Vietnam Win or Loss?

Originally posted by Kotaro_Fuma
USA WON vietnam...We entered vietnam to stop the spread of comunism, and at the time we withdrew our troops comunism had yet to pass the border. SO...at the time the objective had been done.

Well, it sure passed the border into South Vietnam and after Vietnam, communists took over Cambodia as well so there goes your ridiculous theory.

Clearly.. what in your eyes?!?!
And as far as i'm aware we didn't fight in Vietnam.. our soldiers were there but were only there to help the American's by delivering aid nad enforcing public support.
Where's your links to prove all of this?

posted by JediMaster: “A friend said we won the Vietnam war . . I said we did not . . we got into an argument. I wanted to see other opinions about this war. I do this to prove to him that most agree that we lost. He said the liberal media was brainwashing me in order to [make me] believe we lost. [Edited by Don W]

Well, anyone who saw or who has seen the debacle at the US Embassy in 1975 knows we lost the war. I don’t think the outcome is subject to debate.

The question, “why” did we lose, is often intertwined into the argument, obfuscating the won-lost issue. As if losing for one reason is excusable whereas losing for another reason is not. Hmm?


Addendum. The ideological “Cold War” began before VE Day of May 8, 1945. The USSR put into place its own Communist governments across Eastern Europe as the Red Army pushed the German Armies out. Stalin knew the capitalist West would attempt to subvert the totalitarian socialist movement in the USSR. The US had sent 20,000 soldiers to do this very thing in the 1918-1920 Archangel campaign supporting the White Russian movement to restore the monarchy. Our half hearted effort soon failed for the same reasons Napoleon and Hitler failed. The Russian winters. Stalin blockaded Berlin in 1948, which we overcame peacefully with the Berlin Airlift. By 1950, North Korea - on its own - invaded South Korea. We believed in a monolithic world-wide communist movement directed from Moscow. Not our first error, but one with the more serious consequences.

I am a Korean War vet. I arrived in Korea in September, 1953. I am glad the war was over. I wanted to fight for my country but I had no wish to die doing it. I was there 1 year and I saw firsthand how remarkably resilient the Korean people are. It’s no surprise to me they are now #11 in world GDP. Harry Truman sent the first $15 million in aid to the French in 1950. This low level of involvement brings us to 1954, when the French were drubbed at Dien Bien Phu. I remember helping load C-124s to carry medical supplies to the French. The U.S. counseled the French restored puppet King Bao Dai regime in Saigon not to follow the Geneva Accords and not to hold the 1956 election, for the reason it was believed (correctly) that Ho Chi Minh would win. 59,000 dead Gis, and over 1 million dead Vietnamese later, Ho won in spirit if not in body.

Ironically, in the early 1940s, Ho sought US aid to gain Vietnam’s independence from France, but he was turned down for his socialist views. He then turned to Moscow and as they say, the rest is history. The first American to die in Vietnam was Lt. Col. A. Peter Dewey, OSS mission leader in Saigon. He was shot at the airport by the Vietminh. It is suggested he was mistaken for a Frenchman. I do not know if his name is on The Wall. See www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/timeline.htm


[edit on 3/29/2006 by donwhite]

Clearly as in you lost 50,000 soldiers who most would of been good people. Also you signed a treaty to get your buts out of there as the communists rolled in to Saigon a few years later, how is that a victory? and how is that not a defeat? I didn`t say we fought but if we hadn`t of left we would of been drawn in sooner or later.

Originally posted by uuhelpus
The US lost, not because of the military. Politicians ruined any chance of a victory. If we were going to be there in the fist place, we should have leveled the place.

I lived through the Vietnam War and have alot of friends who went there to fight the war. We DID level the place. It's a wonder it's still there, we dropped soooo many bombs, not to mention the defoliation of the plant life from Agent Orange. ANd it wasn't about us "pussyfooting around" either. The truth is that no way could we have ever won that war, the Vietnamese guerillas were way too much for us, they knew the jungle terrain, and most importantly they were fighting for their own country and to remain independent from the U.S.'s influence. No matter what we would have done, we wouldn't have won, we outnumbered the Vietnamese but still we weren't able to defeat them. The goal of the war was to kick the Communists out of North Vietnam - seeing as they're still there, I'd say we clearly lost.
The American War College, which is where folks like Colin Powell go to learn about military strategy, spends alot of time studying/teaching Vietcong tactics, because they were so successful at beating us that they were some of the few people that have ever won against the U.S.
We were to the point of drafting for crying out loud and had far more soldiers in Vietnam than now in Iraq. The casualties were in excess of 50,000, far more than our current 2,000 some in Iraq. We threw everything we had at them but we were no match for their brilliant guerilla tactics.

-Forestlady

I never said America didn't lose the war. My whole argument was that it wasn't a war that could of been won.. simply because they were fighting an enemy blindfolded, they could walk past them down a street yet not recognise them. This wasn't a uniformed occasion, the Americans were there, virtually sitting ducks to an un-uniformed enemy. I do not see that as being a war as such.

Even though it has been classes as a loss and there is no argument against this, I feel the more it is described as a loss the less the war is remembered and soliers returning back celebrated as war heros and not labelled as 'losers'.

I disagree with the forestlady's statement smoewhat. Sure the VC were excellent guerilla fighters, but they also benefitted from safe bases of operations. North Vietnm, Cambodia and Laos. These places were virtually off limits for political reasons. It would have been a very different story if North Vietnam had come under direct attack not just from the air, but the ground as well.
Also, North Vietnam had an almost untouchable flow of supplies coming into their ports directly ( Haiphong ) or through Sihanoukville in Cambodia. These supplies were never interdicted in the slightest. By the time these supplies were interdicted on the Ho Chi Minh trail t was too late, they were dispersed too well.
Vietnam was a war controlled by the politicians not the military.



[edit on 29-3-2006 by rogue1]

Lost - every way you look at it the US lost.

Vietnamese are hard little guys and defeated both the US and France.

A stupid expedition with the wrong army fighting the wrong war the wrong way.

AS DR says there were many interests keen to fight a war, make profit, get medals, budgets etc etc - only thing was it wasn't them / their sons facing the bullets (GWB??).


BTW re the UK it was Wilson and we weren't 'pulled out' we disarmed the Viet restistance (Ho Chi Min etc), re-armed the Japanese POW's and smoothed the re-establishment of French colonial rule at the end of WW2 but that was the limit of our involvement.

Agree that Blair wouldn't have stood up to the US but then again he knows what happened to Wilson!!

posted by forestlady: posted by uuhelpus: “The US lost because of the Politicians ruined any chance of a victory. we should have leveled the place. END.

Forestlady: I lived through the Vietnam War and have friends who went there to fight . . most importantly they were fighting for their own country and to remain independent from U.S. influence. No matter what we did . . we wouldn't have won . . we outnumbered the Vietnamese [fighting forces] but still we weren't able to defeat them. America’s War College, which is where folks like Colin Powell go to learn about military strategy, spends a lot of time studying Viet Cong tactics because they were successful at beating us . . they were some of the few people that have ever won against the U.S. We were no match for their guerilla tactics. Forestlady [Edited by Don W]

It appears the insurgents in Iraq went to the VC school. The Vietnamese were fighting for a cause, much as we did in our own War of Revolt from England in 1775. The right to make your own mistakes. It is a powerful impulse. See also Cuba.


Aside. The American portion of the Vietnam War - also known as the 10,000 Days War - 1945 - 1975 - was also the place where the MIA phenomenon was invented. Here is a list of America’s MIAs from the past. Revolutionary War, 1,426; Spanish American War, 72; World War 1, 116 /?/; World War 2, 30,314; Korean War, 8,177; Vietnam War, estimated variously at 3,000 to 6,000. To be blunt about it, MIA means the person was blown to smithereens. There was nothing left to identify. He (or she) is truly “missing.”

Due to the political heat against the war from the beginning, the Armed Forces usually paid the family of an MIA person for 1 year before converting him or her into a KIA and paying the death benedicts. Which were not overly generous. The anti war people realized you cannot prove a negative. Let's compel the administration to account for the MIAs. Impossible. This tactic grew and grew and then a lot of people simply wondered why we have MIAs? Ultimately it became a cottage industry. It continues today. Some people have made a lot of money on the MIA thing. But no one ever mentions the 30,000 WW2 MIAs or the 8,000 Korean War MIAs. R-I-P. From www.aiipowmia.com...

[edit on 3/29/2006 by donwhite]

Hi Don....

Well... you are right about one thing.... no one DOES ever mention the OTHER "WARS" when it comes to MIA's. When I was doing my research for the video I did as an inclusion for the Special Features of the new documentary film by David Zeiger, "Sir! No Sir!" www.sirnosir.com... , it seemed like almost every site had different numbers. The numbers referred to in my earlier comments were given to me by my research assistants from the Army. Of course, they are U. S. only and do not include the other countries that fought along side the U. S.

Anyway.... as you have so nobly pointed out.... a lot of folks have never been mentioned in the same breath and, like you, feel they SHOULD BE. Although I KNOW that you understand..... some seem to forget that both POW and MIA stand for one thing.... Fathers, Mothers, Brothers, Sisters, Sons, Daughters and Loved Ones. That is ONE STATISTIC that cannot be denied.

Great comment..... right on track Don.

(Salute)

Dave

posted by Dave Rabbit: “Hi Don....Well... you are right about one thing.... no one DOES ever mention the OTHER "WARS" when it comes to MIA's.[Edited by Don W]

I have never failed to love the soldiers who go into harm’s way but I also never fail to hate the administrations that send them there in support of a failed policy.

When I was doing research for the video as an inclusion for the Special Features of the new documentary film by David Zeiger, "Sir! No Sir!" it seemed like almost every site had different numbers. The numbers referred to in my earlier comments were given to me by my research assistants from the Army.

I have no quarrel with America’s Armed Forces. Back in my youth, the sum of it all was called the AFUS - Armed Forces of the United States. Not to be confused with “USAF,” the standard abbreviation for the Air Force.

“ . . as you have so nobly pointed out.... a lot of folks have never been mentioned in the same breath and you feel they SHOULD BE. Although I KNOW that you understand..... some seem to forget that both POW and MIA stand for one thing.... Fathers, Mothers, Brothers, Sisters, Sons, Daughters and Loved Ones. That is ONE STATISTIC that cannot be denied.

Yes, DaveR, that is exactly right.

Great comment..... right on track Don. (Salute) Dave

The closing lines of the poem to be found on the very excellent link, DaveR, are as follows

“General, man is very useful.
He can fly and he can kill.
But he has one defect: He can think.”

Without casting aspersions on armies, THINKING men are not welcome in war.

Linked by Dave Rabbit: “Yet few today know of these history-changing events. Sir! No Sir! will change all that. The film does four things: 1) Brings to life the history of the GI movement through the stories of those who were part of it; 2) Reveals the explosion of defiance that the movement gave birth to with never-before-seen archival material; 3) Explores the profound impact that movement had on the military and the war itself; and 4) The feature, 90 minute version, also tells the story of how and why the GI Movement has been erased from the public memory.

I was part of that movement during the 60’s, and have an intimate connection with it. For two years I worked as a civilian at the Oleo Strut in Killeen, Texas - one of dozens of coffeehouses that were opened near military bases to support the efforts of antiwar soldiers.

I helped organize demonstrations of over 1,000 soldiers against the war and the military; I worked with guys from small towns and urban ghettos who had joined the military and gone to Vietnam out of a deep sense of duty and now risked their lives and futures to end the war; and I helped defend them when they were jailed for their antiwar activities.

My deep connection with the GI movement has given me unprecedented access to those involved, along with a tremendous amount of archival material including photographs, underground papers, local news coverage and personal 8mm footage. Sir! No Sir! reveals how, thirty years later, the poem by Bertolt Brecht that became an anthem of the GI Movement still resonates:

“General, man is very useful.
He can fly and he can kill.
But he has one defect:
He can think.”

I admire you, Dave Rabbit. I guess I was born with chickentihs in my veins. I wanted to go to Selma for the march to Montgomery but my girl friend talked me out of it. I know I talk the talk, but I have not walked the walk. We do serve a useful purpose, though. I’ve observed it takes 30-50 talkers to get one walker. Without the talkers, would you get the walker?

I was HD from the USAF in 1956. I attended college on the GI Bill, PL550. Good, but not as good as the WW2 bill. I think the GI Bills get progressively worse. As America needs the soldiers less, we pay them less. I am a 10% DAV and I notice the cost of my VA furnished meds rose from $2 a month in 2000, to $7 a month in 2004, and now $8 a month in 2006. Shee-it, if I wasn’t so old, I’d get private insurance. (Laugh!)

I guess you could say your generation of soldiers brought on the so-called Volunteer Army? They - that otherwise unknown bogey man blamed for everything we don‘t like - could not control a draft army, so what was their option? All volunteers! A little pizzazz from Madison Avenue and viola! You have a new armed forces loyal to the paymaster? I am not sure that is any better (or safer for American democracy) than privatizing the whole dam government. By the by, just what is the definition of fascism?

It gets harder and harder to know how many people really do work for the government. On the DoE website, they list 18,000 employed by the DoE, and then, 110,000 under contract. So who pays them? Don’t than all work for the US taxpayer? What’s the distinction and why the distinction? Is this just a pipeline into the Halliburtons of America to share the wealth? It is very discouraging. As the snowball rolls downhill, it is getting so large it may become the irresistible force! But the small taxpayers are no longer the immovable object.

Can you imagine how easy it would be for a malevolent administration run amuck to put down armed revolts inside the US of A? With all this urban combat training, see at night capacity, armored vests and humvees, starting a 1775 type revolt would be crushed in short order. Say hello American gulag. Or, how much of America does the top 5% own today? Karl Marx had it right although it is not kosher to say so out loud.

[edit on 3/29/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by st3ve_o
6) wasn't prepared for gorrilla warefare tactics

As a veteran of the war in Vietnam, I have to admit that it was the gorillas that turned the tide. Fortunately, some were apprehended and harshly dealt with.

Potentially disturbing photograph

forestlady

You are just one of those individuals who just leave me shaking my head. It's always those like you who never set foot in Vietnam who have all the facts about our having dropped "sooooo many bombs" and how the Viet Cong kicked our butts. The problem is that you're dreaming.

Watching the 15 second film clips of the war in your parents' living room doesn't make you and your ilk veterans, as much as you wish it did. The real pathetic thing is that there are XY Americans who talk the same talk you do. Truly pathetic. Maybe if we'd had you and your fellow tree huggers helping us out, there wouldn't be millions of Vietnamese living here instead of their homeland.

[edit on 2006/3/29 by GradyPhilpott]

Good post.. that's the point I was trying to achieve. No matter a 'win' or a 'lose' respect needs to be paid to all soldiers in any war. Older men started the was and the sacrifice was made upon the younger generations, it wasn't there war as such so a little more respect please!

Win because of all the Vietnamese we saved

well you always win in all the vietnam hollywood fims

i don't think ive saw one yet where 'the united states' loses!!

Ha, makes me think of all old 'Delta Force' movies.. shooting about 10 enemies all firing at you with one magazine... truly brilliant. Even the A-Team would be envious 'cause Delta Force actually got the kills!

lol maybe when vietnam start getting a LITTLE richer, they might make a film where all the vietnamese people start waving the vietnamese flag 'in pride', then the americans run off scared to their planes and fly back to america!!

it would give us something different to watch anyways, i'm sick of seeing america winning at the end

rocky4 was on the other night grrr (ive seen it like 50 times), why can't they make one where drago wins? - even the russians was cheering for rocky at the end (at a time when the cold war was on)!!

rambo2 was on last night too (rambo 3 tonight) on bravo, grrr - (that was about vietnam), he wiped out all the russian & vietnamise army by himself


[edit on 30-3-2006 by st3ve_o]

A Political Loss

We could have won militarily but pressure from the politicians back home prevented the use of the appropriate measures to win the "war".

Plain and simple we were handicapped much like modern day Iraq because not only did the youth movement in the America start a grass roots bring our troops home which became an embarrasment to the established politco's but also reduced the soliders and familys moral of why we were there in the first place and thus we lost sight of the original objective and it became more of a how do I stay in office and look like the good guy. Which led to the withdrawal of troops.

We were not defeated but decided to "disengage" from the conflict. The aftermath was the result of having no more US Troops to fight against.

Many Many Many combat operations were called off due to the outcry about civilian casualties. From the American people and international communities.

When you have a border conflict were you are trying to prevent the incursion of enemy forces across the border the best policy is to decimate the landscape and create a no mans land at the border, then you can see the enemy movements and stop them from a safe distance. Mulitple straffing runs by B-52's followed up with A-10's and AC-130 would stop any enemy movements across the line and you do it often enough and "hard" enough and eventually your enemy is no longer going to be willing to send hardware across the line opting for long range "rifle" volley's IE Cannon's and Rockets which become easy targets to take out from the air.

But like usual our politicians become our military's worst enemy.