well there you go thenGod Save the Queen wrote:
and Ive said that numerous times on this forum in the past including last night.
ƒ³
Poll
Did America 'Win' The Vietnam War?
| Yes, They Won It | 12% | 12% - 10 | ||||
| No, They Lost it | 76% | 76% - 60 | ||||
| It Was A Draw | 10% | 10% - 8 | ||||
| Total: 78 | ||||||
you cant call vietnam a victory for the military but you sure as shit cant call it a defeat. you cant say the vietnamese kicked our ass because they didnt. vietnam was pummeled because of the war. if we still had troops there, there would still be a south vietnam. same way douche rags say we were ever close to losing in iraq. I hate hearing "we're winning now" from politicians.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
You can go in with the objective of stealing the diamond. You can go in there and kill everyone and take the diamond. But if, whatever it is, if something stops you from getting that diamond. Then you've failed the objective, no? It doesn't matter whether it was Politicians, or Aliens that stopped the original objective. It doesn't matter how badly you kicked their arses. It's still considered a loss.
I think, if Soldiers moan about Politicians telling them to invade or withdraw, then maybe they're in the wrong job. I mean, everyone has their voice, but the military isn't a democracy. You know what you're getting into when you go into it. It works both ways. You can't complain when you're being told to invade and you can't complain when being told to withdraw, for whatever reason. Most don't really complain, maybe that's why they're a special breed!
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-10-03 07:00:24)
It may still be Communist, however, in defense of the US on this one I will say that the war stopped the spread of communism through much of South East Asia.
That was one of the goals set out and you could consider it a success.
The cost of US lives however, along with Vietnamese civilians, is clearly enough to consider the war a defeat when you consider the final withdraw.
A lot of lives ended needlessly, even if the kill count of Americans over NVA was astronomical, it was still a costly war.
That was one of the goals set out and you could consider it a success.
The cost of US lives however, along with Vietnamese civilians, is clearly enough to consider the war a defeat when you consider the final withdraw.
A lot of lives ended needlessly, even if the kill count of Americans over NVA was astronomical, it was still a costly war.
Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-10-03 07:08:54)
I agree. I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that the US Military were pretty much on the upper hand at all times (unlike say, the French, I think you could call that a resounding Military and Political defeat). Like someone else said here, War is no longer just a Military thing.
The USA lost the war politically. Won the war militarily. The overall outcome though, is that the war, the main objective (which was a political objective) was lost.
The USA lost the war politically. Won the war militarily. The overall outcome though, is that the war, the main objective (which was a political objective) was lost.
It isn't? Ahh shit was just about to sign this as well...Mek-Stizzle wrote:
but the military isn't a democracy.
It was a political war ran by politicians. It was lost the moment it started.
If the military was just given the objective and none of the BS, don't cross this line don't bomb this city political crap, the war would have been over in 3 years max.
This was the blue print for the US government (and citizens) betraying the US soldier. Bush #1 did a good job of it in Iraq war #1 at the behest of colin powel and the US media, Bush #2/congress has done a good job of it by putting our troops on trial for torturing and murder while forcing them to fight a peace keeping mission that involves ( don't shoot unless you have been shot first ) orders.
One thing I can say for Bush #2 is that he is actually allowing the military to finish its mission ( be it at a totally unacceptable cost ). He also gave the US troops a noble mission that they can be proud of, I just disagree with politics injected in the mission that gets our soldiers killed and drives up the cost to Americans. Fuck, he has destroyed the US economy with his spending spree on those fucking Jawas.
If the military was just given the objective and none of the BS, don't cross this line don't bomb this city political crap, the war would have been over in 3 years max.
This was the blue print for the US government (and citizens) betraying the US soldier. Bush #1 did a good job of it in Iraq war #1 at the behest of colin powel and the US media, Bush #2/congress has done a good job of it by putting our troops on trial for torturing and murder while forcing them to fight a peace keeping mission that involves ( don't shoot unless you have been shot first ) orders.
One thing I can say for Bush #2 is that he is actually allowing the military to finish its mission ( be it at a totally unacceptable cost ). He also gave the US troops a noble mission that they can be proud of, I just disagree with politics injected in the mission that gets our soldiers killed and drives up the cost to Americans. Fuck, he has destroyed the US economy with his spending spree on those fucking Jawas.
We won most every military engagement.
We killed them ten to one.
We left with an agreement in place and only " lost " because we did not return to enforce the agreement.
Also, that war was a proxy war between us and the soviet onion, and considering they are on the ash heap of history imo we won.
We killed them ten to one.
We left with an agreement in place and only " lost " because we did not return to enforce the agreement.
Also, that war was a proxy war between us and the soviet onion, and considering they are on the ash heap of history imo we won.
Well, that may be so.Lotta_Drool wrote:
It was a political war ran by politicians. It was lost the moment it started.
If the military was just given the objective and none of the BS, don't cross this line don't bomb this city political crap, the war would have been over in 3 years max.
This was the blue print for the US government (and citizens) betraying the US soldier. Bush #1 did a good job of it in Iraq war #1 at the behest of colin powel and the US media, Bush #2/congress has done a good job of it by putting our troops on trial for torturing and murder while forcing them to fight a peace keeping mission that involves ( don't shoot unless you have been shot first ) orders.
One thing I can say for Bush #2 is that he is actually allowing the military to finish its mission ( be it at a totally unacceptable cost ). He also gave the US troops a noble mission that they can be proud of, I just disagree with politics injected in the mission that gets our soldiers killed and drives up the cost to Americans. Fuck, he has destroyed the US economy with his spending spree on those fucking Jawas.
But his idea of an initial deployment was woefully inadequate.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
No, They Lost it
too many usmandarins and not enough GS's
too many usmandarins and not enough GS's
Last edited by .Sup (2008-10-03 07:45:21)
Tricky question. Look at the quality of life before and after.
The war was needed to improve the quality of life, and was necessary for the Vietnam to be what it is today.
So we left, but the overall goal of the war was accomplished without direct involvement.
The war was needed to improve the quality of life, and was necessary for the Vietnam to be what it is today.
So we left, but the overall goal of the war was accomplished without direct involvement.
Quality of life might have gone up anyway within such a large time. Who knows.Pug wrote:
Tricky question. Look at the quality of life before and after.
The war was needed to improve the quality of life, and was necessary for the Vietnam to be what it is today.
So we left, but the overall goal of the war was accomplished without direct involvement.
Hindsight mmmm tasty.
I wish i didn't click "lost".
It was a draw actually. No winners... since the USA left having "failed" in some people's opinions... but in actual fact, Vietnam could have won since absolutely no-one wanted USA in there, but im not that old so i don't know much.
It was a draw actually. No winners... since the USA left having "failed" in some people's opinions... but in actual fact, Vietnam could have won since absolutely no-one wanted USA in there, but im not that old so i don't know much.
No... but we didn't go and send in planes to take the Vietcong to Scotland and train them to kill though, did we?Braddock wrote:
But by that are you asserting that the US military 'won' the war? Or that it was a stalemate?God Save the Queen wrote:
The United States military performed remarkably with the limited support from politicians and the people. The US military didnt lose the war.
What made me think about it was the way in which the Afghanis drove the Russians out of Afghanistan and how it was hailed by many as the first ever defeat of the red army and the biggest ever upset in International conflict... nobody seems to talk about the Vietnam war in such absolute terms though.
Was it the Vietcong that was the North?
The only way they could have won was to nuke the place. The indigenous people fought en mass against the invasion/occupation. 2 000 000 of them died and 50 000 Americans died too. No one won really. The people of Vietnam wanted to chose their own destiny, the USA wanted to choose it for them.
Evil Red menace has been replaced with Evil Muslims and the USA learned nothing from Vietnam.
Evil Red menace has been replaced with Evil Muslims and the USA learned nothing from Vietnam.
none of you shit heads know anything about nicaragua
its next to UKGod Save the Queen wrote:
none of you shit heads know anything about nicaragua
in the tropical regions of west london
I know that Ricardo Mayorga is from there and that he is a complete psycho!God Save the Queen wrote:
none of you shit heads know anything about nicaragua
dude smokes cigarettes between rounds!Braddock wrote:
I know that Ricardo Mayorga is from there and that he is a complete psycho!God Save the Queen wrote:
none of you shit heads know anything about nicaragua
Most of what Vietnam is today is the result of the communists. My dad was there, he saw the people supporting the VC because they were building roads, schools and hospitals for them. We weren't doing anything like that. We also did a lot of "guessing" as to what the Vietnamese people wanted, without actually asking them, and did some things to piss them off unintentionally. One example my dad has told me about was the Marines going to ancient stone and wooden temples and painting them. It was sacreligious to them. Imagine some painting the vatican Marine Corps green because it was old. They were trying to do something good, but didn't bother asking anyone if that was appropriate/wanted or not.Pug wrote:
Tricky question. Look at the quality of life before and after.
The war was needed to improve the quality of life, and was necessary for the Vietnam to be what it is today.
So we left, but the overall goal of the war was accomplished without direct involvement.
...and washes fried chicken down with cans of Bud at the weigh-in!God Save the Queen wrote:
dude smokes cigarettes between rounds!Braddock wrote:
I know that Ricardo Mayorga is from there and that he is a complete psycho!God Save the Queen wrote:
none of you shit heads know anything about nicaragua
What I'm saying is it was a divided country. The war was a catalyst that allowed these changes to occur.chittydog wrote:
Most of what Vietnam is today is the result of the communists. My dad was there, he saw the people supporting the VC because they were building roads, schools and hospitals for them. We weren't doing anything like that. We also did a lot of "guessing" as to what the Vietnamese people wanted, without actually asking them, and did some things to piss them off unintentionally. One example my dad has told me about was the Marines going to ancient stone and wooden temples and painting them. It was sacreligious to them. Imagine some painting the vatican Marine Corps green because it was old. They were trying to do something good, but didn't bother asking anyone if that was appropriate/wanted or not.
US lost
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
bin laden may be saudi but his roots are in yemen.
Did we ever even declare war? Wasn't it more of a conflict? If there were no concrete objectives for the military to complete how did anyone win or lose anything?