NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, it was a military failure.

You may have killed an astonishingly large amount of people, given their next generation horrible mutations, and ruined a fair part of their land, but that doesn't mean that you won.

You failed in your objective, which was to stop 'Communism' (Vietnam was more socialist than communist, but that's a different thread). It took over. It may have then fallen on its arse in the mid-eighties to early nineties, but for the time it triumphed.

Even if you had left the country to vote on the issue, and didn't kill anyone, it still would have collapsed in that period due to the downfall of the USSR and the economic liberalisation of China, which set a precedent on the issue.

I thought militaries won all battles and
politician lost the war...

Now the chicken flu from Vietnam prepares for the return match.

Ah, not quite seeing as I made the comment directly after I mentioned the french. I would have thought it more locigal to make that connection, but seeing as you have made the mistake I seem to have failed in the attempt.

As for all asians being the same...hell, not even two people can be considered the same....

True but you know how people like to stereotype and lump people into groups.

Man, some of these people have real difficulty in accepting the fact that the good ol' US of A might have lost a war.

Just as well the thread isn't about the 1812 war against Britain/Canada.

LOL. Maybe you should start one. LOL

In the short term, the US lost the war as a military operation. No question.

But, in the long term, if you figure this is a Communism vs. capitalism war, the US has definitely won.

http://static.flickr.com/6/8415922_0e09511b4e_m.jpg

Looks like capitalism is outstripping and assimilating everything else in Vietnam

it wasn't about communism vs capitalism, it was about Freedom vs Imperialism......the Vietnamese fighting for the freedom to determine their own future and not be subjected by foreign Imperialist forces(Japan, France and USA).....they won, their choice of economic system was socialist and it still is, if they modify it that's a normal adjustment and not victory for capitalism, all countries modify their economic systems according to the needs of the day, even the USA.....

Ah, yes that. 58,000 American casualties versus over 1 million NVA and 'Cong, plus we won every major battle of the war.

Since win does mopping the floor with the enemy constitute losing?

numbers aren't relevant since the Vietnamese would have have accepted any number of deaths to gain their freedom, the US was not willing to accept the same cost....USA lost....

it wasn't about communism vs capitalism, it was about Freedom vs Imperialism......the Vietnamese fighting for the freedom to determine their own future and not be subjected by foreign Imperialist forces(Japan, France and USA).....they won, their choice of economic system was socialist and it still is, if they modify it that's a normal adjustment and not victory for capitalism, all countries modify their economic systems according to the needs of the day, even the USA.....

pfft. It's all about the money, and corporations making money.

The corporations won.

It depends on who rules Vietnam today :D

Did America really lose Vietnam?No, they won. Don't you know Vietnam is the 53rd state now?

No, they won. Don't you know Vietnam is the 53rd state now?

Considering all of the investment and outsourcing going on there now, they might as well be.

Ah, yes that. 58,000 American casualties versus over 1 million NVA and 'Cong, plus we won every major battle of the war.

Since win does mopping the floor with the enemy constitute losing?

We won the Revolution despite loosing every major battle. We lost Vietnam despite winning every major battle.

If you consider greater casualties a victory then we didn't win a war, we won a massacre.

Ah jez .America lost Vietnam?Did it check its pockets or look in the last place it left it.Well on the plus side I guess Laos has some nice new beaches.

Ah jez .America lost Vietnam?Did it check its pockets or look in the last place it left it.Well on the plus side I guess Laos has some nice new beaches.

Actually, I believe it's on that table over there. No, not that one, the other one, in the corner. Yes, that one.

How so I doubt that anything that there is 6,000,000,000 of is very valuable

Hi Mr. Troll. Allow me to introduce you to Mr. Hydrochloric Acid.

Did we really lose Vietnam or was the withdrawal just part of our overall strategy in the battle against global Soviet domination?
What really constitutes defeat?

Well, you didn't win! Wasn't a draw either.

Well, you didn't win! Wasn't a draw either.

I think what's really important here is did they cover the spread

I think what's really important here is did they cover the spread...

so what is the spread for the USA vs Iraq SuperBowl?
"mission acomplished" anyone?

...

Fuck you. Just fuck you. I've decided there's no point arguing with people like you, so I've decided to hit your level.
The usual loser liberal arguement ender

No, they won. Don't you know Vietnam is the 53rd state now?
You mean there's anyone left there Looks like they all moved to California

Hi Mr. Troll. Allow me to introduce you to Mr. Hydrochloric Acid.
Hell you call That trolling? on some of the lists that's called a friendly greeting

Did we really lose Vietnam or was the withdrawal just part of our overall strategy in the battle against global Soviet domination?
What really constitutes defeat?

Depends on your definition of defeat. If you mean that the US military couldn't control a country it had no right to be in, resulting in thousands of American deaths, yes, it was a "defeat."

But if you define victory instead of that, but rather as preventing any country from rising with an alternative to either the soviet or capitalist system, and utterly ruining said country that tries, then both the Soviet Union and the US "won."

NS really is insane, with all the right-wingers who advocate genocide in this thread.

NS really is insane, with all the right-wingers who advocate genocide in this thread.

Because all right-wingers advocate genocide.

And even if all right-wingers support the annihilation of the North Vietnamese, it would not be genocide. To be genocide, we'd have to kill all of the South Vietnamese as well.

You fail. Go sit in a corner.

Because all right-wingers advocate genocide.
He never said they did.

And even if all right-wingers support the annihilation of the North Vietnamese, it would not be genocide. To be genocide, we'd have to kill all of the South Vietnamese as well.

Since the people in this thread who advocated killing all the North Vietnamese advocated doing it with a nuclear weapon, it would be genocide, since all the Suth Vietnamese would die as well.

You fail. Go sit in a corner.
You fail for not reading the thread and not understanding sentences.

He never said they did.

He implied a gross majority, which, being lazy, I changed to "all."


Since the people in this thread who advocated killing all the North Vietnamese advocated doing it with a nuclear weapon, it would be genocide, since all the Suth Vietnamese would die as well.

Wrong. They key thing about genocide is that intent has to be there as well, otherwise it's not genocide.

EDIT: However, it seems it would, in fact, be genocide. (bolding mine)

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


Since North Vietnam was a nation (I think, someome tell me if I'm wrong), then I believe the total annihilation of the North Vietnamese would, in fact, be genocide.

What a shame, it was no oil in VietNam, a good reason to abandon the war.

It wasn't a total loss because the Domino effect didn't succed as far as Singapore, Australia and New Zealand, something i am thankful of.

Did we really lose Vietnam or was the withdrawal just part of our overall strategy in the battle against global Soviet domination?
What really constitutes defeat?

Failing to achieve your war aims and your enemies succeding in achiving theirs.

So in which case the Americans lost rather badly