# British raison d'etre for Afghanistan



## Makalakumu (Jan 21, 2011)

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10089/



> It would be fair to say that Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles knows quite a  bit about the Britains involvement in Afghanistan. He was the British  ambassador in Afghanistan between May 2007 and April 2009. And then he  became special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan before leaving his  post in June last year. So when he says that the reason for the British  armys continued presence in the region has less to with any military  objectives than with simply giving the army something to do, its a  criticism to be reckoned with.
> 
> 
> Cowper-Coless  comments were made as part of written supplementary evidence given to  the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee last November, but they  were only released on Thursday. Coming from a critic of the war, it  might be possible for the Foreign Office to brush them aside, but coming  from a semi-insider, thats not so easy.
> ...



Whoa.  That is cynical.

Thoughts?


----------



## billc (Jan 21, 2011)

I'm glad those units are there, they are helping an old and true friend fight bad guys.  After all, Afghanistan is the war everyone said we should be fighting, it was iraq that was the unnecassary war.  Remember?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I'm glad those units are there, they are helping an old and true friend fight bad guys.  After all, Afghanistan is the war everyone said we should be fighting, it was iraq that was the unnecassary war.  Remember?



Yeah, but to design a strategy to use forces (paid for by money extracted by force) just to maintain their existence?  Isn't that militarism?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 21, 2011)

Welcome to the West.  

It's what we've been doing for the past few centuries, sometimes with laudible aims, sometimes not, mostly not (if the extraction of profit by force of arms is not considered laudible) altho' some good was done as a side effect of efficient wealth transfer.

A while back it wasn't reprehensibke to act that way, it was the way the Game was played.  Nowadays, for public consumption, an acceptable face has to be put on things, whilst the bald actuality of self-interest continues.

It might sound like I condemn that (and from a purely moral perspective I most certainly do) but the sad fact is that if our governments cease to act in the interests of the wealthy then we all suffer. Regardless, the failing of the strength of the West will happen eventually and perhaps sooner than we think and some other country or group of countries will gain ascendency and it will be 'us' acting as terrorists and insurgents.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 22, 2011)

People forget, this is our fourth Afghan war. We are standing at 1-1-1 at the moment, this current one has still to be decided.

Our army is made up of professional soldiers, their job is to fight whoever the Queen via her government sends them to fight, they don't want to lose their jobs any more than anyone does. However the government owes it to them not to send them anywhere they shouldn't be and to look after the wounded and the families of those killed in action. 

Actually the army had plenty to do, they are still in the Falklands, they serve in places like Sierra Leone, they guard Cyprus from another invasion by the Turks, they do endless UN tours in various hot spots around the world and of course despite what many think there's still Northern Ireland, soldiers are still being killed there. 

We went into Afghanistan because the government of the time kowtowed to the Americans, the terrorists are in Pakistan, Iran, Syria etc but hey America wanted to do something big to pay for 9/11 so they took a pin, blindfolded the president and he stuck the pin in Afghanistan. So there you go, our soldiers pay in blood.

Billichik, you aren't that true a friend out there, when your people are constantly criticising the British soldiers who fought and died there, some of your people have been downright disrespectful to them. In fact you are building up quite a bit of resentment with your 'the Brits did it wrong' the Brits are soft' stuff that's coming out, well, I can tell you 1000 Royal Marines held more territory, had more fire fights and lost less men in three years than yours did with 20 times the manpower and half the territory in three months. So you can stuff you platitudes right up where the sun don't shine. Good friends my ****.


----------



## billc (Jan 22, 2011)

I disagree with your healthcare system, but I have always admired your troops.  I also have thought that Britain, along with Israel,  are America's best friends in the world.   I have to think, that you would want Britain to pulll out of the effort in Afghanistan.  Isn't Afghansitan the "right war" that Bush had neglected,  in favor of invading Iraq?   The terrorists in Afganistan, if they have a friendly government there will not just attack America.  Britain is another target in their sites.  Once Britain pulls out, then what?  the same goes for the rest of the fight in the various countries mentioned.  Is the best strategy against islamic terrorism to pull back all of our troops, and try to intercept attacks after the plans have been launched?  Are Obamas use of Drones in Pakistan the way to go?  Impersonal, long distance attacks from the air with less control over civillian casualties?  Will this be the way to go after Britain and the States pull back?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 22, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I disagree with your healthcare system, but I have always admired your troops. I also have thought that Britain, along with Israel, are America's best friends in the world. I have to think, that you would want Britain to pulll out of the effort in Afghanistan. Isn't Afghansitan the "right war" that Bush had neglected, in favor of invading Iraq? The terrorists in Afganistan, if they have a friendly government there will not just attack America. Britain is another target in their sites. Once Britain pulls out, then what? the same goes for the rest of the fight in the various countries mentioned. Is the best strategy against islamic terrorism to pull back all of our troops, and try to intercept attacks after the plans have been launched? Are Obamas use of Drones in Pakistan the way to go? Impersonal, long distance attacks from the air with less control over civillian casualties? Will this be the way to go after Britain and the States pull back?


 
Our healthcare system is not yours to disagree with so your opinion of it means nothing. 

I think you actually know little about terrorism, who the terrorists are and how they operate. Britian is not and never has been a target for the Taliban. I think you are confusing them with Al Queda which actually is a hydra organisation. 

I notice you have ignored my charges of the way the Americans have treated our troops in Sangin. Perhaps that's the way you think friends and allies should treat each other. The Americans have said when enough blood have been shed they will hand Sangin over to the Afghans, the American soldiers have snipers shooting anyone they fancy as well as livestock needed by families to survive. and the locals are terrified of them. The American commander says the British were soft. However the cost is high both to the Afghans and to the Americans, I hope they can justify these deaths to the American families. 
For you this is just an amusing pastime, posting up your right wing propoganda but to some of us it's intensely personal, our brigade of a thousand personel had 50 soldiers killed, 30 triple amputatees, over 400 injured. These people are my colleagues, my friends and my martial arts students, they are the parents of the children we teach,the spouses of people we work with and live with, it's our community so spare me any theorectical guff you may have to say on what should or shouldn't happen in Afghan.

Oh by the way, they all came back to work on Monday after six weeks leave, they have started training for their next deployment in Afghan, next year when we will have to go through it all again, and for the Americans to betray our troops again like they did in Sangin, so yes the Brits need to leave Afghanistan to whatever mess it's in. We really, really don't care.


----------



## billc (Jan 22, 2011)

Tez, I know people serving and suffering as well.  this is a serious issue and walking away is not an option.  Under the taliban, terrorist training camps operated freely and went unmolested.  The attacks on the west are not going to simply stop because we pull troops back.  We have troops around the world dealing with terrorists making Afghanistan one theater of operations.  I just want to know, so we bring your troops home, and ours, what then?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 22, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Tez, I know people serving and suffering as well. this is a serious issue and walking away is not an option. Under the taliban, terrorist training camps operated freely and went unmolested. The attacks on the west are not going to simply stop because we pull troops back. We have troops around the world dealing with terrorists making Afghanistan one theater of operations. I just want to know, so we bring your troops home, and ours, *what then*?


 
Frankly? Who gives a ****.

Have you been there, served there? Are you going there, do you actually know what's going on there?

The attacks on the west haven't stopped because we are there, they mostly didn't come from there in the first place. 

You have troops around the world stopping terrorist attacks, where?

And when are you going to answer my question about America betraying, belittling and slagging off our troops? The Americans said the British were cowards in Sangin. They wren't supposed to have to hold Sangin, but the Americans asked them to then they come in with twenty times the troops and rubbish our lads.. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sangin


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 22, 2011)

"The Americans"..as in *all *Americans say ??

Whatever...

You are cherry picking quotes from people to support your preconceptions IMO. Have your criticisms of my countrymen all over this forum been any different from the stuff you are complaining about now?

Death and injury? Do you REALLY want to compare who has paid more in blood and pain here? Really??


----------



## billc (Jan 22, 2011)

I don't know about Sangin.  You apparently have looked into it and don't like what happened there.  In a war, these things happen all the time, that is why you enter into war only when you absolutely have to.  I think after the twin towers were knocked down by islamic terrorists, the gloves had to come off.  It isn't easy, it isn't efficient, but those who have served in the military will tell you it is an inefficient, and clumsy establishment.  The soldiers suffer the most for mistakes made at home.  too often they are forgotten after they have been injured and that definitely needs to be changed.  It still doesn't change the equation that wars have to be fought, and this fight in particular needs to continue.  We disagree, and probably always will.


----------



## granfire (Jan 22, 2011)

billcihak said:


> *I don't know about Sangin*.  You apparently have looked into it and don't like what happened there.  In a war, these things happen all the time, that is why you enter into war only when you absolutely have to.  I think after the twin towers were knocked down by islamic terrorists, the gloves had to come off.  It isn't easy, it isn't efficient, but those who have served in the military will tell you it is an inefficient, and clumsy establishment.  The soldiers suffer the most for mistakes made at home.  too often they are forgotten after they have been injured and that definitely needs to be changed.  It still doesn't change the equation that wars have to be fought, and this fight in particular needs to continue.  We disagree, and probably always will.




Well, that is the basic problem with your statement: You don't know. 
And frankly, in this case you better back off. because I know I would not take your kind of comments lightly when they hit this close to home. You don't know what you are talking about, and that means in some cases that silence is indeed golden.

So, just like it irks me in sports when the couch potatoes proclaim the 'we' in the effort, unless you put on a uniform and pick up a gun, you had no part in the 'we', other than happily signing away a large chunk of our collective liberties.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 22, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Death and injury? Do you REALLY want to compare who has paid more in blood and pain here? Really??



I think the Afghans and Iraqis win that one hands down.  Don't forget them...

Back to the article, I guess what really irks me is that no one can even consider disbanding units that aren't needed.  Instead, we send men and women off the kill and die simply to keep them active.  That's unconscionable, IMO.


----------



## billc (Jan 22, 2011)

You know granfire, I will post about the topics I feel like posting about.  I don't know about one incident in one aspect of a global effort.  If Tez does and feels strongly about it, that is all well and good, but let's not lecture me about what I post.  I support the war effort, it has a horrible cost but we didn't initiate the problem.  We as a country have to deal, with this problem because it isn't going away.  We can pull all our troops out, let Iran get a nuclear weapon, and frisk everyone at the airport, but the problem will still be there.  You can't ingore it, you can't wish it away.


----------



## K-man (Jan 22, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I disagree with your healthcare system, but I have always admired your troops. I also have thought that Britain, along with Israel, are America's best friends in the world. I have to think, that you would want Britain to pulll out of the effort in Afghanistan. Isn't Afghansitan the "right war" that Bush had neglected, in favor of invading Iraq? The terrorists in Afganistan, if they have a friendly government there will not just attack America. Britain is another target in their sites. Once Britain pulls out, then what? the same goes for the rest of the fight in the various countries mentioned. Is the best strategy against islamic terrorism to pull back all of our troops, and try to intercept attacks after the plans have been launched? Are Obamas use of Drones in Pakistan the way to go? Impersonal, long distance attacks from the air with less control over civillian casualties? Will this be the way to go after Britain and the States pull back?


What you mean is YOU don't want a Universal health scheme for the US. The British system may need some work but it has been an example for the rest of the world and of great benefit to the UK people. Civilised communities recognise the need to provide a basic level of healthcare for their citizens as can be seen in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, most European countries, Japan and more. Third world countries don't see the need as it would divert funds from the overseas bank accounts of their great leaders and their cronies.

As to your choice of friends ... WTF has Israel done except keep tensions in the Middle East on the boil. I support their right to a free state but the Palestinians have the same rights. The Israelis are obviously operating under cover in Afghanistan as I can't seem to find where they are based. They were quiet in Vietnam too. And, your President has gushed all over the French as his 'New Best Friend' (NBF). Yep, they're right up there. They stuffed up Vietnam in the first place then ran out in a hurry. Left it to the US and I seem to recall the Aussies suffered a few casualties as well. Sorry, I forgot. The French supported the US in the War of Independence nearly two and a half centuries ago, and gave the US some sort of statue to celebrate freedom. I suppose that makes you best friends.

Iraq was a disaster that should never have happened. It has destabilised the entire region. Afghanistan will never be won and Sangin shows how you can stuff up years of hard work in a matter of months. Oh, and I should mention the NBF has lost about 42 KIA in Afghanistan, about 300 less than the Brits! The excuse for Afghanistan was Al-Qaeda but there are no Al-Qaeda camps left in Afghanistan. They are over the border in Pakistan and in the Sudan.

Just to add a little perspective.


----------



## billc (Jan 22, 2011)

K-man, this is not a healthcare thread.  Just a freindly piece of advice, you might want to stay closer to the topic.  Some people on this site will alert a moderator if you stray from the original post.  There are places for healthcare talk, you might want to post there.


----------



## K-man (Jan 22, 2011)

billcihak said:


> K-man, this is not a healthcare thread. Just a freindly piece of advice, you might want to stay closer to the topic. Some people on this site will alert a moderator if you stray from the original post. There are places for healthcare talk, you might want to post there.


 Sorreeey!  I must have misread your post.  I just re-read the thread and it was you who made the first and only reference to health care.  I just responded.

As to the rest of my post?  Refresh my memory, Just why are we still in Afghanistan?


----------



## billc (Jan 22, 2011)

If it were up to me I wouldn't care about where you went, especially if it were a thread that I started.  However, some here will report you to moderaters for even small deviations from the original post.  My response about healthcare was in responce to a quick mention by someone else.  I need to tread lightly, due to practical experience.  We knocked out the taliban, Afghanistan needs to be stabilized, or at least needs the chance to be stabilized.  It may be impossible.  Obama, who supported this war, isn't serious about it, so it may not be possible to do what needs to be done.  As far as the terrorists in Pakistan and Syria, they used to be in Afghanistan, I wonder why they left?


I was resonding to someone saying I always say the British did it wrong.  That goes back to my lack of support for the NHS in Britain.  It was a quick response to that.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 22, 2011)

Ladies and Gentlemen, as anticipated this thread has fired up a number of intemperate responses.

It might be beholden upon everyone to remember that altho' this is the Study and therefore small lapses in courtesy are to be expected, tearing strips off each other is hardly the behaviour guaranteed to lead to a productive discussion.

Please bear that in mind before the Moderator staff have to start rolling up their sleaves.

Mark A. Beardmore
MT Mentor


----------



## K-man (Jan 22, 2011)

billcihak said:


> We knocked out the taliban, Afghanistan needs to be stabilized, or at least needs the chance to be stabilized. It may be impossible. Obama, who supported this war, isn't serious about it, so it may not be possible to do what needs to be done. As far as the terrorists in Pakistan and Syria, they used to be in Afghanistan, I wonder why they left?


Unfortunately WE haven't knocked out the Taliban and because the Taliban are supported by the local population we will never knock out the Taliban. Possibly only a small percentage of Afghanis support the Taliban but to them it is the lesser of two evils. The Russians failed to defeat the Taliban, not the least because the US were supporting the Taliban in those days. 

The only chance to achieve an honourable disengagement is to have the support of the local people. This will never happen when innocent civilians are needlessly killed, wounded or made homeless. This is more than 'collateral damage'. 

If you are interested in why I have little time for our engagement in the Middle East you might like to check out this video on 'collateral murder' from three years ago in Iraq.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-exposes-video-o_n_525569.html

Now put yourself in the position of the local population and your journalist cousin has just been murdered by foreign troops. Your brother went to his aid only to be gunned down with your little nephew and niece. How much love can you find for Americans. Yes, one of the guys had an AK47 but millions of Americans carry weapons as well. There may have been a RPG as well. that is not well documented but regardless, these people were not threatening anyone. Two of them were journalists. The commentary from the US serviceman who was among the first on the scene is damning, yet it seems that no charges have been laid.

This is why the situation is hopeless. *Tez* is quite justified in being pissed off because she is right on the spot seeing first hand the results of the cockups of the people pulling the strings.

And Al-Qaeda left Afghanistan because the blow torch was applied. Unfortunately they have sought sanctuary in Pakistan where the Government is powerless to do anything to curtail their activity.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> "The Americans"..as in *all *Americans say ??
> 
> Whatever...
> 
> ...


 

You are on the wrong track as usual. You have totally missed the point I was making. I am talking specifically about the handover of Sangin to the Americans and their subsequent criticisms of the British soldiers who were there.

The American commanders have been complaining that the British in Sangin were useless, look at the reports from your own military sites, not ours, yours. It's not a case of comparing anything, it's about your commanders slagging the British soldiers off.

It's not my 'preconceptions' it's the bitterness and great disappointment felt by the British military that your commanders would do this to us.

http://www.bfbs.com/news/afghanista...sessments-british-military-helmand-41877.html

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/allies+clash+over+helmand+achievements/3761292.html

Billcihak, it's not a case of 'I've looked into this and decided I didn't like things there'. some of us get to see it for ourselves.

People imagine the Taliban to be a group of rough farmer/soldiers, they aren't, they are a very professional fighting force yet people persist in this myth thats it's just the locals playing up.
K-man is correct, the Taliban aren't beaten they've just moved on, the only hope for Afghanistan is that the army and the police can be trained up and take over the security, we have to hope that the Afghan politicans aren't too corrupt and can run the country. The situation is hopeless out there.


----------



## granfire (Jan 23, 2011)

billcihak said:


> You know granfire, I will post about the topics I feel like posting about.  I don't know about one incident in one aspect of a global effort.  If Tez does and feels strongly about it, that is all well and good, but let's not lecture me about what I post.  I support the war effort, it has a horrible cost but we didn't initiate the problem.  We as a country have to deal, with this problem because it isn't going away.  We can pull all our troops out, let Iran get a nuclear weapon, and frisk everyone at the airport, but the problem will still be there.  You can't ingore it, you can't wish it away.



You put your stuff out there for the world to read, be prepared to be called to task.
Frankly, it would lend you some credibility if you actually had a clue as to what you speak of. You don't have an original thought, you just parrot what your talking heads spew, and you never question their intentions. 

You post poop, you can't complain when somebody points it out.
And frankly, you don't know anything about most things. Naturally you are entitled to voice an opinion anyhow...
You pull no punches when it goes against 'lefties' but get upset when somebody points out your flaws...


----------



## billc (Jan 23, 2011)

When you told me to back off granfire, I had to assume you were off your meds again.  Maybe your doctor can adjust them so you aren't so cranky in the morning.  with hugs and kisses, your friend.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 23, 2011)

Come along now people, put the knives away please.

By all means speak your mind but try not to take each others eyes out whilst you're doing it.

Lord knows it's easy to say things you regret or be misunderstood with a text-only, somewhat impersonal, medium of communication.  The trick is to pick and choose what you say and to whom - you can even have completely opposite views to someone and still be able to discuss a subject without acrimony.

The example I always use is Twin Fist and myself (sadly he doesn't post much here any more).  When we first bumped into each other ... sheesh did the sparks fly off the edges of our points of view.  But after a bit we realised that we both could listen as well as speak and before too long we could disagree on something without fighting about it.

The litmus test for forum posting is to ask yourself what you would say in 'real life' to someone sitting at the same table as you in the pub ... of course, if you're the sort of person that gets punched in the mouth a lot that might not be the best of guidelines but I think the background idea is clear enough :lol:.


----------



## granfire (Jan 23, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Come along now people, put the knives away please.
> 
> By all means speak your mind but try not to take each others eyes out whilst you're doing it.
> 
> ...


Yessir...
:asian:


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 23, 2011)

Ive said my piece. I don't know how this thread can ever be productive.


----------



## billc (Jan 23, 2011)

Thanks Sukerkin.  It can get hot sometimes, and someone stepping in is appreciated.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 23, 2011)

Sadly, I think the larger point of this thread is getting lost.  The idea that since we have a military, we have to use it or lose it, is something that is worthy of discussion.  It's not something that is limited to the UK, either.  It's just rare that public officials actually come out and say it though.


----------



## granfire (Jan 23, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Sadly, I think the larger point of this thread is getting lost.  The idea that since we have a military, we have to use it or lose it, is something that is worthy of discussion.  It's not something that is limited to the UK, either.  It's just rare that public officials actually come out and say it though.



That is certainly true.
If you don't have an enemy you create one.
Military is a funky thing: We all agree we are better off when we don't need them, but to keep it that way we have to keep them up and running...


----------



## K-man (Jan 23, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> The idea that since we have a military, we have to use it or lose it, is something that is worthy of discussion.


Herin lies a problem. Sounds like some people are just looking for a war to try out the new toys and tactics to keep a sharp edge. This is dangerous and expensive policy but is obviously heavily supported by the big arms manufacturers who stand to make billions from a nice little war. The problem is people get killed in a war and a lot more are wounded. And its not as if the casualties are confined to the military. 

Now, 9/11 happened and it obviously required decisive action but there is a huge problem chasing terrorists. They are not a country you can declare war on, there are no boundaries and they melt back into a civilian population without trace. The actual perpetrators are already dead. In this case the support base was in Afghanistan and the Government would not or more likely could not do much to stop them. So, with UN support, we invade Afghanistan to destoy their base. Poof! It's no longer there. Now the locals don't like foreigners on their soil killing innocent civilians so they start guerilla operations. The reason for being in Afghanistan is no longer there and about 2,200 coalition troops have lost their lives (1280 US) and about 13,000 wounded. Civilian casualties are horrendous. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

If we look back at Vietnam it is obvious we have not learned from our mistakes. Here we had a 'nasty' communist government in the North and a 'nice', but corrupt, non-communist government in the South. The great majority of people in both North and South couldn't give a ratz about who was what because they were just trying to live from day to day. But President Obama's NBF pulled out after Dien Bien Phu after getting their arses whipped and in came the US of A and Australia as well. We were fed the line of the Domino Theory and not told of the massive corruption of the Government in the South. We were bogged down in an unwinnable guerilla war from 1956 when the first US 'advisors' moved in until 1975 when the US military was kicked out. Nearly 20 years and for what? The US lost 60,000 men, the Vietcong and AVN 1,100,000. 2,000,000 civilians died and the casualty list is still rising due to unexploded bombs still taking their toll. 

http://www.vietnamtravel.org/legacies-war-unexploded-ordinance-uxo-land-mines

And you know what? The world didn't end when the communists won, but millions of families suffered, in the US, in Australia and throughout Vietnam and Laos.

I'm not a pacifist but I am a realist. Afghanistan is like flogging a dead horse. It's going nowhere and the toll will continue to rise. Al-Qaeda is now based in Sudan and Pakistan. Are we going to follow them there and get into more mess?

We have destablised the Middle East by reducing Iraq's ability to stand up to Iran and just what have we achieved? 

Someone, please tell me the world is a better place. :asian:


----------



## billc (Jan 23, 2011)

Actually, the U.S. combat involvement in Vietnam ended with the Paris peace accords, and the troops were peacefully withdrawn in 1972. (combat troops in 72, all advisors and admin. types in 73)  All of the objectives set forth in the peace accords were signed by both the vietcong leadership and the north vietnamese.  THe south was over run when the demcratically controlled congress refused to live up to the treaty obligations set forth in the Paris accords.  Check out the book, The Politically incorrect guide to the vietnam war, and the new book American Amnesia:

http://www.amazon.com/American-Amne...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295832705&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-I...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295832773&sr=1-1


----------



## granfire (Jan 23, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Actually, the U.S. combat involvement in Vietnam ended with the Paris peace accords, and the troops were peacefully withdrawn in 1972.  All of the objectives set forth in the peace accords were signed by both the vietcong leadership and the north vietnamese.  THe south was over run when the demcratically controlled congress refused to live up to the treaty obligations set forth in the Paris accords.  Check out the book, The Politically incorrect guide to the vietnam war, and the new book American Amnesia:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/American-Amne...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295832705&sr=1-1




Thankfully the link does not work...


----------



## billc (Jan 23, 2011)

THe exact date of troop withdrawal is different on different sources but it is at least 1973, well before the fall of the south.  historyplace.com states combat troops out in Nov. 30 1972, with 16000 advisors and admin. types left behind, March 29 1973 last of american troops pulled out.

The reviews for American Amnesia at Amazon.com are interesting to read.  They have an interesting take on the war.

From wikipedia:

when the North Vietnamese did begin their final offensive early in 1975, the United States Congress refused to appropriate the funds needed by the South Vietnamese, who collapsed completely. Thieu resigned, accusing the U.S. of betrayal in a TV and radio address:

"At the time of the peace agreement the United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis. But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American's word reliable these days? The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men."[12]


----------



## K-man (Jan 23, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Actually, the U.S. combat involvement in Vietnam ended with the Paris peace accords, and the troops were peacefully withdrawn in 1972. All of the objectives set forth in the peace accords were signed by both the vietcong leadership and the north vietnamese. THe south was over run when the demcratically controlled congress refused to live up to the treaty obligations set forth in the Paris accords. 1


Nearly right. The treaty was 1973. Nixon termed it 'Peace with Honour'. American troops go home but Tricky Dicky has another card up his sleeve. He is still bombing Cambodia. I wonder why? Couldn't have been that the North was resupplying its troops in the South contrary to the accord. However the 'Paris Peace Accords' only produced a cease fire, not an enforcable treaty. It spoke of peaceful reunification with the North. Come'on! I know they smoked a lot of pot in Nam but what were they on in Paris? Magic mushrooms? Surely they were halucinating! With the US troops mostly out, it was only a matter of time before the communists took over. BTW the last US troops left in 1975.

If you're interested: http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic...am/policies.and.politics/paris_peace_1973.txt

These are the peace documents and the comments regarding violations of the cease fire. It wasn't the South that failed to live up to the treaty obligations. The North didn't change a thing. They just quietly continued to resupply through Laos andd Cambodia until they were ready for the final takeover. :asian:

Don't often go a bomb on Wiki but this sums it up.



> The Paris Peace Accords had little practical effect on the conflict, and were routinely flouted by the North Vietnamese. The North Vietnamese and their South Vietnamese allies ignored the ceasefire and continued their invasion of South Vietnam. North Vietnamese military forces gradually moved through the southern provinces and two years later were in position to capture Saigon.
> Nixon had secretly promised Thieu that he would use airpower to support the Saigon government should it be necessary. During his confirmation hearings in June 1973, Secretary of Defence, James Schlesinger was sharply criticized by some Senators after he stated that he would recommend resumption of U.S. bombing in North Vietnam if North Vietnam launched a major offensive against South Vietnam. However, Nixon was driven from office due to the Watergate scandal in 1974 and when the North Vietnamese did begin their final offensive early in 1975, the United States Congress refused to appropriate the funds needed by the South Vietnamese, who collapsed completely. Thieu resigned, accusing the U.S. of betrayal in a TV and radio address:
> "At the time of the peace agreement the United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis. But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American's word reliable these days? The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men." ... President Thieu​


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2011)

The British government is about to cut the troops by 30,000 people, so I don't think we are looking to have any more wars soon. It won't sound a lot to the Americans but it's a huge chunk of the armed forces that's going.

Billcihak, all you are ever doing is posting comments and quotes from other people, you don't actually say what you think yourself, I still think it's a from of trolling. I don't believe you actually care for any of this you just want to wind people up then act innocent when they lash out. 

As for my 'feeling strongly' you have no idea so I'd rather you didn't comment on what you think I feel.


----------



## billc (Jan 24, 2011)

With respect, then please do not comment on what you think I mean, or how I post.  Obviously, you should stop reading my posts. Thank you.


----------



## granfire (Jan 24, 2011)

billcihak said:


> With respect, then please do not comment on what you think I mean, or how I post.  Obviously, you should stop reading my posts. Thank you.



Let me see....
You do spew half baked crap, patronize people and then tel them to not follow you on a tangent or rather not read your posts...


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2011)

billcihak said:


> With respect, then please do not comment on what you think I mean, or how I post. Obviously, you should stop reading my posts. Thank you.


 

Really? So I'm supposed to give you a pass to use my username? You make a bald statement about me by name, despite the fact it's against the rules, then tell me I shouldn't read your posts if I don't like it, that's hardly fair.

I'm still waiting for your comments on Sangin please.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 24, 2011)

Enough of the personal attacks.  Enough of the name calling.

Thread locked pending review.


----------

