The term "phyrric" victory or loss comes to mind
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 | ||||||
I am Caption Obvious - my vote: no.
Same old story. Won every battle, lost the war.
Anyone here old enough to remember the fall of saigon? Prob tpl, oh and maybe atg...
Anyone here old enough to remember the fall of saigon? Prob tpl, oh and maybe atg...
Last edited by m3thod (2008-10-03 13:44:44)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
boom goes the dynamite
lol, I actually do.m3thod wrote:
Same old story. Won every battle, lost the war.
Anyone here old enough to remember the fall of saigon? Prob tpl, oh and maybe atg...
Walter Cronkite and helicopters evacuating people from roof tops.
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.
i'd say it was a proxy war between the US and USSR. the US won the cold war, mother russia collapsed. /win
No, They Lost it
We wanted to stop the spread of communism.
We entered a war through fallacies.
We then left the war and communism spread elsewhere.
As you should know, war consequently subsides from politics.
If the political objective isn't met regardless if the war is won, it's a loss. Period.
How many lives should be measured and spent to equal the success of a political objective? Even if it's through black lies...
We entered a war through fallacies.
We then left the war and communism spread elsewhere.
As you should know, war consequently subsides from politics.
If the political objective isn't met regardless if the war is won, it's a loss. Period.
How many lives should be measured and spent to equal the success of a political objective? Even if it's through black lies...
Last edited by Icleos (2008-10-03 16:04:39)
it did? it seemed to fall flat on its face in the USSRIcleos wrote:
We then left the war and communism spread elsewhere.
I'm sure he meant at the point and time.usmarine wrote:
it did? it seemed to fall flat on its face in the USSRIcleos wrote:
We then left the war and communism spread elsewhere.
war is not won or lost at the time the last shot is fired.jsnipy wrote:
I'm sure he meant at the point and time.usmarine wrote:
it did? it seemed to fall flat on its face in the USSRIcleos wrote:
We then left the war and communism spread elsewhere.
by that rationale no one has won anything .... yetusmarine wrote:
war is not won or lost at the time the last shot is fired.jsnipy wrote:
I'm sure he meant at the point and time.usmarine wrote:
it did? it seemed to fall flat on its face in the USSR
Which leads back to Reagan having the balls to give Stingers to the Mooj in Afghanistan.jsnipy wrote:
I'm sure he meant at the point and time.usmarine wrote:
it did? it seemed to fall flat on its face in the USSRIcleos wrote:
We then left the war and communism spread elsewhere.
That's what killed the ruskies.
Great article in the current soldier of fortune magazine showing howinept and clueless the soviet air foce was in georgia.
They tried 12 times to bombs the pipeline and failed with rumored 12 plans shot down.
Take away their air and they can't win on the ground.
So your point is the Vietnam War caused the USSR to collapse into economic failure?usmarine wrote:
it did? it seemed to fall flat on its face in the USSRIcleos wrote:
We then left the war and communism spread elsewhere.
Other than that twisted fact I don't see how that has any relation to the war.
If you're looking for where it spread after the war try Southeast Asia. Perhaps the Domino Theory may ring a bell.
Last edited by Icleos (2008-10-03 16:12:19)
oh ok. you are right. we just hated ho-chi. thats why.Icleos wrote:
Other than that twisted fact I don't see how that has any relation to the war.
Last edited by usmarine (2008-10-03 16:12:53)
Short answer, they lost it.
Cecil WAlker is a korean war ace and was shot down twice in 'Nam bombing the Ho Chi Mien trail. He is a family friend.Icleos wrote:
So your point is the Vietnam War caused the USSR to collapse into economic failure?usmarine wrote:
it did? it seemed to fall flat on its face in the USSRIcleos wrote:
We then left the war and communism spread elsewhere.
Other than that twisted fact I don't see how that has any relation to the war.
If you're looking for where it spread try Southeast Asia. Perhaps the Domino Theory may ring a bell.
He has a book where he talks about daily dog fights with russian migs flown by russian pilots over korea and that he flew bombing missions against soviet bases inside vietnam.
I believe him, he has two silver stars.
He described it like this; the vietnam war ended when we had proven to the soviets that we would outspend them and out fight them. The battle then moved to Afghanistan and the media.
He said the fate of vietnam was a secondary issue to that of standing up to the russians.
God Save the Queen wrote:
bin laden may be saudi but his roots are in yemen.
Yemen ftw!
Well if it was a matter of outspending and having an overwhelming force why not just build up on nuclear capabilities like we did in the 80's during the cold war? As soon we entered that war it was given that US would have to prove itself. There's no other means to justify it after that. It's a mere secondary political objective, if not that. Essentially does that mean we have to send troops to be killed in order prove we're a better nation?ATG wrote:
Cecil WAlker is a korean war ace and was shot down twice in 'Nam bombing the Ho Chi Mien trail. He is a family friend.Icleos wrote:
So your point is the Vietnam War caused the USSR to collapse into economic failure?usmarine wrote:
it did? it seemed to fall flat on its face in the USSR
Other than that twisted fact I don't see how that has any relation to the war.
If you're looking for where it spread try Southeast Asia. Perhaps the Domino Theory may ring a bell.
He has a book where he talks about daily dog fights with russian migs flown by russian pilots over korea and that he flew bombing missions against soviet bases inside vietnam.
I believe him, he has two silver stars.
He described it like this; the vietnam war ended when we had proven to the soviets that we would outspend them and out fight them. The battle then moved to Afghanistan and the media.
He said the fate of vietnam was a secondary issue to that of standing up to the russians.
Military ace or not, I assure you that your friend was or would have been upset about finding out that the entry into the war was a lie.
When something like that crumbles the foundation for just cause it hits everyone that's involved.
Last edited by Icleos (2008-10-03 16:30:47)
I thought the Afghan war took place so the US could do to Russia what Russia did to the US in Vietnam, beat them.
that is exactly what defines warIcleos wrote:
Essentially does that mean we have to send troops to be killed in order prove we're a better nation?
nopeMGS3_GrayFox wrote:
I thought the Afghan war took place so the US could do to Russia what Russia did to the US in Vietnam, beat them.
Perhaps in agrarian times or before Christ. War can be avoided with just sheer military deterrence. Why go out and flex your muscles and tire yourself while you can just simply retaliate with full force?God Save the Queen wrote:
that is exactly what defines warIcleos wrote:
Essentially does that mean we have to send troops to be killed in order prove we're a better nation?
Last edited by Icleos (2008-10-03 16:36:06)
you cant be serious.Icleos wrote:
Perhaps in agrarian times or before Christ. War can be avoided with just sheer military deterrence. Why go out and flex your muscles and tire yourself while you can just simply retaliate with full force?God Save the Queen wrote:
that is exactly what defines warIcleos wrote:
Essentially does that mean we have to send troops to be killed in order prove we're a better nation?