|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| NZ went to Nam mainly because of SEATO |
The open secret is that NZ was technically strong armed into the action. (black mail is a bad word)
In regards to the british/canadian issue, apart from reading how some British special forces fought there, I haven't read anything substantial about it.
Though special forces works on the principal that they are (seconded) to a unit and subsequently dont actually work for thier country.
The story I heard was that our soldiers fought in Cambodia, were then flown to a US base in Antartica where thier weapons were removed and destroyed and then they were sent on to our countries base in Antartica.
The reasoning was that our government could claim that our troops were never in that country, but were on a training mission on a US base.
Though its ancient history now, and only of interest to us history buffs. Though when I was younger, I was a Vietnam history buff, I read, spoke or listened to anyone who had ever been there.
(post edit) Actually I still will, its such an interesting issue. The saddest thing I have ever seen is a group of Vietnamese in 1993 flying thier flag at an awards ceremony. Who cares why the US fought the war, for those people thier nation ended in 1975 and we still talk like it was a mistake. For them it wasn't.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Paddycakes
Joined: 05 May 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
mc-jc wrote:
| Quote: |
| Canada sent a Battalion of French-speaking soldiers into Phnom Penh in 1971. Canada was part of the overall Commonwealth contingent involved during the Vietnam War. |
Dp you have a source for this? |
While MC-JC was playing strip poker with General Westmoreland, I was having a Pepsi and a Joe Louis avec General Romeo Dallaire...
According to my good friend Romeo, the story is true....
It was "Poutine Squad 373", a top-secret rag-tag band of misfits and petty criminals from Abitibi-T�miscamingue...
After robbing the local D�panneur to procure des smokes, they were given a choice by the Court of Qu�bec: either spend six months at "da big house" at Sainte-Anne-des-Plaine.... or go to Vietnam and fight alongside les Am�ricains...
Alors, the choice was obvious... our friends opted to go to Vietnam and "Poutine Squad 373" was formed...
However, the Court of Qu�bec didn't realize that the members of "Poutine Squad 373" were felquistes, and shortly after arriving in Vietnam they joined the North Vietnamese to fight their mutual enemy: Anglo-American imperialism.
No one really knows what happened to "Poutine Squad 373" after the war, but it's rumored some of them are currently running underground strip joints in Ho Chi Minh City... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:39 am Post subject: Re: mc jc |
|
|
| Mosley wrote: |
"If you have any questions about this, you could direct them to the Foreign Offices...." 
No mate, if I have any Qs about this I'll direct them to YOU. Where's your source(s)?!
Fr.-Can. battalion in Cambodia?! UK HQ in Danang?! Horsehockey.
Aus./NZ went to Nam mainly because of SEATO. Canadians who fought were VOLUNTEERS with the UNITED STATES military. In point of fact, the Liberal governments of the day discouraged enlistment & disavowed Canadians who went to fight in Nam. Don't try to portray the very tiny ICC Canadian contingent as "Commonwealth" troops fighting in combat.
I'm tempted to assert that you're a nutter or a troll-but I won't. Civility must rule the roost at Dave's. |
Victor Levant is a left-wing Canadian academic who has been quite enthusiastic about exposing what he regards as Canadian complicity in the Vietnam War. Whatever one thinks about his politics(and I'm sure Moz is a fan!) you can bet that any aspect of Canadian involvement in Vietnam has come to his attention, and he is one guy who would not understate Canada's role in that particular conflict.
So, here's his Canadian Encyclopedia article about Canada's role in the Vietnam War. From my reading of this, it would seem that Canadians were definitely NOT playing any role whatsoever that would be comparable to Australia's, much less as part of any "Commonwealth contingent". They did, according to Levant, carry out their duties on the ostensibly neutral Truce Commissions with an eye toward helping American interests, but it does not sound as if there was any actual involvement in combat for the American side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whether you believe me or not, it is up to you.
The truth of the matter is that Canada, who many of you claim to be very anti-interventionist, was in fact a player in the Vietnam War.
Pentagon records do indicate the presence of Commonwealth forces, other than Australia and New Zealand, in the region during this police action.
Canadians served in the US armed forces, but there was in fact a Canadian Regiment that played a key role in gathering intel from the local population.
The British played more of a supervisory role, except for the presence of the Royal Marine Commandos and SRR units that worked alongside American SpecOps and ARVN special operations teams. They played a vital role during Operation Phoenix that all but eradicated the top Viet Cong cadre.
If you have a problem with what is written, go talk to your governments.
Would it be a shitstorm if they admit the truth about their involvement in Vietnam?
| Quote: |
| Would the USA be prepared for a difficult insurgency like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan? As much as i dislike Iran (and I do), in order for the USA to invade and occupy Iran would require a particularly extensive brutal action on the part of the US. Iran has lots of little knuckleheads that live in the northern villages just ripe for an insurgency like Afghanistan. Thats how the guy thats in power there now got there, through the villagers in the north. |
The easy answer to that is M.A.D.- as soon as Ahmadinejad announces Iran has the bomb, the US is ready to move tactical nuclear missiles into the countries surrounding it. Although many Arab and Gulf countries chafe at the prospect of having American nuclear weapons in their backyards, they believe it is better than having a fully nuclear-armed Iran.
This is very similar to what is happening now in Korea- ever since North Korea announced it has nuclear weapons, the Pentagon has been quietly moving nuclear missile batteries into the region. The agreement to remove the last 125 nuclear warheads from the Korean peninsula has been scrapped and additional warheads are on the way as we speak.
When President Obama announced on TV that he would not use nuclear weapons on nations that don't have them, he was hinting that those that do would be attacked using our nuclear arsenal.
It was not rhetoric, he was speaking about doctrine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
Whether you believe me or not, it is up to you.
The truth of the matter is that Canada, who many of you claim to be very anti-interventionist, was in fact a player in the Vietnam War.
Pentagon records do indicate the presence of Commonwealth forces, other than Australia and New Zealand, in the region during this police action.
Canadians served in the US armed forces, but there was in fact a Canadian Regiment that played a key role in gathering intel from the local population.
The British played more of a supervisory role, except for the presence of the Royal Marine Commandos and SRR units that worked alongside American SpecOps and ARVN special operations teams. They played a vital role during Operation Phoenix that all but eradicated the top Viet Cong cadre.
If you have a problem with what is written, go talk to your governments.
Would it be a shitstorm if they admit the truth about their involvement in Vietnam?
| Quote: |
| Would the USA be prepared for a difficult insurgency like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan? As much as i dislike Iran (and I do), in order for the USA to invade and occupy Iran would require a particularly extensive brutal action on the part of the US. Iran has lots of little knuckleheads that live in the northern villages just ripe for an insurgency like Afghanistan. Thats how the guy thats in power there now got there, through the villagers in the north. |
The easy answer to that is M.A.D.- as soon as Ahmadinejad announces Iran has the bomb, the US is ready to move tactical nuclear missiles into the countries surrounding it. Although many Arab and Gulf countries chafe at the prospect of having American nuclear weapons in their backyards, they believe it is better than having a fully nuclear-armed Iran.
This is very similar to what is happening now in Korea- ever since North Korea announced it has nuclear weapons, the Pentagon has been quietly moving nuclear missile batteries into the region. The agreement to remove the last 125 nuclear warheads from the Korean peninsula has been scrapped and additional warheads are on the way as we speak.
When President Obama announced on TV that he would not use nuclear weapons on nations that don't have them, he was hinting that those that do would be attacked using our nuclear arsenal.
It was not rhetoric, he was speaking about doctrine. |
What makes you think they would announce it? I think that they would play a Israel and be coy. Why would America need to have nukes in the region, wouldn't Israel be able to destroy enough on it's own. The chance of any one using a nuclear weapon is so low that unless a non national actor got one it isn't a pressing security concern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| mc_jc wrote: |
Whether you believe me or not, it is up to you.
The truth of the matter is that Canada, who many of you claim to be very anti-interventionist, was in fact a player in the Vietnam War.
Pentagon records do indicate the presence of Commonwealth forces, other than Australia and New Zealand, in the region during this police action.
Canadians served in the US armed forces, but there was in fact a Canadian Regiment that played a key role in gathering intel from the local population.
The British played more of a supervisory role, except for the presence of the Royal Marine Commandos and SRR units that worked alongside American SpecOps and ARVN special operations teams. They played a vital role during Operation Phoenix that all but eradicated the top Viet Cong cadre.
If you have a problem with what is written, go talk to your governments.
Would it be a shitstorm if they admit the truth about their involvement in Vietnam?
| Quote: |
| Would the USA be prepared for a difficult insurgency like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan? As much as i dislike Iran (and I do), in order for the USA to invade and occupy Iran would require a particularly extensive brutal action on the part of the US. Iran has lots of little knuckleheads that live in the northern villages just ripe for an insurgency like Afghanistan. Thats how the guy thats in power there now got there, through the villagers in the north. |
The easy answer to that is M.A.D.- as soon as Ahmadinejad announces Iran has the bomb, the US is ready to move tactical nuclear missiles into the countries surrounding it. Although many Arab and Gulf countries chafe at the prospect of having American nuclear weapons in their backyards, they believe it is better than having a fully nuclear-armed Iran.
This is very similar to what is happening now in Korea- ever since North Korea announced it has nuclear weapons, the Pentagon has been quietly moving nuclear missile batteries into the region. The agreement to remove the last 125 nuclear warheads from the Korean peninsula has been scrapped and additional warheads are on the way as we speak.
When President Obama announced on TV that he would not use nuclear weapons on nations that don't have them, he was hinting that those that do would be attacked using our nuclear arsenal.
It was not rhetoric, he was speaking about doctrine. |
What makes you think they would announce it? I think that they would play a Israel and be coy. Why would America need to have nukes in the region, wouldn't Israel be able to destroy enough on it's own. The chance of any one using a nuclear weapon is so low that unless a non national actor got one it isn't a pressing security concern. |
Why wouldn't they announce it? It would be great propaganda and who would mess with a nuclear armed country?? Why would they be coy? That would be pointless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| mc_jc wrote: |
Whether you believe me or not, it is up to you.
The truth of the matter is that Canada, who many of you claim to be very anti-interventionist, was in fact a player in the Vietnam War.
Pentagon records do indicate the presence of Commonwealth forces, other than Australia and New Zealand, in the region during this police action.
Canadians served in the US armed forces, but there was in fact a Canadian Regiment that played a key role in gathering intel from the local population.
The British played more of a supervisory role, except for the presence of the Royal Marine Commandos and SRR units that worked alongside American SpecOps and ARVN special operations teams. They played a vital role during Operation Phoenix that all but eradicated the top Viet Cong cadre.
If you have a problem with what is written, go talk to your governments.
Would it be a shitstorm if they admit the truth about their involvement in Vietnam?
| Quote: |
| Would the USA be prepared for a difficult insurgency like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan? As much as i dislike Iran (and I do), in order for the USA to invade and occupy Iran would require a particularly extensive brutal action on the part of the US. Iran has lots of little knuckleheads that live in the northern villages just ripe for an insurgency like Afghanistan. Thats how the guy thats in power there now got there, through the villagers in the north. |
The easy answer to that is M.A.D.- as soon as Ahmadinejad announces Iran has the bomb, the US is ready to move tactical nuclear missiles into the countries surrounding it. Although many Arab and Gulf countries chafe at the prospect of having American nuclear weapons in their backyards, they believe it is better than having a fully nuclear-armed Iran.
This is very similar to what is happening now in Korea- ever since North Korea announced it has nuclear weapons, the Pentagon has been quietly moving nuclear missile batteries into the region. The agreement to remove the last 125 nuclear warheads from the Korean peninsula has been scrapped and additional warheads are on the way as we speak.
When President Obama announced on TV that he would not use nuclear weapons on nations that don't have them, he was hinting that those that do would be attacked using our nuclear arsenal.
It was not rhetoric, he was speaking about doctrine. |
What makes you think they would announce it? I think that they would play a Israel and be coy. Why would America need to have nukes in the region, wouldn't Israel be able to destroy enough on it's own. The chance of any one using a nuclear weapon is so low that unless a non national actor got one it isn't a pressing security concern. |
Why wouldn't they announce it? It would be great propaganda and who would mess with a nuclear armed country?? Why would they be coy? That would be pointless. |
Because it's even better propaganda to deny it when everyone knows you have it, just like Israel. Iran likes to be self righteous, listen to anything they say about other countries. This would allow them to do it, and if everyone knows they have a bomb all the better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| mc_jc wrote: |
This is very similar to what is happening now in Korea- ever since North Korea announced it has nuclear weapons, the Pentagon has been quietly moving nuclear missile batteries into the region. The agreement to remove the last 125 nuclear warheads from the Korean peninsula has been scrapped and additional warheads are on the way as we speak.
|
So the news reports and claims that nukes were removed from South Korea in 1991 are wrong huh? Right. This was in fact a lie? On December 18, 1991, South Korea's President Roh Tae-Woo declared: "As I speak, there do not exist any nuclear weapon whatsoever anywhere in the Republic of Korea."
Source 1
Source 2
And I don't even want to hear some BS about appearances, deceptions, how you're privy to certain info, yada yada yada. We get it, you think you're hot [Mod Edit].
You've been owned on this thread (not by me so much but those who showed you how wrong you were about Vietnam) and obviously have this huge block to admit that you are wrong sometimes. It is no wonder your ass was sent off to Afghanistan. |
Frankly, I do not want to wade into people engaging in ad-hominems or take sides. I just see there is an ad-hominem attack, and you were dodging the swear filter. That's not necessary. Refrain from dodging the swear filter. You know better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Please- this is a public board and I have not made as many inflammatory comments as you. |
I have to disagree with you on this point.
Bucheon is pretty stable on the argument side, he doesn't go into personality attacks too much.
Plus he seems to know his stuff on the ME, at least he doesn't usually talk out of his arse on the matter. (post edit - not that I am saying you were)
I just wish I could meet someone who knows as much about the Vietnam war on this site. I would love to spend a few years discussing it on pm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
mc jc:
I'll offer ONE last chance, mate...CITE a source about all these Commonwealth forces(esp. the Brits & Canucks) fighting in Nam or else accept the choice as your designation, "A" or "B'', from below....
A: Troll
B: Seriously misinformed individual
C: Sincere poster who will supply supporting documentation within 24 hours |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mosley, you might be asking a semi impossible question. (post edit - loaded question)
If you are asking for information that Canada and Britain sent Battalion size troops (minimal numbers) to Vietnam then he is incorrect.
If you are asking for official website affirmable information that they seconded special forces to work with the US/Thai/OZ/SK/NZ/VN forces, then you might be asking the impossible.
Even if he was a member of the unit in the area (most dont talk about thier actions).
The Australian military/Government made a deal with Britain that thier special forces would not only train with the SAS but would also join on any missions that would occur during thier training.
Though, they wont and have never made that info public. The wiki leaks kills that not just for the US but also for our countries that don't discuss military operations with the public.
(post eddited) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| mc_jc wrote: |
This is very similar to what is happening now in Korea- ever since North Korea announced it has nuclear weapons, the Pentagon has been quietly moving nuclear missile batteries into the region. The agreement to remove the last 125 nuclear warheads from the Korean peninsula has been scrapped and additional warheads are on the way as we speak.
|
So the news reports and claims that nukes were removed from South Korea in 1991 are wrong huh? Right. This was in fact a lie? On December 18, 1991, South Korea's President Roh Tae-Woo declared: "As I speak, there do not exist any nuclear weapon whatsoever anywhere in the Republic of Korea."
Source 1
Source 2
And I don't even want to hear some BS about appearances, deceptions, how you're privy to certain info, yada yada yada. We get it, you think you're hot [Mod Edit].
You've been owned on this thread (not by me so much but those who showed you how wrong you were about Vietnam) and obviously have this huge block to admit that you are wrong sometimes. It is no wonder your ass was sent off to Afghanistan. |
Frankly, I do not want to wade into people engaging in ad-hominems or take sides. I just see there is an ad-hominem attack, and you were dodging the swear filter. That's not necessary. Refrain from dodging the swear filter. You know better. |
I don't dodge the swear filter; there doesn't seem to be a filter any more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
That's perfectly ok. If you want to believe what is written in the same papers you claim are trash, that's your business, not mine. |
Huh? when have I ever made a claim that some paper(s) are trash? Once again you make an unsubstantiated claim.
| Quote: |
| So you think you can swear me off? Please- this is a public board and I have not made as many inflammatory comments as you. I am above that because I know such comments might make you look good, but it gives way to your insecurity. Simply get over yourself. |
My insecurity? Do tell what insecurity that is.
More like I can't stand self-promoters and you frankly piss the hell out of me? Maybe if you just stuck to discussing foreign policy and dropped the name droppings and other pompous remarks I wouldn't insult you. Although congrats for the lack of name dropping on this thread, I'll concede that one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
As the poster mentioned above- governments are not going to talk about it nor are they going to allow such information to be passed on the internet.
Do you think the British and Canadian Foreign Offices are going to allow such information to go public? This will create a hail storm of criticism that they don't need right now, especially with their involvement in Afghanistan.
Recently, the British government announced that British troops used poor judgment in dealing with the "Bloody Sunday" protesters and it created an outcry for accountability of the soldiers involved. Also, the Canadian government announced that they turned Taliban suspects over to American forces for interrogation.
Simply put, I am giving this information to contribute to the thread. It is up to you to either agree or disagree whether to believe it or not.
But just because you don't believe something doesn't mean I'm going to stop posting here.
So deal with it.
| Quote: |
| More like I can't stand self-promoters and you frankly piss the hell out of me? Maybe if you just stuck to discussing foreign policy and dropped the name droppings and other pompous remarks I wouldn't insult you. Although congrats for the lack of name dropping on this thread, I'll concede that one. |
This sounds personal.
You have no reason to be upset- none. The names are used to let you know who said what during a certain conversation- it doesn't mean I know them personally (except for the people I have networked with over the course of working in Korea and now Afghanistan as head of the logistics agency for USFK).
As for finding information- it is possible, but I'm not going to post it here.
I have access to it through FOIA access- if you don't believe me, ask CentalCali. He called me to task about something and I DID provide him with evidence of what I was speaking about once. But he did it THE RIGHT WAY. He asked me via PM. It took several months, but I finally got it.
There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Back to the original topic. If there is war against Iran there is a great chance that Israel will have to act unilaterally. America is probably unwilling to be bogged down in another war in the region, especially in Iran. If Israel acts unilaterally it may be the thing that ruptures its "special" relationship with Washington. If Iran is attacked there is a great chance that Iran will retaliate against US troops in Iraq, as well as destabilize the entire region. Not to mention that any Israeli attack routes require flying over American held air routes in Iraq, or American allies like Saudi Arabi or Turkey. Iran could also cut off oil exports from the Persian gulf.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703757504575194223689622084.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
