|
28 Jun 06 - 09:30 PM (#1771619) Subject: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam? From: toadfrog This could be wildly inaccurate, or I could have dreamed it, but I would swear I heard from a source that seemed reliable that American troops are now, in the 2000's training the Vietnamese Army. Has anyone else heard that, and if so, where? |
|
28 Jun 06 - 09:35 PM (#1771627) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Rapparee I wouldn't be at all surprised. We have "normal" relations with Vietnam. |
|
28 Jun 06 - 09:55 PM (#1771649) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: number 6 I've also heard that they have troops in Germany and even Japan. sIx |
|
28 Jun 06 - 10:01 PM (#1771660) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: The Fooles Troupe Don't forget Australia! ...again... |
|
28 Jun 06 - 10:01 PM (#1771661) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: number 6 3 years ago I bought a pair of Columbia brand boots down in New Hampshire ... they were made in Vietnam ... times are always a changin toadfrog. sIx |
|
28 Jun 06 - 10:04 PM (#1771664) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Bobert Yeah, Bush has decided to invade China from the south and has convinced that if the Vietnamese will wipe out China that instead of everyhting that we buy now having "Made in China" printed on it it will now read "Made in Vietnam"... The Vietnamese have built secret tunnels hundreds and hundreds of miles into China and are ready to invade whenever Bush says... LOL... Bobert |
|
28 Jun 06 - 10:09 PM (#1771669) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: The Fooles Troupe "built secret tunnels" Just like those sneaky North Koreans! You been reading too muck Tom Clancy then Bobert? (Yes, I saw the typo... and left it!) |
|
28 Jun 06 - 10:09 PM (#1771670) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: CarolC It's true, but at this time, if I remember correctly, it's not military training, but medical training being given to the military, or something like that. Like Bobert, I immediately thought of China when I read the article on the subject, though. |
|
28 Jun 06 - 10:12 PM (#1771673) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: toadfrog Thank you, Carol C. Where was the article? |
|
28 Jun 06 - 10:14 PM (#1771674) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Q (Frank Staplin) Starting age 18, Vietnamese serve two years military service. Can't find reliable info on how they are trained, but wouldn't be surprised at U. S. involvement. |
|
28 Jun 06 - 11:52 PM (#1771720) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: CarolC It was in the Yahoo page where I get my emails and headline news stories. That was several days ago, though. I'll do a search and see if I can find it. |
|
28 Jun 06 - 11:57 PM (#1771722) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: CarolC More like a few weeks ago, I guess. Here it is, and I only saw it in the headlines from the Canadian news and not from US news... http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/05062006/6/n-usa-boosts-military-ties-vietnam.html |
|
29 Jun 06 - 09:15 AM (#1771958) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: artbrooks CNN article |
|
29 Jun 06 - 02:26 PM (#1772163) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Little Hawk One thing the USA and Vietnam have always had in common (well, since the late 40's, anyway) is a distrust of China. In the case of the Vietnamese, it goes back as far as they can remember. |
|
29 Jun 06 - 03:18 PM (#1772187) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: GUEST Wow - thought I was having a rerun in my head there - yep yesterdays enemies make todays friends - |
|
29 Jun 06 - 03:30 PM (#1772195) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Little Hawk It's all a question of pragmatism, money, and strategic objectives. |
|
29 Jun 06 - 03:57 PM (#1772213) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Greg F. But mostly money. |
|
29 Jun 06 - 04:29 PM (#1772229) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Barry Finn Guest, you got it wrong. They were never OUR enemies, it was the other way around. We were their enemies. The same as Iraq today, we didn't belong in either country. Barry |
|
29 Jun 06 - 04:51 PM (#1772242) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: GUEST,mg You have it wrong. They were each other's enemies and invaded and infiltrated and brutally killed. We were the allies and protectors of one side and had treaties. mg |
|
29 Jun 06 - 05:33 PM (#1772269) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Barry Finn "God's on our side", again. We were there for what reason, again? They had nothing to do with US. We were whose protectors & why were we their protectors? In this day & age I didn't think anyone agreed that we were in the right to be there. Still is a lesson for today that we've yet to learn. Barry |
|
29 Jun 06 - 07:15 PM (#1772338) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: The Fooles Troupe "We were there for what reason, again?" Same as the French - the Tin Mines... |
|
29 Jun 06 - 07:56 PM (#1772359) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Little Hawk There never would have been 2 separate Vietnams, if not for USA interference in the process there in the late 50's, following the defeat of the French. There would have been one Vietnam, the Viet Minh (under Ho Chi Minh) would have formed the government, following the negotiated departure of the French colonial administration, and their would have been NO separated South Vietnam and North Vietnam and NO war. The USA deliberately prevented that from happening...and the war that followed was basically a war of national reunification to get the USA and its southern puppet regime (run by the Catholic Vietnamese minority over the Buddhist majority) OUT of there. That southern puppet regime apparently needed 500,000 foreign troops and the world's biggest military power to help it fight...and it STILL couldn't win. That tells you just how legitimate it was as a real representative of the Vietnamese people. Read the history books and see. That wasn't an invasion of the South by the North...it was the slow, very costly ejection from ONE ancient country of a foreign occupying power and its unofficial colonial surrogates, nothing more than that. But that is what CNN would rather you never knew or even thought about, I expect. In time people forget the sordid details of such history, and they believe only the popular mythology... |
|
29 Jun 06 - 08:14 PM (#1772369) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Barry Finn One more time, please, WHY? I was really being sarcastic about asking but thanks for giving others that still think we were trying to spread democracy & strem the flow of the "Red Tide" a better reason. Now, what were we doing there, again please!!! I can just see the afterMATH of Iraq, can we divide by 3. Barry |
|
29 Jun 06 - 08:25 PM (#1772374) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: The Fooles Troupe And the REAL irony, is that Ho Chi Minh was in favour, at first... and was kicked in the teeth after WWII - 'for the tin' :-) "tells you just how legitimate it was as a real representative of the Vietnamese people. " ... and this is why those of us old enough to have lived thru the days of the very real possibility of being conscripted to fight (and die) in a foreign land (only big lottery I have ever been lucky in...) have expressed some degree of concern about Iraq. The blatant lies used as an excuse to get the troops into Iraq at any price, as distinct from Afghanistan, where there was at least tacit UN approval - in contrast with the "F*** 'em all, we're doin' it OUR way!" US attitude (and craven US arselicking by Howard and Blair) in Iraq, for those of us who found out much later about the lies about Tonkin Bay that started the whole Vietnam Nightmare (and the also craven arselicking by the Aussie Govt there too) worry some of us very much indeed. I find it bemusing that one of the 'reasons' for the Aussie arselicking - the right to throw billions of dollars at the USA to have US Military hardware - apparently isn't worth much anyway - we have now just thrown a political diplomatical tantrum because Boeing is now running way late on delivering our beaut new planes... oh, and now the US Govt doesn't want to play fair and give us all the proper Top Secret Stuff anyway, even though that is what our stupid Pollies THOUGHT we were buying anyway... :-0 |
|
29 Jun 06 - 08:36 PM (#1772379) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Little Hawk Come to think of it...what in God's name would Australia need more state of the art jet fighters for anyway? Is New Zealand planning to attack soon? ;-) |
|
29 Jun 06 - 08:38 PM (#1772381) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: The Fooles Troupe Try Indonesia... :-) |
|
29 Jun 06 - 08:43 PM (#1772383) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: The Fooles Troupe Little Hawk, We are after helicopters and big long range surveillance craft - we have a long coastline. and our Navy is kept busy catching lots of Indonesian poaching fishermen, which our courts throw in jail - many of them have been caught multiple times. Interesting, isn't it, that now Australia and Indonesia have just signed a mutual prisoner exchange pact? |
|
29 Jun 06 - 08:53 PM (#1772386) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Little Hawk Aha! Okay, I see what the problem is, then. You would need some good reconnaisance aircraft. You say there's a prisoner exchange pact? How many Aussuie prisoners are being taken by Indonesia? And why? |
|
29 Jun 06 - 09:49 PM (#1772405) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Little Hawk C'mon, Foolestroupe, I want to know. ;-) Was it because of obscene language in public places, crunching beer cans underfoot, engaging in rude sports chants, dancing naked in the street to win a bet, punching out the locals in bars after getting sem-blotto and offending their girlfriends? That sort of thing? |
|
29 Jun 06 - 11:08 PM (#1772428) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Kaleea so, how much $$ will rumsfeld, cheney & honeywell et al be making by doing this training of VietNamese troops? |
|
29 Jun 06 - 11:38 PM (#1772441) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: toadfrog Carol C. and artbrooks: THANks for the references. It's the most persuasive point I can think of to say the War was pointless. It's one thing that we are now allies of the Germans and Japanese, after having defeated them, occupied them and remade their political structure (in the case of Japan, also their society). It's quite another to be buddies with someone who was supposed to be the great Satan, just 35 yrs. ago, who defeated us. A good thing we occupied Germany and Japan, and changed them. Not a real good precedent, though. |
|
30 Jun 06 - 06:53 AM (#1772599) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: The Fooles Troupe Little Hawk So you haven't heard of the infamous Ms Corby sentenced for 20 years or so, and all the other Aussie smug drugglers (yeah, that's about right!) locked up there. Now we have all these hundred of poor fishermen that we have to feed after we seized and burnt their poaching fishing boats (it's a long way to swim home...), and it would be much cheaper for us to do a swap and reduce the net number of prisoners in out jails... :-) |
|
30 Jun 06 - 10:04 AM (#1772736) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Kweku no permanent friends or enemies,only interests. That is the first golden rule of foreign policy. |
|
30 Jun 06 - 09:45 PM (#1773211) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: The Fooles Troupe Haha! Truth will out! Heard on the news that a test rig drilling has just proved a large oil field just off the coast of Vietnam... :-) |
|
30 Jun 06 - 11:05 PM (#1773245) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: CarolC But of course... |
|
30 Jun 06 - 11:32 PM (#1773259) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: Little Hawk Aha! That means either a lucrative deal...or a whole new war crisis situation once a phony exucuse has been found. I'm betting on the lucrative deal for this one. |
|
01 Jul 06 - 07:35 AM (#1773403) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. troops in Vietnam From: The Fooles Troupe ... and of course NONONE knew about the potential oil fields in the sixties... ooooooooooooo..... |