Did the US lose Viet Nam, or did they just leave?

[ren0312]

Did the US really lose the Viet Nam war, or did they just give up from frustration, by most conventional measures such as body counts and amount of territory involuntarily lost to the enemy, the US was really prevailing in Viet Nam up until 1973, the US suffered 58,000 KIA vs. 1,000,000 for the North Viet Namese, and did not lose a single major battle, the ARVN suffered 250,000 KIA vs 1,000,000 for the North Viet Namese, at the end of US involvement in 1973, the South Viet Namese government was still holding the line sucessfully against the North Viet Namese, the Easter Offensive in 1972, could be counted as a stalemate, the US really "lost" the war in the home front, and not in the jungles of South Viet Nam, if they lost at all. And if they lost, then who lost the war, was it the media, the American people, its politicians, or the military? The Tet Offensive of 1968 I think was a textbook example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Victor Charlie was pretty much finished at that point, and an all out offensive against North Viet Nam itself would have brought the war to a sucessfull conclusion on terms that were far more favorable to South Viet Nam than 1973, if the Americans only had the will to win, which they have already lost at that point, even though at that point it could be said that victory was really within their grasp if they just had the will to see it through to its sucessfull conclusion. Even in 1973 South Viet Nam could still have held out even if the US just provided support from the air and the required military aid for South Viet Nam to maintain its military.

[BlackJack22]

I think we just decided to leave. I think the U.S. tatics should have been changed earlier. A war of attrition against a country who had about million men able for military service each year. we never were able to kill that many in a year.

[ren0312]

I think we just decided to leave. I think the U.S. tatics should have been changed earlier. A war of attrition against a country who had about million men able for military service each year. we never were able to kill that many in a year.

I think if the US had just continued to give the South Vet Namese support from the air the North Viet Namese would eventually be willing to concede a peace to the South Viet Namese on more favorable terms, which would have resulted in a stable South Viet Nam by the early 1980's, with its security guaranteed by the US.

[Atlantic Friend]

What is "leaving" a war you're waging, if not conceding defeat ?

[commanding]

Very complex question and answers. IMHO, when any country, the USA included, decides to "loose the dogs of war" on another country, the civilian leaders (president, VP, etc) should then get the fvk out of the way and let the military do what it does best, kill the enemy.
Had the Presidents, and defense secretaries etc stayed the fvk out of the way, in Vietnam and not tried to micromanage the war...the US could have easily defeated North Vietnam in 12 months. Now the Viet cong in the south was another issue, similar to the "insurgancy" in Iraq. As long as there is a civilian insurgancy and an outside power (in VN it was Russia, China, and in Iraq it has been Iran etc) that supply the insurgancy with weapons and technology...it is difficult to win those types of wars without being totally brutal (out of the eye of the free press and public opinion).
I suspect that some of these questions will be discussed and argued over for centuries.

[Atlantic Friend]

Very complex question and answers. IMHO, when any country, the USA included, decides to "loose the dogs of war" on another country, the civilian leaders (president, VP, etc) should then get the fvk out of the way and let the military do what it does best, kill the enemy.

I agree, if by that you mean the politicians shouldn't micro-manage the war.
I don't, if by that you mean that war - a political exercise in and by itself - should be exclusively run by the General Headquarters.

[oldsoak]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the US won every battle in Vietnam. Militarily, they left undefeated. The political objective of preventing a communist takeover in S Vietnam failed, and the domestic and international fallout was to cast the US in a very dim light.
However, how much of the political failure lay with the Vietnamese ? IMHO the communists gained power because the South was unable to combat them in the politcal arena, and so no amount of US military help was going to work.

[shadowsrider]

But the war is not the sum of battles.
Of course that tactically and operationally US was winning, stragically facts were the South Vietnam fallen to the North. Finito.
It is very often case in history that you win battles and loose peace.

[Jaeger07]

In a military contex the americans won - They killed more NV/VC than the NV/VC killed them. In the very large majority of the firefights and battles the americans were victorious. The NV/VC never (AFAIK) "won" any battles against the americans - even the Tet-offensive were pushed back and crushed by american forces.

However, in a strategic contex the americans lost. The goal of the american intervention in Vietnam was to prevent the communist North Vietnam to invade and conquer South Vietnam. After the americans pulled out this is exactely what happened.

One can say that the americans "won the battles, but lost the war".

[commanding]

I agree, if by that you mean the politicians shouldn't micro-manage the war.
I don't, if by that you mean that war - a political exercise in and by itself - should be exclusively run by the General Headquarters.

What I mean is that Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon should not have sat in the white house and both selected targets for bombing, and said "no we can't bomb Hanoii because Kissininger is at the peace talks" etc. In world war II, Roosevelt and Truman, got the hell out of the way, said go get em, and the military had leaders who had a pair....General Curtis Lemay, Patton, Ike, etc, and the entire country, "the press" and all were ready to portray the enemy as sub human and blow them to kingdom come with every atomic bomb at our disposal, regardless of the repercussions.
It was "total war", survival. You can't always rely on technology to defeat an enemy who is commited to total war, if you are also not commited to total war.

[bd popeye]

You guys do know what today is?? The 29th of April. This day commerates the final fall of Saigon in 1975. I was there on the USS Hanco*k for Operation Frequent Wind. You can read about it in the popeye's sea stories thread.

As it has been pointed out the US lost no major battles. The US military performed well despite medeling politican & anti-war seniments in the US and World.

The North was bombed into submission in December 1972 by Operation Linebacker II. All sides signed the Paris Peace Accords in January 1973. US forces quickly widthdrew from S. Vietnam. Where upon over the next two years the North started to violate the peace agreement. By early 1975 the South was a shambles iot was ready to fall. The South asked ..actually begged for military help but the Ford administration under great political pressure refused .. Hence the South fell on this day in 1975.

The US military was not defeated. The the politics of the US were defeated by an enemey that chose to fight by any means necessary..and win the same way.

[Basillicus]

No matter how you twist it, 58k KIA, who knows how many physically or mentally wounded and huge amount of material lost without destroying the enemy in a war over unimportant backwards piece of jungle doesn't sound like victory or even neutral outcome but defeat. At some point in time you have to decide whether the goal is worth the true cost and in Vietnam IMO it took too long to make the right decision so the losses were unnecessarely high.

Of course in this case as with many others also it would have been better to clearly not get involved at all or take the gloves off and go all the way from the start. But that's easy to say now.

[SBL]

http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsK/9493-6357.gif

"It was a tie!"

[mas-36]

What I find interesting is how two conflicts -Vietnam and Algeria- are viewed differently despite of having shared results. In very general terms, the French in Algeria were on the verge on winning that conflict militarily when the political and popular support in France simply fell out from under it, precipitating a withdrawal and eventual Algerian independence. This is still viewed by many as a French "loss", whereas almost the same thing happened with the US vis-a-vis Vietnam, and it is not viewed as a "loss", even though militarily both armies were quite succesful against the enemy in battle.

Is there something I'm missing here, or is a double-standard being applied?

[matthew.manhorn]

I think the US lost the war since it didn't complete its objective, of course it wasn't known until the fall of Saigon in 1975, 2 years after the withdrawal.

Just like how the Germans lost the Battle of Britain despite suffering less casualties than the RAF, since they didn't complete their objective.

But of course if you count the Vietnam War as a battle of the Cold War, then the US lost a battle but won the Cold War in general...

THe Korean war is more of a tie

[Hollis]

I think the problem in defining this conflict and winner and loosers is that it is a very multi-level conflict. Up close it was a civil war, at a distance it was just another battle in the cold war.

The politics in this conflict is intense and one really needs to view the complete range of issues to try to determine the out come.

Up close the South Viet-Namese lost, they are gone. The US with agreement with the Soviets, pulled out of Viet-Nam with the condition that no out side support is given to North or South Viet-Nam. The US honored it's agreement, the Soviets did not. It took another two years with support from the outside for North Viet-Nam to finally take control of the South.

Reunification is what North Viet-Nam said was it goal. Maybe it wasn't, What happened to the Viet Cong is a indicator.


Now at a distance, as part of the many battles of the cold war, the US is still here, the Soviets folded in 1989. The US won.

To be fair to all parties, the Soviets represented the Eastern block alliance and the US represented the Western block alliance. While they where the major players, they where not alone.

To rehash, the Soviets and South Viet-Nam were the losers, the The US and North Viet-Nam were the winners. How much more complicated can a issue get?

As one studies the conflict and learns more, the winner and looser keeps changing position. I think we all lost in the Cold War, it could have been avoided. With all the destruction, lost of lives, not to mention the economic costs, globally we all lost.

[kitatatsumi]

What I find interesting is how two conflicts -Vietnam and Algeria- are viewed differently despite of having shared results. In very general terms, the French in Algeria were on the verge on winning that conflict militarily when the political and popular support in France simply fell out from under it, precipitating a withdrawal and eventual Algerian independence. This is still viewed by many as a French "loss", whereas almost the same thing happened with the US vis-a-vis Vietnam, and it is not viewed as a "loss", even though militarily both armies were quite succesful against the enemy in battle.

Is there something I'm missing here, or is a double-standard being applied?

I would say that that Algeria was a French colony, considered by many to be "a part of France".
So you really cant compare France losing territory or one of its colonies achieving independence through armed struggle to the US unsuccessfully stopping the spread of Communism in SE Asia.
The US never "owned" Vietnam and never really sought to.

If Texas or Hawaii claimed independence, and achieved it, I would call that a clear US loss.

My $00.02

[Martial]

I think we just decided to leave. I think the U.S. tatics should have been changed earlier. A war of attrition against a country who had about million men able for military service each year. we never were able to kill that many in a year.

The war of attrition was our own terrible choice. We could have bombed, bombed, bombed until the North didn't have the resources to carry on.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

They came second

[Mofreaka]

The NVA and the VC were smart enough to realize that we could not be beaten using conventional tactics alone, we had clearly superior fire support, so they chose to continue the war in traditional the traditional 4th generation (gureilla) tactics that were refiend by Mao Zedong. Thus they waged a political and propaganda war by dragging the war out. American policy slowly forced us out of Vietnam, which was their whole objective, therefore yes we did lose, even if we did win every battle.

[SrB-23Q]

What is "leaving" a war you're waging, if not conceding defeat ?

x2 ................................

[SoSo]

Did the US really lose the Viet Nam war, or did they just give up from frustration, by most conventional measures such as body counts and amount of territory involuntarily lost to the enemy, the US was really prevailing in Viet Nam up until 1973, the US suffered 58,000 KIA vs. 1,000,000 for the North Viet Namese, and did not lose a single major battle, the ARVN suffered 250,000 KIA vs 1,000,000 for the North Viet Namese, at the end of US involvement in 1973, the South Viet Namese government was still holding the line sucessfully against the North Viet Namese, the Easter Offensive in 1972, could be counted as a stalemate, the US really "lost" the war in the home front, and not in the jungles of South Viet Nam, if they lost at all. And if they lost, then who lost the war, was it the media, the American people, its politicians, or the military? The Tet Offensive of 1968 I think was a textbook example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Victor Charlie was pretty much finished at that point, and an all out offensive against North Viet Nam itself would have brought the war to a sucessfull conclusion on terms that were far more favorable to South Viet Nam than 1973, if the Americans only had the will to win, which they have already lost at that point, even though at that point it could be said that victory was really within their grasp if they just had the will to see it through to its sucessfull conclusion. Even in 1973 South Viet Nam could still have held out even if the US just provided support from the air and the required military aid for South Viet Nam to maintain its military.

Very well written, and entirely correct, I think.

[deagle]

we did not lose the war's sub-objectives, we just didnt win the main objective

[commanding]

LBJ had very little idea of how the Vietnamese fought. He had no idea of the extent of their various methods of defeating normal ground warfare, i.e. tunnels, underground systems of commo, underground hospitals, barracks etc.
As popeye said, if the US had followed the same operational airstrikes throughout the war as the did in operation linebacker, and bombed the holy crap out of the north from the get go...it would have been a different outcome.
The north knew the "hold the enemy by the belt" tactic that denied the US airpower support of ground forces for most of the war in the south. That is not to say that the US airpower didn't beat the crap out of the north when they were turned loose. A few nice tactical nukes dropped just north of Hanoi, would have opened a few doors for the USA...hopefully dropped while Jane Fonda was manning the AA guns.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

LBJ had very little idea of how the Vietnamese fought. He had no idea of the extent of their various methods of defeating normal ground warfare, i.e. tunnels, underground systems of commo, underground hospitals, barracks etc.
As popeye said, if the US had followed the same operational airstrikes throughout the war as the did in operation linebacker, and bombed the holy crap out of the north from the get go...it would have been a different outcome.
The north knew the "hold the enemy by the belt" tactic that denied the US airpower support of ground forces for most of the war in the south. That is not to say that the US airpower didn't beat the crap out of the north when they were turned loose. A few nice tactical nukes dropped just north of Hanoi, would have opened a few doors for the USA...hopefully dropped while Jane Fonda was manning the AA guns.

It's a good job you weren't in charge :roll: Starting WW3 over a few rice paddies in SE Asia - I don't think so.
Macauthar got binned in Korea for advocating exactly that kind of approach.

[commanding]

What is "leaving" a war you're waging, if not conceding defeat ?

the USA left Vietnam...the USA will to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, and take staggering loses got the better of the public, additionally since it was the first war where combat video, was shown openly and almost instantly from VN. Too much press, too much political meddling in military tactics and decision making.

[Dragonscript]

Hollis hit the nail on the head. Before you can say who won or lose the Vietnam War you have to first define the goals each side had.

North Vietnam wanted to unite the country and the US wanted to stop the spread of communism from taking south east Asia. North Vietnam accomplished their goal and now the whole country is just Vietnam. The US did not stop communism from taking hold in Vietnam, but also Vietnam did not become a major partner of the USSR & China, which in the end was good enough. In war, you don't always get what you want so sometimes you have to settle with what you get.

IMHO, people too often look at World War II to define what "winning" and "losing" should look like.

[commanding]

It's a good job you weren't in charge :roll: Starting WW3 over a few rice paddies in SE Asia - I don't think so.
Macauthar got binned in Korea for advocating exactly that kind of approach.

that is what "total war" is about.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Hollis hit the nail on the head. Before you can say who won or lose the Vietnam War you have to first define the goals each side had.

North Vietnam wanted to unite the country and the US wanted to stop the spread of communism from taking south east Asia. North Vietnam accomplished their goal and now the whole country is just Vietnam. The US did not stop communism from taking hold in Vietnam, but also Vietnam did not become a major partner of the USSR & China, which in the end was good enough. In war, you don't always get what you want so sometimes you have to settle with what you get.

IMHO, people too often look at World War II to define what "winning" and "losing" should look like.

I would disagree with that in relation to the USSR. They had a strategically important naval base at Camh Ranh Bay (built by the US of course)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

that is what "total war" is about.

LOL so you would blindly follow the lead of a certifiable wingnut like Douglas Macauthur?

Like I said it's a good job there was no one like you in charge. :roll:

[Christophe]

The military won every battle in RVN, but the govt just didn't have the balls to continue due to public opinion for example.
Also, the reluctance to go full out in Laos and Cambodia didn't help matters. SOG ops on the trail were highly successfull, but there were just too few of them.
(-This was told to me by a former CCN recon guy.)

I also remember reading an interview once with NVA general Giap where he said that if the US had continued, the North would have lost the war (for a large part also thanks to SOG ops on the Ho Chi Minh trail.)

[James]

What I find interesting is how two conflicts -Vietnam and Algeria- are viewed differently despite of having shared results. In very general terms, the French in Algeria were on the verge on winning that conflict militarily when the political and popular support in France simply fell out from under it, precipitating a withdrawal and eventual Algerian independence. This is still viewed by many as a French "loss", whereas almost the same thing happened with the US vis-a-vis Vietnam, and it is not viewed as a "loss", even though militarily both armies were quite succesful against the enemy in battle.

Is there something I'm missing here, or is a double-standard being applied?

The U.S. is widely seen as having lost the war in Vietnam. I really don't think there's a double standard at all.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Given that war is seen as 'an extension of politics by other means' then failure to achieve the political objectives should be seen as a defeat.

[commanding]

LOL so you would blindly follow the lead of a certifiable wingnut like Douglas Macauthur?

Like I said it's a good job there was no one like you in charge. :roll:

Well that is one thing you don't have to worry about is it? I guarantee if Curtis Lemay had been in his 40's during (66-72) and given free rein, the war would have been over in 12 months, with much less loss of life on our side.

It is good to have someone who "appears" to be a little cracked in charge during wartime....as some of the decisions must be absolutely ruthless and without thought for human life, or civilian losses.

[commanding]

Given that war is seen as 'an extension of politics by other means' then failure to achieve the political objectives should be seen as a defeat.

That is blurring the question to your viewpoint. BS

[a_very_ex_STAB]

That is blurring the question to your viewpoint. BS

If that is so and somehow I've got it all wrong please explain to me how the war was won?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Well that is one thing you don't have to worry about is it? I guarantee if Curtis Lemay had been in his 40's during (66-72) and given free rein, the war would have been over in 12 months, with much less loss of life on our side.

Well you can try weaseling around the issue with as many 'What if...' scenarios as you like but it's not going to change the outcome is it.



It is good to have someone who "appears" to be a little cracked in charge during wartime....as some of the decisions must be absolutely ruthless and without thought for human life, or civilian losses.

By the 1950s Macauthur didn't just give the 'appearance' of being a little cracked as you put it - he actually was, and IIRC LeMay was also put in his place by Eisenhower for trying to overreach his authority in relation to control over the use of US nuclear forces. Both of them provide pretty good examples for why there needs to be civilian political control over the military in a democratic system.

[Irons]

Did the US win or lose in Vietnam? STAB, I invite you to go ask a Vietnam Vet that question to his face with your particular styling and see what happens. Did they lose? No. Did they win? Every time they made contact. What happened in the end? Communism took over the country, and 50K Americans died.

The problem at hand here is the question itself. Win, Lose, from who's perspective and to who's benefit? Are you asking if we cold have won it, had it been handled as a real war, instead of anything but? Uh, yeah, we could have, and tactically we did. The problem is with the question being asked here. It's a straightforward question applied to a cluster-f*ck. Those two things won't jive.

STAB, Commanding is a vet from what I understand, put on your kid gloves (from your perspective) won't you? It's just not very "British" to be so hooligan is it?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Did the US win or lose in Vietnam? STAB, I invite you to go ask a Vietnam Vet that question to his face with your particular styling and see what happens. Did they lose? No. Did they win? Every time they made contact. What happened in the end? Communism took over the country, and 50K Americans died.

The problem at hand here is the question itself. Win, Lose, from who's perspective and to who's benefit? Are you asking if we cold have won it, had it been handled as a real war, instead of anything but? Uh, yeah, we could have, and tactically we did. The problem is with the question being asked here. It's a straightforward question applied to a cluster-f*ck. Those two things won't jive.

STAB, Commanding is a vet from what I understand, put on your kid gloves (from your perspective) won't you? It's just not very "British" to be so hooligan is it?

I'm not trying to dis anyone personally but it's pointless to try and 're-imagine' history in relation to Vietnam.

In fact it's almost as ludicrous as me claiming that the British actually won the American War of Independence because they won most of the major engagements (while conveniently 'forgetting' that they got ground down by an insurgency they could never win and were outmanoeuvred by the French).

Maybe it's better for you Americans to deal with it by thinking of Vietnam in terms of it being one front in a war (ie. the Cold War) which was won by the USA.

[Irons]

Pose that question to the "Whiz-Kid" STAB, that sum-b*tch has more blood on his hands than anybody else involved. I'm just saying that asking someone who actually DID his job this question is not a fair forum.

[commanding]

Well you can try weaseling around the issue with as many 'What if...' scenarios as you like but it's not going to change the outcome is it.

By the 1950s Macauthur didn't just give the 'appearance' of being a little cracked as you put it - he actually was, ....military in a democratic system.
Look jack, if you are going to keep posting about Douglas MacArthur, at least spell his friggin name right okay? I suppose that is why there is a statue of MacArthur at the U.S. Military Academy, because he was such a a poor commander?
This isn't a democracy either, it is a democratic republic.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

America lost the war in Vietnam, even though when we left South Vietnam was still a nation and still fighting. Our goals were not achieved and no amount of tactical military victories changed thought.

That is no disrespect to the American fighting man in Vietnam who performed very, very well.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Look jack, if you are going to keep posting about Douglas MacArthur, at least spell his friggin name right okay? I suppose that is why there is a statue of MacArthur at the U.S. Military Academy, because he was such a a poor commander?
This isn't a democracy either, it is a democratic republic.

More dancing round the issue.
So there's a statue of Macarthur big deal. Everyone knows he was a very good self publicist! Even after he got the heave ho he was good at PR.
Democracy/democratic republic. So what. In relation to civilian control over the military it's just semantics.

[Irons]

Everything that humans create is semantics. STAB, you're an unkind sum-b*tch. I doubt you'd say these things to Commanding to his face. Then again, maybe you would, and that might be interesting to see. Rudeness to a vet who left his youth on a battlefield for the sake of winning an argument on the internet. That's awesome.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

More dancing round the issue.
So there's a statue of Macarthur big deal. Everyone knows he was a very good self publicist! Even after he got the heave ho he was good at PR.
Democracy/democratic republic. So what. In relation to civilian control over the military it's just semantics.Is your issue with his military capabilities or his poliltical ambitions?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Everything that humans create is semantics. STAB, you're an unkind sum-b*tch. I doubt you'd say these things to Commanding to his face. Then again, maybe you would, and that might be interesting to see. Rudeness to a vet who left his youth on a battlefield for the sake of winning an argument on the internet. That's awesome.

What? So it's illegal to disagree with someone now? It's not 'unkind' to simply state things that are generally accepted views of the Vietnam war.

Anyway I'm sure Commanding is capable of telling me personally what he thinks of my opinions without having a self appointed babysitter.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Is your issue with his military capabilities or his poliltical ambitions?

Both really
He made a real Horlicks of the liberation of the Philippines in 1945. It was an unnecessary campaign, as they could easily have been bypassed on the way to Japan, which was staged purely for reasons of his own vanity. To be fair to MacArthur he did an outstanding job of managing the occupation and reconstruction of post war Japan. After his initial masterstroke at Inchon he really ballsed up the Korean War.

[Hollis]

Lets take the pissing match to PM......................

Back on topic:


Let me ask some rhetorical questions;

Did the French lose in Viet-Nam or did they just leave?

Did the Soviets lose in Viet-Nam or did they just leave?


Oh yes, the US was the major player for the West, but they where not the only ones, did the others lose or just leave?


Same for Communist block countries?

[chunky93]

i dont meen to sound anti-american because im not but i beleive america did lose the war in vietnam because you look atthe amount of casualties and fatalities they had and it truly was more than anyone would expect, the americans did not decide to leave they were forced to leave because the north vietnamise had pushed right into the south and there was nothing america could do about it, even though the american president i have forgotten his name spent i think 1/3 of the us budget on defence unfortunatly the americans could not push right into north vietnam the vietcong were just to used to that terrain and destroyed american forces that attempted to advance, also it did not help to have the majority of the population of america against the war that really must have decreased morale significantly, i meen fighting a war getting your legs blown off and having traumatic memories for the rest of your life and then to come home to a nation that spat on you,its truly disgraceful

i hope you americans stay safe in afgan and jdam the hell out of those taliban scum

[Zeev]

It is obvious that the US "loose" because they leave.

Let's be clear, the Viet cong win the propaganda war, but nothing else, on the ground, until the US troops leave, the kill ratio was always of 10 for 1.

If the US stayed, the north could never invade the south, what a waste! so much young americans died for .. that?? :bash: :|

[Breakfast in Vegas]

To be fair to MacArthur he did an outstanding job of managing the occupation and reconstruction of post war Japan. After his initial masterstroke at Inchon he really ballsed up the Korean War.I give him the most credit for the way he handled post-war Japan, particularly not vilifying the crown which would have satisfied some sensibilities, but done more harm than good.

As for Korea, Inchon was brilliant.

His call for nuclear strikes seems over the top by today's standards (and at the time apparently so as well), nonetheless from a military standpoint having "the ultimate weapon" and not using it must have seemed silly in what was an all out war against communism and not just North Korea/China.

His political ambitions seem misplaced and a product of overestimation, but overall I think MacArthur was a fine American citizen with a very respectable and proud history.

You don't have to like him, I don't think much of Monty for example. )

[SBL]

^Hear hear.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

i dont meen to sound anti-american because im not but i beleive america did lose the war in vietnam because you look atthe amount of casualties and fatalities they had and it truly was more than anyone would expect, the americans did not decide to leave they were forced to leave because the north vietnamise had pushed right into the south and there was nothing america could do about it, even though the american president i have forgotten his name spent i think 1/3 of the us budget on defence unfortunatly the americans could not push right into north vietnam the vietcong were just to used to that terrain and destroyed american forces that attempted to advance, also it did not help to have the majority of the population of america against the war that really must have decreased morale significantly, i meen fighting a war getting your legs blown off and having traumatic memories for the rest of your life and then to come home to a nation that spat on you,its truly disgraceful

You have a seriously mistaken view of what happened in Vietnam. I agree it was an American defeat, but this is inaccurate:



"the americans did not decide to leave they were forced to leave because the north vietnamise had pushed right into the south and there was nothing america could do about it"

"vietcong were just to used to that terrain and destroyed american forces that attempted to advance"


?

[chunky93]

sorry dude i was not trying to be 100% historicly accurate i was just giving a general over view

[PUG]

chunky93 is a certified mong, apologies on his behalf. His lack of gramatical accuracy is a hint at this.

[chunky93]

lol not you again

[PUG]

Funny, I thought the same thing.

[chunky93]

well then leave ;)

[Lasse]

If you leave, you loose.

You can beat the **** out of your opponent in a boxing match, but if you leave before the match is over, you loose.

I guess win and loose when it comes to "invasion war" is a vague line. We all remember Bush and Mission Accomplished, I guess most here got\had some friends that might disagree.