Recently I've been searching for some information about the Vietnam War and found something interesting that I've never came across before. Some have claimed that the Vietnam War was a victory to the US and the free world. Their reason is this:
Although the US lost Vietnam to the Communists, they won the war because the war gave fledgling democratic countries like Thailaid, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore time to develop and thereby stop the "domino effect" of communism.
What do you all think about this?
Full Version: Us won the Vietnam war?
Yea they won thats why they had to leave in disgrace 
How can you win when you failed to reach your objectives?
QUOTE (Nam Quoc Son Ha @ Sep 12 2004, 07:34 PM)
How can you win when you failed to reach your objectives?
Nam qquoc i thought you had a brain?? I was being sarcastic
QUOTE
Although the US lost Vietnam to the Communists, they won the war because the war gave fledgling democratic countries like Thailaid, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore time to develop and thereby stop the "domino effect" of communism.
True but those countries didn't fall to communism because of what the U.S did in Vietnam, they didn't fall because China turned it's back on the Soviet Union and Vietnam and thus it was hard for Vietnam to spread Communism to those countries with both the U.S and China breathing down Vietnam's face.
The domino theory did extend to Cambodia and Laos though.
But the end of the domino theory had nothing to do with what the U.S did in the Vietnam War, they were just lucky, China decided to change their stance from Communism and begin a capitalist type of government.
did it hurt vietnam a little? like do vietnamese think everything american is evil even democracy.....
QUOTE (DaiNamViet @ Sep 12 2004, 06:36 PM)
QUOTE (Nam Quoc Son Ha @ Sep 12 2004, 07:34 PM)
How can you win when you failed to reach your objectives?
Nam qquoc i thought you had a brain?? I was being sarcastic
I was replying to the original post.
U.S goal was to prevent communism from taking South Vietnam and that was their goal in the Vietnam War and they were defeated.
QUOTE (Nam Quoc Son Ha @ Sep 12 2004, 07:38 PM)
QUOTE (DaiNamViet @ Sep 12 2004, 06:36 PM)
QUOTE (Nam Quoc Son Ha @ Sep 12 2004, 07:34 PM)
How can you win when you failed to reach your objectives?
Nam qquoc i thought you had a brain?? I was being sarcastic
I was replying to the original post.
OK nvm... they just inventing things so that they can feel better about losing
QUOTE
did it hurt vietnam a little?
It hurt alot dude, but we still here
--- --- :genius:
QUOTE (Byron @ Sep 12 2004, 06:39 PM)
U.S goal was to prevent communism from taking South Vietnam and that was their goal in the Vietnam War and they were defeated.
congratulationz to vietnam on your victory!
The U.S didnt win $hit. I can't stand Americans who say "we didn't win or lose" because they can't face facts and the fact of it was that our troops had $hitty training and didnt accomplish anything relatively important 
The U.S military during that war were really good and well trained but the problem is that got too cocky and arragant.
They believed they could defeat the Vietnamese easily and thus their underestimation was to our advantage.
The Secretary of Defense at that time, Robert Namura even said: "If I had known the Vietnamese could fight like that, then I would have planned things differently from the beginning."
Just shows that you should NEVER underestimate your foe because being cocky only gives your enemy the advantage.
They believed they could defeat the Vietnamese easily and thus their underestimation was to our advantage.
The Secretary of Defense at that time, Robert Namura even said: "If I had known the Vietnamese could fight like that, then I would have planned things differently from the beginning."
Just shows that you should NEVER underestimate your foe because being cocky only gives your enemy the advantage.
i thought the u.s couldnt fight and kill them cause they hide in the bushes and attack.
in history class my teacher said the first time the U.S faced that type of combat tactics was in the philippines during the philippine-american war.
in history class my teacher said the first time the U.S faced that type of combat tactics was in the philippines during the philippine-american war.
QUOTE (dalawapo @ Sep 12 2004, 07:53 PM)
i thought the u.s couldnt fight and kill them cause they hide in the bushes and attack.
Hahaha.. this is also so funny
QUOTE (dalawapo @ Sep 12 2004, 06:53 PM)
i thought the u.s couldnt fight and kill them cause they hide in the bushes and attack.
in history class my teacher said the first time the U.S faced that type of combat tactics was in the philippines during the philippine-american war.
in history class my teacher said the first time the U.S faced that type of combat tactics was in the philippines during the philippine-american war.
Americans like to say stuff like that but most of the battles were done in the cities. The biggest one was the Tet Offensive where the Vietcong launched an attack against almost every major city in South Vietnam at once.
They even made it to the American embassy and actually got inside and blew up the American eagle emblem which was a source of pride to Americans and many Americans cried.
The blowing up of the American eagle really made Americans believe they couldn't win the war and was the turning point of the war and the beginning of our victory.
Now the American Embassy in South Vietnam was a fortress back then. No one expected the Vietcong to even get near that place let alone get inside of it. Hell even the Vietcong were surprised they were able to blow up the fortified wall and get inside with ease and blow up the American Eagle Emblem.
The American diplomatics were running away and hiding in shame during the attack on the Embassy.
QUOTE (Byron @ Sep 12 2004, 06:51 PM)
The U.S military during that war were really good and well trained but the problem is that got too cocky and arragant.
They believed they could defeat the Vietnamese easily and thus their underestimation was to our advantage.
The Secretary of Defense at that time, Robert Namura even said: "If I had known the Vietnamese could fight like that, then I would have planned things differently from the beginning."
Just shows that you should NEVER underestimate your foe because being cocky only gives your enemy the advantage.
They believed they could defeat the Vietnamese easily and thus their underestimation was to our advantage.
The Secretary of Defense at that time, Robert Namura even said: "If I had known the Vietnamese could fight like that, then I would have planned things differently from the beginning."
Just shows that you should NEVER underestimate your foe because being cocky only gives your enemy the advantage.
The U.S military was not good back then. Because of the draft there were basically to many soldiers to train effeiciently. Most of them received crappy training, were given a gun, then shipped out. Plus alot of the equipment they used was crappy because it would have been to expensive to arm that many men with high quality weapons. Ya you are right about the arrogance and cockiness part though or else they probably would have been better trained and prepared. Thats another reason why they won't reinstate the draft. To much money, the quality of our military will deteriorate, and honestly I think a $hitload of people would refuse to serve regardless. That last one is just a personal opinion of mine.
too much typing for my short attention span.... can someone give me the cliff notes please!!! 
can someone give me the cliff notes please!!!
as I said, ignorant killed you.
US got out Vietnam in 1972. There were no US troops in Vietnam. Nixon abandoned Vietnam for relation with China. Kissinger predicted that VN would fall in 1972. The war would ast until 1975 because South Vietnamese Army ran out of supplied. US Congress did not back South gov't. Therefore it created chaos.
What 's the difference does it make today? Viet Cong are now kissing American a$$ .
US got out Vietnam in 1972. There were no US troops in Vietnam. Nixon abandoned Vietnam for relation with China. Kissinger predicted that VN would fall in 1972. The war would ast until 1975 because South Vietnamese Army ran out of supplied. US Congress did not back South gov't. Therefore it created chaos.
What 's the difference does it make today? Viet Cong are now kissing American a$$ .
QUOTE (dalawapo @ Sep 12 2004, 08:10 PM)
too much typing for my short attention span.... can someone give me the cliff notes please!!!
can someone give me the cliff notes please!!! Iam just like you man, those essay writers have got me lost too
QUOTE (Jasel @ Sep 12 2004, 07:02 PM)
QUOTE (Byron @ Sep 12 2004, 06:51 PM)
The U.S military during that war were really good and well trained but the problem is that got too cocky and arragant.
They believed they could defeat the Vietnamese easily and thus their underestimation was to our advantage.
The Secretary of Defense at that time, Robert Namura even said: "If I had known the Vietnamese could fight like that, then I would have planned things differently from the beginning."
Just shows that you should NEVER underestimate your foe because being cocky only gives your enemy the advantage.
They believed they could defeat the Vietnamese easily and thus their underestimation was to our advantage.
The Secretary of Defense at that time, Robert Namura even said: "If I had known the Vietnamese could fight like that, then I would have planned things differently from the beginning."
Just shows that you should NEVER underestimate your foe because being cocky only gives your enemy the advantage.
The U.S military was not good back then. Because of the draft there were basically to many soldiers to train effeiciently. Most of them received crappy training, were given a gun, then shipped out. Plus alot of the equipment they used was crappy because it would have been to expensive to arm that many men with high quality weapons. Ya you are right about the arrogance and cockiness part though or else they probably would have been better trained and prepared. Thats another reason why they won't reinstate the draft. To much money, the quality of our military will deteriorate, and honestly I think a $hitload of people would refuse to serve regardless. That last one is just a personal opinion of mine.
Nice analyst but I have to disagree with the part about the expensive weapons. The weapons the U.S used was much much better than what the Vietcong had. America used thousands of jet fighters and attack helicopters and bombed relentlessly even though they lost a lot of the air battles though to the NVA airforce.
QUOTE (Byron @ Sep 12 2004, 07:19 PM)
QUOTE (Jasel @ Sep 12 2004, 07:02 PM)
QUOTE (Byron @ Sep 12 2004, 06:51 PM)
The U.S military during that war were really good and well trained but the problem is that got too cocky and arragant.
They believed they could defeat the Vietnamese easily and thus their underestimation was to our advantage.
The Secretary of Defense at that time, Robert Namura even said: "If I had known the Vietnamese could fight like that, then I would have planned things differently from the beginning."
Just shows that you should NEVER underestimate your foe because being cocky only gives your enemy the advantage.
They believed they could defeat the Vietnamese easily and thus their underestimation was to our advantage.
The Secretary of Defense at that time, Robert Namura even said: "If I had known the Vietnamese could fight like that, then I would have planned things differently from the beginning."
Just shows that you should NEVER underestimate your foe because being cocky only gives your enemy the advantage.
The U.S military was not good back then. Because of the draft there were basically to many soldiers to train effeiciently. Most of them received crappy training, were given a gun, then shipped out. Plus alot of the equipment they used was crappy because it would have been to expensive to arm that many men with high quality weapons. Ya you are right about the arrogance and cockiness part though or else they probably would have been better trained and prepared. Thats another reason why they won't reinstate the draft. To much money, the quality of our military will deteriorate, and honestly I think a $hitload of people would refuse to serve regardless. That last one is just a personal opinion of mine.
Nice analyst but I have to disagree with the part about the expensive weapons. The weapons the U.S used was much much better than what the Vietcong had. America used thousands of jet fighters and attack helicopters and bombed relentlessly even though they lost a lot of the air battles though to the NVA airforce.
ahh ya i probably should have mentioned that. Viet weapons were pretty bad back then compared to U.S.
QUOTE (Jasel @ Sep 12 2004, 07:26 PM)
QUOTE (Byron @ Sep 12 2004, 07:19 PM)
QUOTE (Jasel @ Sep 12 2004, 07:02 PM)
QUOTE (Byron @ Sep 12 2004, 06:51 PM)
The U.S military during that war were really good and well trained but the problem is that got too cocky and arragant.
They believed they could defeat the Vietnamese easily and thus their underestimation was to our advantage.
The Secretary of Defense at that time, Robert Namura even said: "If I had known the Vietnamese could fight like that, then I would have planned things differently from the beginning."
Just shows that you should NEVER underestimate your foe because being cocky only gives your enemy the advantage.
They believed they could defeat the Vietnamese easily and thus their underestimation was to our advantage.
The Secretary of Defense at that time, Robert Namura even said: "If I had known the Vietnamese could fight like that, then I would have planned things differently from the beginning."
Just shows that you should NEVER underestimate your foe because being cocky only gives your enemy the advantage.
The U.S military was not good back then. Because of the draft there were basically to many soldiers to train effeiciently. Most of them received crappy training, were given a gun, then shipped out. Plus alot of the equipment they used was crappy because it would have been to expensive to arm that many men with high quality weapons. Ya you are right about the arrogance and cockiness part though or else they probably would have been better trained and prepared. Thats another reason why they won't reinstate the draft. To much money, the quality of our military will deteriorate, and honestly I think a $hitload of people would refuse to serve regardless. That last one is just a personal opinion of mine.
Nice analyst but I have to disagree with the part about the expensive weapons. The weapons the U.S used was much much better than what the Vietcong had. America used thousands of jet fighters and attack helicopters and bombed relentlessly even though they lost a lot of the air battles though to the NVA airforce.
ahh ya i probably should have mentioned that. Viet weapons were pretty bad back then compared to U.S.
Vietnamese soldiers did not even have any body armour either that's why our casualties are so high. Plus we have to fight against a conscripted army of over a million put up by those Vietnamese separatists/traitors/American servants and tens of thousands of Korean, Australian, New Zealand, Thailand, Filippino troops as well.
QUOTE (tqt @ Sep 12 2004, 09:16 PM)
Vietnamese soldiers did not even have any body armour either that's why our casualties are so high. Plus we have to fight against a conscripted army of over a million put up by those Vietnamese separatists/traitors/American servants and tens of thousands of Korean, Australian, New Zealand, Thailand, Filippino troops as well.
Yea, those dispicable soviets could have sent us some too, but they wanted to keep the war going for as long as possible???
Loser is loser!! A excuses is always excuses. Asian_invasion, i bet you got that information from some Pro-US or Anti-Viets eh.
Actually if it wasn't for the supply of AK47 from the russian to North Vietnam, there wound be quiet a slim chance of winning.
QUOTE
Vietnamese soldiers did not even have any body armour either that's why our casualties are so high. Plus we have to fight against a conscripted army of over a million put up by those Vietnamese separatists/traitors/American servants and tens of thousands of Korean, Australian, New Zealand, Thailand, Filippino troops as well.
Actually if it wasn't for the supply of AK47 from the russian to North Vietnam, there wound be quiet a slim chance of winning.
QUOTE (Cuong @ Sep 12 2004, 09:00 PM)
Loser is loser!! A excuses is always excuses. Asian_invasion, i bet you got that information from some Pro-US or Anti-Viets eh.
No, I just got it at a history forum History forum and a few others that I read. This is another forum where a heated debate is going on where some people claimed that the US achieved their objectives in Vietnam. vietnam war forum
That is a BS claim. The Americans lost 100%, and it put a HUGE dent in their national pride that their military was beaten by what they considered a weak, third-world nation, so they're making up whatever pathetic excuses to make them feel better about themselves.
QUOTE (Mantis @ Sep 14 2004, 09:28 AM)
That is a BS claim. The Americans lost 100%, and it put a HUGE dent in their national pride that their military was beaten by what they considered a weak, third-world nation, so they're making up whatever pathetic excuses to make them feel better about themselves.
True after the Vietnam debacle Americans were obvously less arrogant then they are now. All that changed after gulf war.
QUOTE
That is a BS claim. The Americans lost 100%, and it put a HUGE dent in their national pride that their military was beaten by what they considered a weak, third-world nation, so they're making up whatever pathetic excuses to make them feel better about themselves.
Yes...I agree that that's just a BS claim, purpose of making themselves feel better.
About Americans now, they still have a little arrogance in them. Those Iraqis are just imcompetant...besides its the technologies that allow the Americans to win. Its not like Vietnam where satellite intels are poor and almost impossible because of its thick blankets of clouds. Winning a war is at the touch of a button for the United States now. Mopping up the mess are the grunts...less casualties because of technology and military hardwares made available to all branches. Americans are good at long range firefights not short-close combat like jungle warfares. You don't see any booby traps in Iraq but just remote car bombs and suicide bombers. Now that's pathetic...don't they have any snipers? The best the American's have is military coordinations like gunship supports for grunts on the ground.
Let's put it this way. The goal of the Vietnamese in this war is to drive the American imperialists out of Vietnam and reunify the country; the Vietnamese sucessfuly achieved that. The goals of the American imperialists are to carve Vietnam into two pieces , impose a puppet government , and promised its American itizens that i would be able to crush the Vietnamese "insurgency" very soon but at the end they failed to achieve that fantasy.
QUOTE (VietNamDNCongHoa @ Sep 12 2004, 07:17 PM)
as I said, ignorant killed you.
US got out Vietnam in 1972. There were no US troops in Vietnam. Nixon abandoned Vietnam for relation with China. Kissinger predicted that VN would fall in 1972. The war would ast until 1975 because South Vietnamese Army ran out of supplied. US Congress did not back South gov't. Therefore it created chaos.
What 's the difference does it make today? Viet Cong are now kissing American a$$ .
US got out Vietnam in 1972. There were no US troops in Vietnam. Nixon abandoned Vietnam for relation with China. Kissinger predicted that VN would fall in 1972. The war would ast until 1975 because South Vietnamese Army ran out of supplied. US Congress did not back South gov't. Therefore it created chaos.
What 's the difference does it make today? Viet Cong are now kissing American a$$ .
The Viet Cong are indeed kissing American @$$ in the name of economic expansion, and we get less to show for it.
QUOTE
Although the US lost Vietnam to the Communists, they won the war because the war gave fledgling democratic countries like Thailaid, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore time to develop and thereby stop the "domino effect" of communism.
Interesting theory except the domino effect did take place at least in Southeast Asia. Both Laos and Cambodias along with Vietnam fell to Communism. Notice how countries encircled and isolated by China like Korea and Vietnam got communism spread to them. The others you mention except Thailand, are archipelegos or islands with body of waters to protect them and separate them from the contagion.
The biggest loser is Vietnam, the US came and fu-ked up your country, while the US is in peace......
LOL...if the US won the Hmong would had a country by nowbut guess what thoses white bois loss....they can't face the fact that they
loss to asian peeps.....LOL
QUOTE (JB_Xyooj @ Sep 17 2004, 05:19 AM)
LOL...if the US won the Hmong would had a country by nowbut guess what thoses white bois loss....they can't face the fact that they
loss to asian peeps.....LOL
Wow.. so North VN was fighting South VN, Americans, Koreans and hmongs too??
It's such an awesome feat North VN slaughtered them all ... No wonder the 500,000 Mongol warriors were no match
:genius:
QUOTE (DaiNamViet @ Sep 24 2004, 05:35 PM)
QUOTE (JB_Xyooj @ Sep 17 2004, 05:19 AM)
LOL...if the US won the Hmong would had a country by nowbut guess what thoses white bois loss....they can't face the fact that they
loss to asian peeps.....LOL
Wow.. so North VN was fighting South VN, Americans, Koreans and hmongs too??
It's such an awesome feat North VN slaughtered them all ... No wonder the 500,000 Mongol warriors were no match
:genius: as I said, Vietcong are blood thirty people...
you guys don't know about history huh? it don't matter who won or loses....the US was helping the south vietnam to prevent the communist from the north the US didn't lose south vietnam did.......... and for ALL YA NORTH VIETCONG......STOP SAYING THAT US LOSE BECAUSE ITS SOUTH VIETNAM THAT DID...HAHAHAHA ACTING LIKE YOU ARE SO SUPERIOR ABOVE THE US, THEY'LL KICK YOUR A$$ IN ONE BLOW...SUCH A SMALL COUNTRY LIKE THAT US CAN TAKE OVER ANYTIME..
It doesn't matter, bottom line is even with all those allies and the UN ... U S left with their head between their @$$.. 
The deal with the vietnam war is that america never actually was at true war with the North. We were there just trying to support the South and the French not to fight the war for them. Our goal wasn't to liberate or prevent the spread of communism as everyone thinks, we were there just to piss of the Chinese and USSR. In that sense the US did what it came to do.
As for the fighting itself. We went in with a whole lot of new technology and never before tested tactics and do to the massive foothold in the country, the lack of real support, and a lack of understanding of the situation we screwed up and just prolonged the war. When we realized that all of the new un-tested tactics were crap we started to pull up and leave it to the south to fight since it was really their war in the first place.
For the most part we treated it like a study to see if these new tactics would actually work. Unfortunately, people in washington started to loose track of the original goal of the war (to help the South keep democracy) and started to see it as an experiment rather then on actual human terms. The deaths turned into statistics instead of lost human lives and the soldiers became jaded for being put in such an impossible situation.
As for the type of war fare that was used.(gorilla tactics) Ironically the US also developed that too. During the revolutionary war we used similar tactics against the british. We developed these through our fighting with the indians.
In reference to yajthaugluvs post.
The idea of Americans being arrogant now is an unfair stereotype. Americans for the most part are not arrogant like people seem to be portraying them. There is a difference between what Bush did in Iraq and what a typical American is like. It's not America that is screwing up in Iraq it's Bush. I would also like to point out that America has one of the best if not the best trained military in the world. Our soldiers train very extensively in close quarter combat. Most of the fighting in Iraq is close quarter. The reason we were able to plow through Iraq like we did wasn't because we had better technology but because we had a better all around military then they had and they knew it. To answer one of your questions, "does Iraq have snipers," they do but for the most part they don't last to long because of the sound giving away the position. The US has on many occasions in Iraq just shot the are of the sniper with a tank. So realistically it one life for about 1 or 2 people before you get hit with a shell. A bomb can kill around 10-100 people depending on how it is used and you only lose 1 guy in doing so. So calling them pathetic is a bit ignorant.
So in summary, I guess you could say that America didn't lose or win anything. The pissed off a bunch of communists and thats always good. The reality of the situation is that there is a communist gov't in VN now which is in almost every way worse then and "puppet gov't" I heard mentioned. Look at South Korea and Japan. Each country has benefited immeasurably from the US and as I saw mentioned earlier(not my words) Vietnam is kissing the USA's @$$ for aid... Who really won there?
As for the fighting itself. We went in with a whole lot of new technology and never before tested tactics and do to the massive foothold in the country, the lack of real support, and a lack of understanding of the situation we screwed up and just prolonged the war. When we realized that all of the new un-tested tactics were crap we started to pull up and leave it to the south to fight since it was really their war in the first place.
For the most part we treated it like a study to see if these new tactics would actually work. Unfortunately, people in washington started to loose track of the original goal of the war (to help the South keep democracy) and started to see it as an experiment rather then on actual human terms. The deaths turned into statistics instead of lost human lives and the soldiers became jaded for being put in such an impossible situation.
As for the type of war fare that was used.(gorilla tactics) Ironically the US also developed that too. During the revolutionary war we used similar tactics against the british. We developed these through our fighting with the indians.
In reference to yajthaugluvs post.
The idea of Americans being arrogant now is an unfair stereotype. Americans for the most part are not arrogant like people seem to be portraying them. There is a difference between what Bush did in Iraq and what a typical American is like. It's not America that is screwing up in Iraq it's Bush. I would also like to point out that America has one of the best if not the best trained military in the world. Our soldiers train very extensively in close quarter combat. Most of the fighting in Iraq is close quarter. The reason we were able to plow through Iraq like we did wasn't because we had better technology but because we had a better all around military then they had and they knew it. To answer one of your questions, "does Iraq have snipers," they do but for the most part they don't last to long because of the sound giving away the position. The US has on many occasions in Iraq just shot the are of the sniper with a tank. So realistically it one life for about 1 or 2 people before you get hit with a shell. A bomb can kill around 10-100 people depending on how it is used and you only lose 1 guy in doing so. So calling them pathetic is a bit ignorant.
So in summary, I guess you could say that America didn't lose or win anything. The pissed off a bunch of communists and thats always good. The reality of the situation is that there is a communist gov't in VN now which is in almost every way worse then and "puppet gov't" I heard mentioned. Look at South Korea and Japan. Each country has benefited immeasurably from the US and as I saw mentioned earlier(not my words) Vietnam is kissing the USA's @$$ for aid... Who really won there?
whao risking ours boy's life to piss off russian and china
you just pissed on the memorial wall in washinton. saying ours soldier died as a test subject and nothing more. now how would you explain this to the proud american family who lost a love one in nam fighting for your freedom.
stop insulting ours vietnam vets you fool
you just pissed on the memorial wall in washinton. saying ours soldier died as a test subject and nothing more. now how would you explain this to the proud american family who lost a love one in nam fighting for your freedom.
stop insulting ours vietnam vets you fool
QUOTE (DaiNamViet @ Sep 29 2004, 05:45 AM)
It doesn't matter, bottom line is even with all those allies and the UN ... U S left with their head between their @$$..
YES !!!
and don't forget it was all televised. You can still see the videos of how actually they fled. They - and nobody in the whole world - will never ever forget how the Americans fought and lost that war.
DECEIVED.
Last US soldier left Vietnam in 1973.
Nixon went to China. Chou told Nixon that he should disown South Vietnam.
Kissinger sent B52s to visit Hanoi for peaceful missions.
Le Duc Tho got his a$$ to peace talk quickly
Kissinger then told Nixon during China trip that Saigon would fall in 1973.
US Congress cut Cambodia militaty aid.
US Congress cut south Vietnam military aid.
Thanks to John Kerry & Jane Fonda & VVAW
South Vietnamese people bravely fought blood thirty Vietcong until April 1975. They ran out of ammunitions.
Bui Tin went to Dinh Doc Lap in April 1975 to have a drink with Big Minh.
Bui Tin went to exile in Paris.
Johanjit, don't bash your friend John Kerry, the ex-GI. An chao da bat ha?
Last US soldier left Vietnam in 1973.
Nixon went to China. Chou told Nixon that he should disown South Vietnam.
Kissinger sent B52s to visit Hanoi for peaceful missions.
Le Duc Tho got his a$$ to peace talk quickly
Kissinger then told Nixon during China trip that Saigon would fall in 1973.
US Congress cut Cambodia militaty aid.
US Congress cut south Vietnam military aid.
Thanks to John Kerry & Jane Fonda & VVAW
South Vietnamese people bravely fought blood thirty Vietcong until April 1975. They ran out of ammunitions.
Bui Tin went to Dinh Doc Lap in April 1975 to have a drink with Big Minh.
Bui Tin went to exile in Paris.
Johanjit, don't bash your friend John Kerry, the ex-GI. An chao da bat ha?
Genome virus, I don't see how I insulted vets. I just said that the gov't really had no interest in the soldiers. They were to busy using it as an experiment. The idea that the Gov't really didn't care about the soldiers in the war is backed up through history. You can also look at the pentagon papers for more evidence of the inadequacies of the gov't at the time.
The soldiers weren't fighting for my freedom, they were fighting for Vietnam's freedom and thats what they were told. Alot of them stopped fighting for anyones freedom when they realized that they were in an impossible situation like what they were put in. They started to fight for their lives. The lives of their buddies, because we had a crappy gov't. That is why we can't let Bush be reelected. He's created a similarly incompetent gov't which must be snuffed out before he gets into more trouble.
Also, we didn't loose the war. It wasn't ours to loose. We were they "helping" South Vietnam and france. France and South Vietnam lost the war, we just got pulled in for the wrong reasons..
The soldiers weren't fighting for my freedom, they were fighting for Vietnam's freedom and thats what they were told. Alot of them stopped fighting for anyones freedom when they realized that they were in an impossible situation like what they were put in. They started to fight for their lives. The lives of their buddies, because we had a crappy gov't. That is why we can't let Bush be reelected. He's created a similarly incompetent gov't which must be snuffed out before he gets into more trouble.
Also, we didn't loose the war. It wasn't ours to loose. We were they "helping" South Vietnam and france. France and South Vietnam lost the war, we just got pulled in for the wrong reasons..
THE ONE WAR AMERICA EVER LOST
http://just.nicepeople.free.fr/the_One_War...a_Ever_Lost.htm
>> Twenty-five years ago America's pledge to stand by its Saigon ally was abandoned.
Major James Kean, one of the last men evacuated from the US embassy roof, remembers the humiliation.
"I was crying and I think everyone else was crying. We were crying for a lot of different reasons," he says.
"But most of all we were ashamed. How did the United States of America get itself in a position where we had to tuck tail and run?" <<
>> For years the Americans poured their own conscript soldiers into Vietnam, believing superior firepower and technology would annihilate communist soldiers and guerrillas of the Viet Cong. The Pentagon was always promising light at the end of the tunnel.
But 58,000 American lives were lost. The carnage, often televised across the nation, triggered a public mutiny. <<
A VIDEO TO REMEMBER
http://just.nicepeople.free.fr/the_Vietnam_War_why.avi (13 MB)
TERROR WAR, ORGANIZED CRIMES AND SEX HUNT TOURS FOR 2.5 MILLION US SOLDIERS
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/...reher_Rape.html
>> they raped her--every man raped her. As a matter of fact one man said to me later that it was the first time he had ever made love to a woman with his boots on... But at any rate, they raped the girl, and then, the last man to make love to her shot her in the head. <<
LIES, COVER-UPS SET UP AS THE NEW NATIONAL INSTITUTION -- The American Way Of Life.
50 YEARS OF LIES, and that goes on...
IRAQ? Now the new sprectre of a coming bankruptcy...
http://just.nicepeople.free.fr/the_One_War...a_Ever_Lost.htm
>> Twenty-five years ago America's pledge to stand by its Saigon ally was abandoned.
Major James Kean, one of the last men evacuated from the US embassy roof, remembers the humiliation.
"I was crying and I think everyone else was crying. We were crying for a lot of different reasons," he says.
"But most of all we were ashamed. How did the United States of America get itself in a position where we had to tuck tail and run?" <<
>> For years the Americans poured their own conscript soldiers into Vietnam, believing superior firepower and technology would annihilate communist soldiers and guerrillas of the Viet Cong. The Pentagon was always promising light at the end of the tunnel.
But 58,000 American lives were lost. The carnage, often televised across the nation, triggered a public mutiny. <<
A VIDEO TO REMEMBER
http://just.nicepeople.free.fr/the_Vietnam_War_why.avi (13 MB)
TERROR WAR, ORGANIZED CRIMES AND SEX HUNT TOURS FOR 2.5 MILLION US SOLDIERS
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/...reher_Rape.html
>> they raped her--every man raped her. As a matter of fact one man said to me later that it was the first time he had ever made love to a woman with his boots on... But at any rate, they raped the girl, and then, the last man to make love to her shot her in the head. <<
QUOTE
On his way to Hanoi [...], when asked if he thought the United States owed the people of Vietnam an apology, 25 years after the end of the war, Clinton said, simply, "No, I don't."
[...] To apologize for crimes against the people of Vietnam would be to admit that the stories we tell ourselves about our conduct in the world -- then and now -- are a lie.
To apologize would be to acknowledge that while we claimed to be defending democracy, we were derailing democracy. While we claimed to be defending South Vietnam, we were attacking the people of South Vietnam.
[...] we dropped 6.5 million tons of bombs and 400,000 tons of napalm on the people of Southeast Asia. Saturation bombing of civilian areas, counterterrorism programs and political assassination, routine killings of civilians and 11.2 million gallons of Agent Orange to destroy crops and ground cover -- all were part of the U.S. terror war in Vietnam, as well as Laos and Cambodia.
If Vietnam Was A Noble Cause, Why Were There So Many Lies? Multiple presidents lied to us for years about Vietnam because they didn't want to be "the first American president to lose a war."
[...] To apologize for crimes against the people of Vietnam would be to admit that the stories we tell ourselves about our conduct in the world -- then and now -- are a lie.
To apologize would be to acknowledge that while we claimed to be defending democracy, we were derailing democracy. While we claimed to be defending South Vietnam, we were attacking the people of South Vietnam.
[...] we dropped 6.5 million tons of bombs and 400,000 tons of napalm on the people of Southeast Asia. Saturation bombing of civilian areas, counterterrorism programs and political assassination, routine killings of civilians and 11.2 million gallons of Agent Orange to destroy crops and ground cover -- all were part of the U.S. terror war in Vietnam, as well as Laos and Cambodia.
If Vietnam Was A Noble Cause, Why Were There So Many Lies? Multiple presidents lied to us for years about Vietnam because they didn't want to be "the first American president to lose a war."
LIES, COVER-UPS SET UP AS THE NEW NATIONAL INSTITUTION -- The American Way Of Life.
50 YEARS OF LIES, and that goes on...
IRAQ? Now the new sprectre of a coming bankruptcy...
QUOTE (IanJ @ Oct 3 2004, 03:09 PM)
Genome virus, I don't see how I insulted vets. I just said that the gov't really had no interest in the soldiers. They were to busy using it as an experiment. The idea that the Gov't really didn't care about the soldiers in the war is backed up through history. You can also look at the pentagon papers for more evidence of the inadequacies of the gov't at the time.
The soldiers weren't fighting for my freedom, they were fighting for Vietnam's freedom and thats what they were told. Alot of them stopped fighting for anyones freedom when they realized that they were in an impossible situation like what they were put in. They started to fight for their lives. The lives of their buddies, because we had a crappy gov't. That is why we can't let Bush be reelected. He's created a similarly incompetent gov't which must be snuffed out before he gets into more trouble.
Also, we didn't loose the war. It wasn't ours to loose. We were they "helping" South Vietnam and france. France and South Vietnam lost the war, we just got pulled in for the wrong reasons..
The soldiers weren't fighting for my freedom, they were fighting for Vietnam's freedom and thats what they were told. Alot of them stopped fighting for anyones freedom when they realized that they were in an impossible situation like what they were put in. They started to fight for their lives. The lives of their buddies, because we had a crappy gov't. That is why we can't let Bush be reelected. He's created a similarly incompetent gov't which must be snuffed out before he gets into more trouble.
Also, we didn't loose the war. It wasn't ours to loose. We were they "helping" South Vietnam and france. France and South Vietnam lost the war, we just got pulled in for the wrong reasons..
To put it simply.
US government made mistakes.
American soldiers died.
US pulled out without realising its objectives.
Therefore US lost.
American people of this generation won't admit losing.
1. The US didn't have any clearly defined objectives.
2. Just because you don't realize an objective does not mean you have lost
3. Americans wont say they lost because we didn't loose anything. In order to loose something you must have something to loose. It wasn't our war to loose. It seems that a lot of people in this discussion wont admit that. We were there fighting and yes we left but we were there to just fight. Thats it and we left we got tired of fighting..
4. There was no public mutiny. Mutiny implies that power shifted. The people in this country control this country. The involvement in the conflict was unpopular so we decided to leave. All the while the people were always in control. That's what democracy is all about. The people being in control... How can the people mutiny against itself?
2. Just because you don't realize an objective does not mean you have lost
3. Americans wont say they lost because we didn't loose anything. In order to loose something you must have something to loose. It wasn't our war to loose. It seems that a lot of people in this discussion wont admit that. We were there fighting and yes we left but we were there to just fight. Thats it and we left we got tired of fighting..
4. There was no public mutiny. Mutiny implies that power shifted. The people in this country control this country. The involvement in the conflict was unpopular so we decided to leave. All the while the people were always in control. That's what democracy is all about. The people being in control... How can the people mutiny against itself?
QUOTE (IanJ @ Oct 4 2004, 05:47 AM)
1. The US didn't have any clearly defined objectives.
2. Just because you don't realize an objective does not mean you have lost
3. Americans wont say they lost because we didn't loose anything. In order to loose something you must have something to loose. It wasn't our war to loose. It seems that a lot of people in this discussion wont admit that. We were there fighting and yes we left but we were there to just fight. Thats it and we left we got tired of fighting..
4. There was no public mutiny. Mutiny implies that power shifted. The people in this country control this country. The involvement in the conflict was unpopular so we decided to leave. All the while the people were always in control. That's what democracy is all about. The people being in control... How can the people mutiny against itself?
2. Just because you don't realize an objective does not mean you have lost
3. Americans wont say they lost because we didn't loose anything. In order to loose something you must have something to loose. It wasn't our war to loose. It seems that a lot of people in this discussion wont admit that. We were there fighting and yes we left but we were there to just fight. Thats it and we left we got tired of fighting..
4. There was no public mutiny. Mutiny implies that power shifted. The people in this country control this country. The involvement in the conflict was unpopular so we decided to leave. All the while the people were always in control. That's what democracy is all about. The people being in control... How can the people mutiny against itself?
Nice enough if you think you can try to rewrite history... for your usage only.
Why not write a book ?
US just went there, spent billions, killed people, destroyed life, lives and land, left humiliated, just for fun? has somebody smoked something? psychedelic!
This whole conversation is irrevalence. To Americans, Vietnam was just one campaign. You can lose the battle but win the war. The greater war was against the Soviet Union and in that sense they did win. Did they lose the Vietnam battle, yes.
QUOTE (herosword @ Oct 4 2004, 05:58 AM)
This whole conversation is irrevalence. To Americans, Vietnam was just one campaign. You can lose the battle but win the war. The greater war was against the Soviet Union and in that sense they did win. Did they lose the Vietnam battle, yes.
Your generation can say this:
Today, in 2004, the provisional counts are, that
for every 1 US soldier who died in Vietnam, the US has killed 10,000 100 Vietnamese.
Just over 58,000 US deaths against 5,800,000 Vietnamese deaths (and with more deaths to come owing to Agent Orange).
America won.
EDIT:
But of course, AMERICA ALWAYS LIES.
http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&...&q=lies+Vietnam
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...pic=18949&st=12
-
QUOTE
for every US soldier who died in Vietnam, the US has killed 10,000 Vietnamese.
58,000 X 10,000=580,000,000
Vietnam doesn't have a population of 580 million, even today. It only has 81 million and 81 million is actually much more than the population during the Vietnam War.
QUOTE
1. The US didn't have any clearly defined objectives.
Yes they did. They were sending troops to stop protect South Vietnam from communism.
Not only did they fail in that, but communism also spread to Laos and Cambodia as well.
QUOTE (Byron @ Oct 4 2004, 01:54 PM)
QUOTE
for every US soldier who died in Vietnam, the US has killed 10,000 Vietnamese.
58,000 X 10,000=580,000,000
Ok, my mistake.
Which was corrected in the following line in my post!...
Yes, I also forgot those deaths of Cambodia and Laos
And they sadi it was a victory to stop the "domino theory" or some bull$hit US propaganda.
Personally if i were vietnamese i wouldn't care for any side because both were commiting crimes against humanity and perhaps Vietnam wouldn't have been in such bad shape.
Personally if i were vietnamese i wouldn't care for any side because both were commiting crimes against humanity and perhaps Vietnam wouldn't have been in such bad shape.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.