Already pointed out and sorted tezza.

---

@*julia*2010 wrote:

---

@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
What's wrong,Julia.An aversion to the truth?

---

no, i just don't think you wrote it.

 

 

 

---

No, but he contributed it to this thread.  Seriously?

As a former American veteran, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Australians who sacrificed their lives in the Vietnam conflict.

I wonder how much being a member of SEATO influenced the decision to participate?

---

@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:

As a former American veteran, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Australians who sacrificed their lives in the Vietnam conflict.

 

I wonder how much being a member of SEATO influenced the decision to participate?

---

You are Welcome mate, ....and we Remember with Respect the huge price paid by your fellow countrymen/women to the Conflict in the South East Asian Republic of South Vietnam.

A War/Conflict that was as unpopular in the USA, as it was here.

Not withstanding that, our Troops went as Requested, Served, Died, were Wounded, and some were to become the group known as the MIA POW, never to return to their home country again.  They paid the Supreme Sacrifice as well.

Most of the younger generation have little or no idea of the times or events that led up to this terrible war/conflict, seeing the nice Travel Advertisement's to go to Vietnam now, ....and how could our Countries invade such a beautiful country and people ?

History does not always portray the real account and actual facts we who were there went through. Sadly many are left with the mental scars of the event.

                                                                                       RIP Mates

---

@tezza2844 wrote:

 

 

The Decision to Send "Assistance" Military wise, was not Voted on, 

 

but was a decision made by the Prime Minister at the time Harold Holt, PM

 

and after his "Death", the next Prime Minister Robert Menzies, PM,

 

with the support verbally of the Opposition Party,The Liberal Party.

 

 

 

Now that is what I call rewriting history

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

Hey "wally", he was not rewriting History, he just got confused which Australian Prime Minister was in power at the time. No big DEAL, ...it was still our Prime Minister that sent us to an "UnOfficial War"   that was the op's main point.

Did YOU serve ?  Or were you one of the ones who threw Red Paint over us as we marched down George St, in Sydney ?

Maybe you liked the colour Yellow better ?

---

@old.corner.shop wrote:

---

@tezza2844 wrote:

 

 

The Decision to Send "Assistance" Military wise, was not Voted on, 

 

but was a decision made by the Prime Minister at the time Harold Holt, PM

 

and after his "Death", the next Prime Minister Robert Menzies, PM,

 

with the support verbally of the Opposition Party,The Liberal Party.

 

 

 

Now that is what I call rewriting history

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

Hey "wally", he was not rewriting History, he just got confused which Australian Prime Minister was in power at the time. No big DEAL, ...it was still our Prime Minister that sent us to an "UnOfficial War"   that was the op's main point.

Did YOU serve ?  Or were you one of the ones who threw Red Paint over us as we marched down George St, in Sydney ?

Maybe you liked the colour Yellow better ?

---

Correcting mistakes has not been a crime as far as I know. There have been other posters pointing  this as well. It was Menzies that sent our troops into Vietnam, there was no vote in parliament just as it was with Menzies  for WW2, it was Holt who went all the way with LBJ and the opposition at the time was the Labor Party.

"The Australian Labor Party (ALP)

The ALP opposed the commitment of troops to Vietnam, but it was difficult to form a distinct policy for a party that was widely split over many issues. Labor leader Arthur Calwell had the unenviable job of responding to the government in parliament. While opposing the War, he could not be seen to be anti-American or unpatriotic. Calwell supported the ideas of the British and Canadian governments, who encouraged the United States to enter negotiations with North Vietnam.

The Labor Party saw the war as essentially civil, in which Australia should not get involved. Calwell and the Labor Party supported the Australian troops and did not deny them the support they needed. As the war drew on, the Labor Party was pushed into a firmer anti-war stance by the Liberal Party, which knew that an anti-war stance would win little support for the Labour Party. Calwell maintained that Labor supported the troops, but Labor's anti-war leanings were unpopular with many people. In 1966 Calwell was shot, but not killed, after attending an anti-Vietnam rally in Sydney."

In answer to your other questions No, No and  No. and my name isn't wally

Your accusations remind me of the saying empty ships make most noise

.and how could our Countries invade such a beautiful country and people ?

As a matter of fact, US advisors were requested by the then government of South Vietnam........there was no invasion, unless you're referring to North Vietnam's incursions across the DMZ.