all of them playing their parts like good little children.

Keep going

Moon Maiden

I was living in NZ at the time of the Vietnam war and many of my friends served there. In fact, I missed going by one day as conscription was based on the day of the month you were born and included all residents. To my knowledge, the only British advisers in Vietnam were training the kiwis, aussies and Americans.

The only involvement Britain had with the Vietcong was at the end of WWII when they disarmed them, interned them and re-issued their weapons to Japanese POWs to guard the compounds. All this to prevent the communist guerrillas, as they were then, from taking power before the Vietnamese royal family returned from London where they had been in exile following the Japanese invasion of Vietnam.

So the idea of Britain training them 25 years later is a bit odd.

Moon maiden, if you cant actually make any points, or back up the points you're called on, what exactly is the point you are making with your posts here?

Did the British train NVA during vietnam war? Any chance you could cite your sources please, as having studies Vietnam and Korea conflicts, I have never heard this before.

Did the anti war demonstrations in the US help to bring about the end of that war?

If not, what is your take on the effects of the anti war movement in the US or do you really think it was all down to Cronkite?

and when you are talking about the demonstrators, what do you mean by

 

Yip - all of them playing their parts like good little children.

?

Well I actually thought it was a discussion forum Phan, just because you don't like what I say does not make my posts pointless they just happen to disagree with your own opinions on the matter and with reagrds to the conflicts in Iraq I have always been for.

In my day to day I read all the time between the lines of what is given to me to see the truth of it not accepting what is forced down my throat as the truth the whole truth and nothing but.

To address your questions

I have heard from a couple of family sources (being that the family is military) of rumours of people training in Vietnam. Obviously these are just rumours but when a similar topic came up in a 'normal' forum some time ago and american gave me the same story.

Story being that it was British military intelligence out there training them behind the US back. I do not believe there would have been a formal admission and any that would have been released later would have been put aside.

Sort of like the media blackout that happens when the police go to a fun house and arrest the towns solcitors, judges and powerful figures for various acts.

Did the anti-war demonstrations end the war?

Well if you take my on board the information given above that miltary intellegence was indeed training the vietnamese, then the peace protestors simply played their part.

If there was no training there would probably not have been the need to become so brutal with the people of Vietnam, it would have been a walkover and thus not produce the pictures that the media plastered all over teatime american news.

And I do believe it was these pictures that led to the outcry.

Hence my comments.

Could I ask - the way in which the vietnam vets were treated when they returned home. It wasn't very nice was it - do the peace protestors here intend to treat british military returning home in the same sad manner?

Moon Maiden

Originally posted by Moon Maiden

Well I actually thought it was a discussion forum Phan, just because you don't like what I say does not make my posts pointless they just happen to disagree with your own opinions on the matter and with reagrds to the conflicts in Iraq I have always been for.

It's not that I don't like what you say, it's just that what you said was so obtuse and cryptic it was hard to make any sense of it.

In my day to day I read all the time between the lines of what is given to me to see the truth of it not accepting what is forced down my throat as the truth the whole truth and nothing but.

To paraphrase sages down the ages - if you think you know the truth, then you certainly do not!

To address your questions

I have heard from a couple of family sources (being that the family is military) of rumours of people training in Vietnam. Obviously these are just rumours but when a similar topic came up in a 'normal' forum some time ago and american gave me the same story.

Story being that it was British military intelligence out there training them behind the US back. I do not believe there would have been a formal admission and any that would have been released later would have been put aside.

Sort of like the media blackout that happens when the police go to a fun house and arrest the towns solcitors, judges and powerful figures for various acts.

Ok, you are reporting a rumour that British Military Intelligence trained Vietnamese people behind the US back. This implies they were training the NVA, although you don't actually say this is the case. They could have been training the SVM perhaps?

Either way, all British involvement in Vietnam is rumour because officially there was no British involvement. But there is a large body of evidence that British forces and intelligence were working with the US and against the NVA.

So you need to ask yourself why the British seem to have been training both sides, but only arming and fighting for one side (the SVM/US).

It just doesn't - upon reading between the lines - seem to be very plausible.

Even if it is true that the UK assisted both sides in the war, their materiel and combat assistance vastly favoured the SVM/US, so it would be fair to say that the UK helped the SVM/US more than the NVA.

Did the anti-war demonstrations end the war?

 

Well if you take my on board the information given above that miltary intellegence was indeed training the vietnamese, then the peace protestors simply played their part.

If there was no training there would probably not have been the need to become so brutal with the people of Vietnam, it would have been a walkover and thus not produce the pictures that the media plastered all over teatime american news.

Quite apart from the fact that there was very little the British could teach the NVA in Jungle Warfare, the reason that the NVA resisted the might of the US was partly because of their extensive Soviet and Chinese support. Any secret British contribution would have been as nothing compared to the overt assistance of these two nations.

There were a thousand other factors that lengthened the war (US incompetence and atrocities, Vietnamese national pride, Vietcong terrorism, endless supply of conscripts on both sides etc.)

And I do believe it was these pictures that led to the outcry.

outcry n:a loud utterance; often in protest or opposition.

And an outcry against a war would therefore be a protest for peace, no?

So I think CarlWarker is justified in saying that the peace protest in the US that he was a part of helped end US involvement in the region.

Hence my comments.

 

Could I ask - the way in which the vietnam vets were treated when they returned home. It wasn't very nice was it - do the peace protestors here intend to treat british military returning home in the same sad manner?

That question looks a bit barbed from here, but in all truth, watching a good friend go out there, come back, and have to go out there again I'm just praying he comes back and can stay well out of it. The chances of which would have been far greater had the UK not been part of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

...And an outcry against a war would therefore be a protest for peace, no?

So I think CarlWarker is justified in saying that the peace protest in the US that he was a part of helped end US involvement in the region.

That question looks a bit barbed from here, but in all truth, watching a good friend go out there, come back, and have to go out there again I'm just praying he comes back and can stay well out of it. The chances of which would have been far greater had the UK not been part of the illegal invasion of Iraq. [/b]

Regarding the illegality of the War: this headline was in the Guardian yesterday:

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

The full article is at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1089042,00.html

The headline "top US official acknowledges war was illegal" would almost make you think there might be some regret or shame involved.

Not a bit of it, this is merely ammuntion to PNACs campaign to stop recognising international law as it applies to the USA because it is inconvenient.

And if the most powerful nation in the world refuses to abide by international law, what hope is there that anyone else would feel compelled to do so?

Another great PNAC policy brought to you by Chimpy's administration.

Now we can look forward to 'pre-emptive' strikes by other countries following the example of the great and the good.

Odds on favourite for first premptive nuclear strike?

Israel - Evens (except that Israel doesn't have a nuclear weapons, no of course not)

India/Pakistan - 3/2

N.Korea 2/1

USA 4/1

UK 10/1

France 10/1

China 5/1

Thanks George I feel much safer now.