So according to /k/ USA won the Vietnam war.
Which is, from certain aspect, correct. Not a single battle was lost for US, NV was brought to negotiationing table and all was supposed to be well.
But if US won, why did they not leave behind at least a few military bases and some military advisors for South Vietnam army? Why did US not help the South when North invaded again? Surely US could repeat former sucess? Why did US just run?
>>27799885
Because the treaty that saw the North stop fighting required the US to leave.
The war wasn't lost militarily, rather politically. It was dumb-fuck hippies who thought the Soviets were peace-nicks like themselves that told the Soviets that if they held out the US would eventually have to pack up and leave.
'Battle' is an outdated concept
Rolling Thunder was a complete and utter failure
>>27799885
Because the democrats wouldn't let us. It would have screwed up their anti war stance if we had won.
>>27799900
What kind of a shitty treaty is that?
Also, was country really so keked after Vietnam experience that it was unwilling to commit again after North attacked?
>>27799929
*keked
>>27799941
c u c k e d
>>27799929
So unwilling to commit they passed a law prohibiting the US military to intervene which completely destroyed what was enforcing the treaty: the threat the US could reenter the war.
>>27799929
>>27799941
>>27799946
ahahahaha you absolutely stupid fucking faggot, so seperated from your precious meme
Stay frustrated fucko
all vietnam threads are bait
US lost,
A few autists on a burmese mountain climbing forum dont override the rest of the worlds history
sorry
>>27800640
Lmao upvote 4 u xDDD
Khe Sanh was a battle that the US tactically lost, they literally had to abandon the base they were operating and had more casualties than the enemy
>>27799885
Because around the time we 'won' the Vietnam War we realized that there was nothing in Vietnam that was of any use to us and no reason to fight there.
>>27799900
And wouldn't you know it the soviets fucked off home. Ho Chi Minh was always a Vietnamese nationalist, dedicated to the creation of a united and independent Vietnam. Thats what he was when US gave him and his guerillas weapons and training to fight the japs during WW2. The US then expected them to allow the french to turn vietnam back into a colony. The US turned their backs on him so he took guns from the USSR in exchange for becoming communist.
>>27799885
Viet Nam was a civil war. With the US backing one faction and the Soviets backing the other. It was never going to end in a stalemate and once we realized that, it was time to go.
>>27799885
America's defined objectives were to keep the North from invading the south. While the Americans were there, they succeeded. The fall of S. Vietnam happened after the Americans told the South to go it alone.
By this logic, the Americans certainly didn't lose the Vietnam war.
>>27800706
>had more casualties than the enemy
Disputable. Besides, it was a massive assault and shelling by the NVA. They threw like 10000+ combatants against 6000 initial marines in the base. It's not like Americans were routed by a paltry force. And Khe Sanh was part of the Tet Offensive and that was a military defeat for the NVA (though a political victory for the NVA in the USA).
>>27799996
Stay çückêd
Cold WAR
BATTLE of Vietnam
It wasn't called the "War of Verdun"
>>27799913
>>27799913
>implying LBJ and JFK did not start it
>implying Nixon did not run promising to end it
Not sure if serious
>>27799996
>>27800640
I I remember when the Vietcong marched through Washington too
>>27799885
>Not a single battle was lost for US
Except that time we got noped right out of the country amirite?
>>27799885
Did someone just watch Frontline?
>>27799885
>according to /k/
a bunch of underage poorfags with hardly an education is not rally a reliable source for anything.
The south was fucking annexed but the US won the war. It's not even a specious argument. You're terminally retarded and should be kept away from sharp objects and electricity.
>>27801227
>proxy wars just don't exist
>>27799885
Also OP, you are fucking stupid if you think one group of people speaks for all of /k/
>>27799885
Has the US ever lost a battle militarily since WW2?
Goddamnit, no, I'm ay too busy today to have this arguement.
OP, the only people who think the US won are USMC poolees.
>Hippies lost us the war!
Yeah right, the hippies, even though we deployed half a million troops and dropped more bombs than every nation in WW2 combined. If only the hippies didn't hold us back.
>We won because we got the North to sign that peace treaty then left and THEN the North attacked!
Both sides knew the Treaty was garbage and ignored it. The treaty was written purely for a political bullshit way for the US to pull out and save face so faggots on /k/ could someday continue to pretend the US won.
Imagine you are holding a rickety, shitty house you built together, and if you let go of the ONE beam holding it up the whole thing will fall apart.
You say "Hey TECHNICALLY I built this house! See?"
You let go of the beam and walk away, depsite understanding all the construction flaws. The house falls apart.
"WHAT!? Why, its not MY fault! It was perfectly fine when I was holding that beam!"
>>27799996
>fucko
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QUt9Xm0z8Wc
>>27799885
because the US is retarded
and /k is full of people from the US
>>27800706
Not even close. The base was abandoned since it had served it's purpose as dictated by the White House types and was of no real further use at the time. Quite a number of places in South Vietnam were abandoned and reoccupied with regularity as the situation warranted.
As for casualties? The whole area was a meatgrinder for the NVA as since there was so little civilian population, US firepower could be used to the fullest extent with little concern for collateral damage.
What would winning the war have looked like?
Taking over northern Vietnam and making it the 51st state? Taking over Russia or China?
Was there a way to win?
>>27801194
Can you really not accept the fact that the US lost a battle
>>27801630
Has the US ever lost a battle militarily? Civil War doesnt count
>>27801716
no
because McNamara and the like were pants on head retarded
in the end Capitalism won
and it won under the volition of Vietnam itself wanting to be a part of the world
not because of the US shoved it down its throat with CIA puppets and bad IMF loans
>>27801726
We lost the battle of the twin towers desu senpai desu
>>27801726
Are you serious? Plenty of battles have been lost in the past.
>>27799885
Technically the US didn't win Vietnam nor did the North Vietnamese as the Paris Peace Accords were the result of the Vietnam conflict for the US and brought about a cease fire between the North and South Vietnamese.
Ultimately the North took over the South, but that was a separate conflict really.
>>27799885
the US was in good tern with china at that time
and they are rasing a proxy war in Afghanistan
Here we go again, the US 'lost' because the little bitches invaded after signing a peace treaty.
Well then technically Germany won WW2 because you don't see the USSR around anymore do you?
>>27801644
The reason the US didn't and couldn't just walk in and steamroll the North was indeed hippie bullshit. Even defensively the US was slaughtering the NVA and Vietcong. Had the US been able to go on the offensive North Vietnam would have fallen within a couple months.
>>27802150
Those two events aren't even similar, shame on you. Find a better shitty argument cause that one is fucked from the starting line.
>>27799885
>not a single battle was lost by US
Untrue. Though the momentum quickly swung in the direction of the US Army after the onset.
>Why did the US not help the south…?
Because the public was not interested in getting involved once more. Sure, we could've had a repeat of '72 and throw a huge number of aircraft in to level the '75 offensive. Though recommitting to that war would have been political suicide.
>It ain't me starts playing
>>27802517
I hope that this never dies.
>>27799907
Fixed that for you.
>>27801512
Yes, the US was defeated by themselves in that battle XDDDD well meme'd
>>27801762
He probably referred to wars
>>27801644
That "hippie bullshit" involved massive anti-war protests and massive congressional support for it. We advanced the war in increments, having to constantly pander to both hawks and doves the entire time. This is not a productive way to fight a war.
>rickety house
So was South Korea, but that worked out in the long run
>>27801716
Maybe turn it into something similar to a North Korea/South Korea kind of deal, but it probably would've required us staying permanently in some capacity
>>27799885
>not a single battle was lost
ITT, we repeat old and shitty myths.
>NV was brought to negotiationing table
Yes, with the unspoken promise of them getting what they want in a roundabout way.
>Why did US just run?
Because we fucking lost and just were too proud to admit it to ourselves inpublic.
>Dear Mr. Ho Chi Minh
>I wanted to write you this letter as soon as possible. I have a plan to end the war in Vietnam, but it will require some suberfuge on both our parts.
>So I'm gonna start talking smack about you publicly and doing some very aggressive things, while at the same time saying you should do what we want and also let's be friends. The important thing here is to IGNORE EVERYTHING I SAY PUBLICLY, both good and bad. I have to talk tough to please the conservatives in my party, and the good stuff is just what the state department and it's head (a personal friend of mine who I apparently don't trust at all) is doing as I direct them to. Just remember, ignore those guys. While I may *talk* tough, (publicly, not privately, though if I'm tough in private I mean it) you may notice I am vveerryy slloowwlly doing what you want. I have to do this slowly, because conservatives in my party again.
>>27802706
>And while that's going on, just a heads up, I may lash out very aggressively at anybody I perceive as friends of yours or helping you, regardless if they are a victim of circumstance or not. I'm doing this to show you what a mean dude I am and how you want to be rid of me sooner rather than later. Speaking of me being a madman, I may sometimes react wildly out of proportion in these secret negotiations, and attack you very aggressively for a time, while still doing what you want me to do, because international prestige, face, etc.
>Just so we're clear on it, I know you want me to leave. What I want from you is to say "I won't attack and take over this completely useless ally of yours." I know you've made it very clear you have no intention at all of doing that. That's fine; I just want you to say it. That way when you do what you want to do, I can stand back and say "well, you broke the treaty, typical communist" and nobody will blame me. Speaking of blame, I'm gonna offer you a several billion dollar a year foreign aid package as a condition for not attacking my lame duck ally. We both know damn well you won't collect it, but some people may accuse me of abandoning my weak and useless ally, and I want to be able to say "not me."
>Anyway, I think that's about it. I gotta get back to faking diplomatic cables to show my political nemesis order the assassination of the previous head of our useless ally, and planting a political opponent's campaign literature in the apartment of a would-be assassin who tried to assassinate one of my political opponents who I stuck a deal with and is secretly working for me.
>Remember, the secret negotiations are the important ones, even though they are very similar to the public ones.
>Best regards,
>Richard Milhouse Nixon
>>27801167
>objective: stop the north invading the south
>result: north invades south
You lost. Get over it.
>>27802734
But they didn't until everyone else left.
>>27801726
Vietnam
>>27802745
They didn't until they made everyone else leave by making staying unpalatable. They made the Us want to get out and leave and then gave it a figleaf excuse to do exactly that.
No one in this thread really gets at the core reason that a US victory was impossible in Vietnam: The South Vietnamese people supported the North, not the bullshit puppet military. There was never a scenario in which the South would not join the North immediately after the US exited, so continuing to stay was pointless.
>>27799885
>So according to /k/ USA won the Vietnam war.
They didn't win by any definition.
>>27802745
Hitler didn't lose ww2 because he killed himself before the end
>>27802734
>You lost. Get over it.
Germany lost wwii
Until your capital falls to the enemy you have not lost a war, the USA stopped helping the south then they lost a war
The USA was never even at risk of being invaded much less losing
>>27799885
The US lost Vietnam. It won from a strictly military perspective, but lost politically.
Well, now Vietnam wants so suck our dicks and be friends because they're afraid of big bad China coming to rape them for another thousand years.
The Vietnam war was a tactical defeat, but the long term strategy paid off ;^ )
>>27802761
US was fighting communism, the Vietnamese were fighting for self governance.
>>27802801
that is a funny way to spell, escaped to Argentina in a U-boat
>>27799885
>But if US won, why did they not leave behind at least a few military bases and some military advisors for South Vietnam army
Because the US didn't win, faggot.
>>27801726
Plenty of times. Especially the further you go back in time.
>>27802544
>922 aircraft lost
>didn't break North Vietnam political will
r u srs
>>27802761
>The South Vietnamese people supported the North
[Citation needed]. Almost all vietnamese diaspora fly the yellow flag in contrast to your bold claim. It's very prevalent in America.
>>27804593
>the small minority of diehards and collaborators who left didn't support the anti-imperialists
shocking, really
>>27799946
That word you say, I don't think it means what you think it means.
>>27801512
You might want to study just a little bit of history. Saigon fell about 3 years after we pulled our troops out.
>>27804603
>small
Millions of people fleeing is small? I suppose all those panicked people running away to the helicopter during the fall of saigon were collaborators and spies too.
>>27804592
thats part of why the US pulled out, with the civil unrest going back on in the states and the realization that north vietnam was willing to kill off every last vietnamese before surrendering is mainly what ended the war.
>>27801119
I learn new parallels to Iraq and the Mujaheddin every day.
>>27804060
The Russians lost Afghanistan without Moscow being taken. The British lost your independence war without London being taken. Argentina lost the Falklands without their capital.
>>27804060
>Until your capital falls to the enemy you have not lost a war,
...your utter stupidity makes Clausewitz and Sun Tzu weep.
>>27804935
>millions
Four million, including second-gen diaspora members who weren't even born in Vietnam or were still children when their parents emigated.
Compared to over 90 million people in Vietnam, that *is* a small minority.
>>27805494
More importantly America lost Red Cloud's War without hostilities even crossing the Mississippi.
>>27805494
the brits lost our war for independence and we took "their" land, the Russian "loss" in Afghanistan can't really be considered the same thing as germany losing wwii
the USA was never even trying to take over south Vietnam, we were assisting south Vietnamese allies and then stopped and then they lost
If McDonalds has 10,000 locations, and opens 100 locations this year in new markets, then decides 10 of those new locations are not really that great and shuts them down.
would you say "McDonalds went out of business"
it's the same thing
>>27806502
>until your capital falls
The Brits didn't lose because London wasn't taken.
>>27806502
Clearly McDonald's was forced out of those areas. Because it left, those stores went out of business. Not every loss means something is destroyed. Why can Amerifats never accept that they can lose?
>>27806638
if you want to look at it that way then the group of people who lost that war are no longer in existence, and that group would have been "Leaders in the colonies who were British loyalists and managed the capitals of the colonies"
>>27806673
to throw out "america lost vietnam" when we reserve that kind of talk for a country being conquered just does not make sense
in common parlance you are basically saying "Vietnam Conquered the USA"
it's probably partly a misunderstanding in meaning of the phrase "lose a war" in the context the person means it
>>27806677
I don't actually believe that. I was just mocking him.
>>27806708
We don't reserve it for that. America lost the presence it had in Vietnam when it was forced out, even if it was due to hippies. Its like America is at a bar and is thrown out by the barkeep. They lost.
>>27806755
that is pretty much the way it is used and meant, in threads like this people talk about world wars and then throw out "america lost vietnam" like it's even remotely the same thing
this is what it looks like to lose a war
>>27799900
Political consequences and results are the prime objective of warfare. So yeah, we lost. Otherwise all you have left is feeding the arms industry, and an elaborate form of potlach/ritual sacrifice.
>>27804935
>I suppose all those panicked people running away to the helicopter during the fall of saigon were collaborators and spies too.
That would be correct.
>>27806799
>this is what it looks like to lose a war
>>27806859
>so is this
>>27806875
yes a helicopter leaving a building of a country you were helping in a civil war half a world away is the same thing as having your entire country occupied and your enemy's flag flying over your capital and your country split in half by the victors and ruled by proxy for half a century
>>27806905
>what are different objectives for two different wars
by your own logic the US lost Vietnam because they didn't take Hanoi
>>27806956
no
by that logic you can have a battle or skirmish without "going to war" and neither nation "losing a war"
was the USA even trying to take Hanoi?
>>27806968
>>27807007
yes you win the USA was conquered by Vietnam
it's been so long living under their rule i forget sometimes
>>27806875
>Things in picture: Mr. Hyunh
>Things not in picture: Americans
That looks like a picture of South Vietnam losing the war.
>>27799913
>the democrats wouldn't let us
just who exactly did you think started and advocated for the war?
>>27802715
HCM died years before the negotiations ended
>>27802647
>unspoken promise of them getting what they wanted
Confirmed idiot. Le Duc Tho and Kissinger hated the shit out of each other and would not come to terms. So Kissinger calls on Nixon to loose the '52s, and you get Linebacker I and II. After that the North Vietnamese were willing to meet our terms
>>27802761
>the South Vietnamese people supported the North
I guess I must have imagined the millions of people who fled the country after the war, or the distinct differences between north and south Vietnam that run to this day.
>>27799885
>>>/his/
this thread is for weapons not the discussion of a historical conflict
if you wanted to talk about the weapons of that conflict that would be another story, but you don't
>>27806859
>this is what it looks like to be a professional photographer for the soviet union and being assigned the job of basically snapping every soviet propaganda picture during the invasion of Berlin.
That was a staged photoshoot just like the flag raising at Iwo Jima, a big ol pile of moral boosting bullshit, the only ones knowing the truth being the G.I's involved in both incidents. BOTH TOTAL BULLSHIT.
>>27807337
>willing to meet our terms
Yes, the US went to the table willing to allow NVA troops to stay in South Vietnam.
In reality the US was desperate to abandon ship with some semblance of "honor" and the terms were entirely dictated by North Vietnam.
>>27804603
There were quite a few who did support the South Vietnamese government who did leave, and many who stayed and got fucked in re-education camps. Considering that the children of these people continue to be discriminated against, I think I could build the case that there was indeed support for the south. Also, if they were so willing to join the north how come there wasn't a massive popular uprising to go along with the Tet offensive in '68?
>>27801119
>Ho Chi Minh only became communist when we spurned him
This meme needs to fucking die. HCM loved communism long before he met American OSS agents in WW2. He blended nationalism and communism together, but was firmly committed to the idea of a Socialist Vietnam. Granted I do think we should've worked with him to create a sort of Yugoslavia in Asia and drive a wedge between the USSR and China (which we did end up doing so not a total waste of time). But to say that he would've abandoned communism is fanciful, look at the land reforms he pulled in the north that failed dramatically (to his credit he acknowledged he fucked up). Look at how Le Duan and the rest of the politburo tried to reform the country towards Socialism after the war, and how far they took it before they realized how badly they had fucked the country up and saw the light of capitalism.
>>27807509
If the terms were entirely dictated by the North then we wouldn't have launched Linebacker 1 or 2. Kissinger was me happy with the negotiations and needed them to budge, Linebacker got them budging real quick.
>>27807409
mad
>>27807559
He has a point.
>>27807525
>I think I could build the case that there was indeed support for the south
Yes, the upper class Catholic power-brokers who threw their lot in with the French and the US supported the South Vietnam regime. The South Vietnamese people on the other hand hated the regime even more than the communists.
>>27807537
>Linebacker got them budging real quick
>the agreement reached after linebacker 2 included even more US concessions than the draft prior
Yeah, that convinced them.
>>27807311
The Democrats of a decade and a half before. They aren't the same thing, and they even weren't through FDR's terms.
>>27807571
Did you not read the rest of my post? Yes the upper echelons of society were corrupt as fuck and out of touch with the peasantry. But that doesn't mean that there wasn't some general support for the idea of South Vietnam even if the leaders repetitively sucked ass. I reiterate that there was no popular uprising that came to the Viet Cong's aid during the Tet offensive. Also, a lot of people opposed the government, but we're not communist in nature. These guys would later get fucked when welcoming their "liberators" in '75.
>>27807597
Got the negotiations running quicker. Also were those US or South Vietnamese demands? What Nixon and Thieu wanted were two different things.
>>27807559
Yes I mad. I am mad our grandfathers or great grandfathers were used like cattle. I am mad people say my grandfather died suffocating in mud and blood in his fucking lungs during the battle of the Somme, FOR FUCKING CANADA. MY FUCKING ARSE FOR CANADA. Stupid shite shoulda stayed home.
>>27807565
>He has a point.
yeah the soviets never took berlin
that photo was shot in a studio in hollywood next to the moon landing set
>>27807607
>I reiterate that there was no popular uprising that came to the Viet Cong's aid during the Tet offensive
>the Vietcong isn't an local insurrection with tens of thousands of active fighters
>>27807634
Not it was shot legitimately, above the reichstag... but days or weeks later after the building was actually taken was the picure shot.
>>27807617
>John Negroponte, one of Kissinger's aides during the negotiations, was more caustic: "We bombed the North Vietnamese into accepting our concessions."
>>27807649
The point of Tet was to spur the rest of the population to rise up against the South Vietnamese government which DIDNT FUCKING HAPPEN. It's partly because of said failed uprising that the VC got fucked so hard they were no longer capable of mounting open warfare again and were relegated to supporting roles for the NVA (which may have been a plot by the north to remove the competition when they came south)
>Why did US not help the South when North invaded again?
Some Americans wanted to, but most Americans were sick of the war by that time.
>>27807678
Nonetheless we got them to agree with us over a deadlock which would've resulted in us negotiating from a worse position. The blocking of the '72 Eastertide offensive combined with the bombings bought us the breathing space we needed to negotiate from a position of strength.
>>27807683
the very existence of the vietcong means there was mass resistance against the south vietnam regime.
and don't forget that plenty of south vietnamese army units did defect during the 1975 endgame when fear of reprisal from the regime was no longer a concern
>>27807673
>Not it was shot legitimately, above the reichstag... but days or weeks later after the building was actually taken was the picure shot.
no it was shot during the fighting, the second guy reaching up was wearing a wristwatch he had raped and pillaged from berlin that had to be shooped out, they were not even actors or reserve soldiers, they had been anticipating taking Berlin for a long time and sent a photographer up to take that photo as soon as they could, it was literally the same day as they secured it
nobody ever said they literally took the photo without posing for it
>>27807698
>negotiate from a position of strength
>conceding even more terms is indicative of strength
>>27807710
A large number of Vietcong were Vietminh who stayed behind after the treaties that divided north and south in the aftermath of the 1st Indochina war. And some of those were northerners. And while the existence of the Viet Cong does indicate mass dissatisfaction with the South Vietnamese government, it still doesn't refute my point that I've been making in that it failed to gain wholesale support in the South. If people sided with the North as much as you say they did, the war would've ended in '68 with Tet.
>plenty of army units did defect
Defect or surrender? And even then I'm sure they weren't spared from the camps
>>27807727
We either negotiate from a position where South Vietnam was fully caved in, or propped for the moment. And to be clear, which concessions changed from linebacker 1 to 2?
>>27799885
>be leader in military industrial complex
>stage a false flag attack to start shit in vietnomnomom
>make sure my paid officials put in insane rules of engagement, making it impossible to outright win the war through sheer military power
>sit back and watch soldiers slowly massacre the natives while collecting untold profits on everything from bullets for killing and caskets to die in
>even make money off of shipping in food for troops
>get filthy rich on building airplanes and bombs for them to drop
>eventually the dirty hippies start catching on
>pay the CIA to dope them all up on LSD
>enjoy monstrous profits on this new drug
>CIA keeps some too for black budget, so win/win
>after a while, my russian friends are getting tired of VC getting ass hammered by US bombs because it makes communists look weak
>finally decide to pull out
>i give them a cute loophole so they can re-invade without us mucking about
>my russian friends are happy, i make crazy money, and everyone thinks i "lost" the war
hahahahahahahahahhaaaaa
>>27808012
...What?
>>27802764
>being pounded into submission and forced to sign a peace treaty after your forces are decimated somehow isn't losing in every way.
But I guess you know better right?
McDonalds are in Vietnam
We fucking won
>>27808150
you talking about the US?
>>27806502
Soviet Union in Afghanistan, like the US in vietnam, was very effective.
15,000 dead russians for 1,600,000 dead kebabs, some of that has to do with a loosey goosey ROE - them rooskies don't like fighting with a hand tied behind their back
>>27799885
Do you even know what politics is?
US left Vietnam as the successful party. Years later, South Vietnam lost a war that the US wasn't involved in.
>>27808282
He knows it better than you, dipshit.
The US left South Vietnam having failed utterly to achieve any of the political objectives it had set out to achieve, with the only consolation given being that the victorious North Vietnamese agreed to give the US a figleaf excuse to try and deny the shame of its defeat with. South Vietnam was thrown under the bus in the full knowledge that the war was not over in any way to anyone but the utterly ignorant and retarded, but merely paused long enough by the North Vietnamese to give the US the opportunity to go and go their Sir Robin.
>>27808150
Sure. The US forces were pounded into submission and forced to sign a humiliating "peace treaty" that was de facto nothing short of a full-scale surrender and withdrawal of all US forces from vietnamese soil under the full understanding that North Vietnam would take over the South within a few years maximum.
>>27808390
>US forces were pounded into submission and forced to sign a humiliating "peace treaty" that was de facto nothing short of a full-scale surrender
do you even know what the word surrender means?
>>27802517
>tfw we left Vietnam and "it ain't me" stopped playing
>>27808390
Except we never surrendered, you moron.
The US completely failed in it's strategic objectives. The NVA succeeded in it's strategic objective of drawing out the war long enough to create popular discontent against it in the US and force a withdrawal. They knew this was America's weak spot and they actively exploited that tendency.
War is politics by other means.
Anyone arguing the US won the Vietnam War is a fucking idiot.
>>27799885
>But if US won, why did they not leave behind at least a few military bases and some military advisors for South Vietnam army? Why did US not help the South when North invaded again? Surely US could repeat former sucess? Why did US just run?
Ever heard of hippies?
>>27808679
So what then? Do we have to admit to losing at the start of every thread? Do we have to apologize to the Vietnamese? Do we have to hang our heads and cry in shame every time it's brought up? Should we now express "admiration" for the damned communists for winning? Should we turn our back on war forever? Yeah, we lost. We fucking lost, and it fucking hurts to say it. We lost to a fourth-rate raggedy ass little country, to quote Johnson. We lost in a war that we probably should never have been involved in. Fuck the war, fuck the guys who got us in, fuck Ho Chi Minh, fuck the hippies, and fuck communism. And most of all fuck the fucked up legacy of this war. You happy now you anti-American communist bastards?
>>27799885
>So according to /k/ USA won the Vietnam war.
Please.
stop.
We won the Vietnam War by all definitions. We signed a peace treaty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugJ_59_adp8
What we lost was the peace that followed it.
>>27808812
>Paris Accords weren't even ratified by the US Senate
By your argument Japan won WW2 because they signed the Treaty of San Francisco
>>27799885
>be gook in south 'nam
>local police are assholes
>local gov are assholes
>i thought the french were gone
>americans all over the place now
>they're assholes too
>they also give guns to local gov and shit
>fuck those guys
And this, is why there was no way to win Vietnam.
>m-muh K/D!!!
There was so little popular support from the rural population, that it was impossible to determine combatant from non-combatant. Guess they all just look the same, amirite? :^)
>>27808829
thanks to collaboration with the USA, they went from dirt poor starving country to one of the highest tech and largest economies in the world with one of the highest standards of living.
yes, they won.
>>27804603
It becomes irritating to hear Europoor and shitskin internet experts tell me about a war that my dad personally experienced. The fact is that there were many Vietnamese people who weren't onboard with all that commie bullshit. That's why South Vietnam existed all the way until 1975. That's why the Tet Offensive failed. That's why there were so many Boat People because of Hanoi repression. I know that doesn't fit your imperialist narrative because it would cause your head to explode from the dissonance and contradiction.
>>27802647
>Because we fucking lost and just were too proud to admit it to ourselves inpublic.
The problem here is, everybody looks at war as a binary solution set. You win or you lose.
North Vietnam won, in that they achieved their military and political objectives.
We didn't lose in the classical sense of no longer being able to wage war. We did lose interest in the war, along with our will to continue the war.
Losing comes in many shades. The US experience in Vietnam most closely resembles a forfeiture.
>>27801726
We can redecorate the whitehouse again if you want.
>>27810480
Are you British?
>>27810600
Or Kaki Hockersmith. No lie, that's the name of the decorator that Hilary brought in to spruce the place up after she and Bill moved in.
>>27809000
>moving the goalposts
>the post
>>27809704
South Vietnam existed because of US government protection. The Tet Offensive failed because of US government protection.
>That's why there were so many Boat People because of Hanoi repression
That's why there were so many Vietcong due to Saigon repression.
>inb4 my dad was a South Vietnam army officer
>>27801644
>the only people who think the US won are USMC poolees
(and noam chomsky)
>>27799885
Reminds me of my Age III games
>rekting fucking everyone
>win every single battle
>end up losing b/c fucking treaty win bullshittery fucking trade posts
>>27811155
>South Vietnam existed because of US government protection.
And North Vietnam existed because of Soviet protection. You're gonna call every military assistance a form of imperialism?
>The Tet Offensive failed because of US government protection.
No it failed because it didn't inspire insurrection, dumbass.
>That's why there were so many Vietcong due to Saigon repression.
Viet Congs were under command by the North and had fuck all to do with southern dissent. I guess you missed the part of them being fed and controlled by the North through the Ho Chi Minh trail.
>inb4 my dad was a South Vietnam army officer
My dad was a marine. Nice try though.
Anymore you got? I'm not gonna be lectured by some 18 year old kid who gets his facts from Wikipedia and RT.
