America Won the Vietnam War ! - Yes you heard right.

NO.

You think the world is a continuous path of history where as the reality it is punctuated by blips which separate it into distinct eras.Your attempts to compare apples and oranges makes your thought processes invalid.

reply to post by esecallum

---

Like I said before

Troll poo

Nobody agrees with you......get over it

No more feeding the trolls....

reply to post by esecallum

---

How cool,

Killing millions of people - well how great! Would you care if that was your mother, your father, your baby sister or brother - well, no - you obviously would not care if someone came in right now and killed all of you - that would add to the great tally.

And who do you think is better off because everyone was killed?

NO-BODY. That is the answer. The world is wounded.

reply to post by esecallum[/url]

I am sorry to have offended your sensativities but hey, body counts existed LONG before 1945.

They were the reason kings, queens, princes and popes left the battlefield;
they could no longer afford the body count.

Whilst I do understand the reasoning behind your post, I fail to see what arrogance, ineptitude and a slim grasp of world history, brings to your argument.

For your information my friend,World War One was about body counts. Had your country been in it from day one, you would not be putting forward your somewhat cock-eyed theories.

Ever heard of a place called Verdun? This is where the Imperial German Army under Kaiser Wilhelm tried to bleed the French Army dry.

Over a seven month period, the French lost approximately 550,000 men whilst the Germans lost approximately 434,000.

If THAT is not a body count, I don't know what the hell is!

The OP is an idiot to say the least. I'm at a loss for words if this person is actually serious and actually a fellow citizen.

Aren't wars about meeting objectives, Having some sort of results? Wasn't our objective liberating South Vietnam from a Communists North?

When we went into Vietnam we greatly under estimated our enemies will to fight. On top of that we greatly under estimated how widespread and popular the movement was. At the same time, support for the war, on our end, was eroding as time went on.

I am aware how ever that our body count to there's was vastly uneven, but in this case, our objectives were not met and killing millions did not win the war.

Secrets of War: Vietnam Special Operations

Google Video Link

[edit on 21-8-2009 by oconnection]

reply to post by oconnection

---

We won that war.the figures prove that.in every single encounter we came out on top.

THAT WAR SPURRED A HUGE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE in out military capability.

While the vietnamese hid in the bushes for 10 years our scientists were making huge advances.

In irak we showed that advance when the irakis ran from kuwait.our helicopters did a turkey shoot on that iraki military convoy killing 50000 in one fell swoop without a single loss.

wow!

imagine that as ultimate victory.

as pointed out to you already body count is the indicator of victory after 1945 as prior to that war was much more personal and face to face.

now we can sit sit and destroy the enemy many miles away just by pressing a button or a trigger.

if we had a war with jungle enemies today we would simply destroy the jungle and the enemy using daisy cutter and air aerosols weapons.



[edit on 21-8-2009 by esecallum]

I guess the history books and experts definition of who won the war are very different than yours. By your definition we lost the Revolutionary War because our looses were greater.

Winning a war is not about how much death you inflict on the opposing side. Winning war is meeting your objective. Our objective was not met with Vietnam.

The other sides objective when it comes to Vietnam was met in throwing out the invaders of there country and reuniting the south with north.

So by definition and simply examining the outcome one can easily conclude that we did not meet our objective and we did loose that war.

On the matter of technological advance, what's your point? If you study any war you will find that war there is always technological advances as a result. Look at the bow and arrow, the Gatling gun, gun powder, the tank, ect.


Isn't it sad, with all our technological advantages we couldn't beat a person hiding in the bush.

It's a matter of determination. We had a draft, many on our side were simply trying to make it through there tour of duty. There was no sense of defending there country. There was no war declared. It was a very unpopular war. We as a country did not have the will power or support to continue fighting.

On the other hand the Vietnamese did. They saw it as fighting and dieing for there country, most in our country did not.

It was an unconventional war and 3/4ths of it we fought it conventionally. In the beginning we had the right idea. We were fighting fire with fire. We sent in the Green Berets, the Navy Seals, the Delta Force.

These are the lessons that our military leaders learned from Vietnam and in fact if you bother to study was one of the positive out comes for us from a military stand point.



Google spell check will help you greatly, sir.

Again we can apply the Vietnam model to this war. Iraq had no standing army that could confront us directly. So what kind of war we/are facing. An unconventional one.

You see, you are viewing winning a war in a purely numerical form when winning a war is not that simple.

If war was that simply, why not lob nukes at a country and call it day?

[edit on 21-8-2009 by oconnection]

NO his rule clearly states that this law is for anything after 1945

Props on a funny post, dude.

Now he is talking about the "Highway of Death" where retreating Iraqi and some Palestinian fighters were enclosed and bombed (White phosphorus included). In order to avoid death, some thought it would be smart to hijack civilian vehicles to retreat in because the US shouldn't shoot at civilians, boy were they wrong. American estimates say a few hundred died there, but less biased reports say closer to 100,000.



I see one tank in this photo

reply to post by esecallum[/url]

What a pity the funding does not run to equipping you with a dictionary.

If it did, I'm sure you would have spelt Iraq correctly, as I have done.

If they were so glad to be dying for their country then why did we find charred bodies chained to their seats in destroyed tanks during the 1972 Easter Offensive? Why did they chain truck drivers to their seats during the trips along the Ho Chi Minh Trail?

The North Vietnamese "People's Army" was broken by 1972, entire battalions were being wiped out in a matter of minutes by B-52 Arc-Lite strikes. The Vietcong/National "Liberation" Front ceased to be an effective fighting force after they were annihilated in the 1968 Tet Offensive.

reply to post by esecallum

---

its statments like this from idiots like you that realy makes the rest of the world hate americans, ( and Im sure most well informed and intelligent americans are cringeing with embarrasment reading what you wrote)

reply to post by Lucifersjester

---

Indeed, I for one am embarrassed for my country because of people like this. Please do not think for a minute this this type of person represents my country as a whole.

Although, sadly we find more of these types poking there heads up, more often then not these days.

This person, seemingly never went to college or took a history course, his arguments are not even logical. This person obviously has no basic understanding what it is to fight and win a war, you put to shame all those who have fought and died for our country! Shame on you.

Is this how we "won" the Vietnam War?

YouTube Link

[edit on 24-8-2009 by oconnection]

Sounds a bit like Brandon Crisp.
in any case this is the most convoluted explanation of winning a war ever.
It's comparing war to a school shooting. And that's pretty disgusting. At least you expect people to die in a war. You almost never expect a school shooting. and at least there is more thought needed in war, at least by tacticians.

reply to post by esecallum

---

Take pride in the wars fought for the right reasons, whether 'won or lost'. But have enough sense to know the difference.

Aye, that be a famous picture of the "Fall of Saigon", showing the last of the Americans being evacuated from a rooftop while Communist forces converge on the city.

America pulled out of Vietnam and failed in preventing the communist government from taking over that is a failure. It doesn't matter if they killed a billion people.

reply to post by UltimateSin

---

How in hell can you suggest it was a failure?

First, state the objective.

If you have no stated objective, you can have no failure.

And you can't state the objective, because we had none.

Thus, we couldn't have failed.

To stop communism. First it was a police action but that wasn't good enough they had to turn it into a war, they had to get rid of the evil commies. Leading to a long and bloody war. Nothing like sending your children to die over paranoia.

58,159 American boys, many of whom were drafted against their will, died for no reason.

Oh, but because we didn't have an objective, we couldn't have failed.

Nice logic there.

Losing a single life without just cause is failure. Taking a single life without just cause is failure. How any rational person with intelligence enough to read or write could fail to understand that is... beyond me.

reply to post by esecallum

---

lets hope mateyboy is joking if not im sorry, but thats pretty ignant. for starters the vietnam war was an illegal war. the pretext was the bombing of american PT boats by the vietnamnese, it never happen. So all in all a rather pointless post. i thought the site was opposed to ignorance. sorry