>>27518799 I know /k/ typically focuses on the history once US troops were directly intervening, but the whole idea behind US involvement there was fucked from the beginning. I simply don't understand why hostilities even emerged. The North Vietnamese groups were more than willing to work with the US and its European allies to work something out from the beginning.
Fuck France man, they were the real ass-hats there.
It was a strategic failure on all levels to my eyes.
If the US didn't get involved, the Viets would have used to Communists to remove to French.
If the US got involved as an ally to Vietnam in some alternate history, they would have either used the US to remove the French then turn on the US and kick Americans out too. Then go to war against China.
As fate have it in our world, they simply used Chicoms to kick the US out then they fought the Chicoms soon after.
One way or another, the Vietnamese simply wanted independence. Getting entangled deeply was simply a waste of effort. The US got bloodied and nothing to show for it. Right now, the situation have came full swing and they are looking to ally with the US to remove Chicoms from their part of South China Sea.
If the US played their cards right, I bet even the Vietnamese would be willing to allow Naval Bases in Vietnam if the US can guarantee that the Chinks fuck off. Yes, they hate the Chinks more than Americans. The grudges between Vietnam and China goes back 1000 years. A single war is nothing in comparison.
>>27518995 Prove it then. Or does bombing the enemy so hard they agree to peace count as losing in your book?
And where does this idiotic idea even come from? Why do so many people seem to think Vietnam ended with US forces being kicked out when the VC and NVA had no way of doing that at any point in the conflict?
>>27518957 It could be argued that the NVA and Viet Cong simply outlasted US forces. As much as people love to spout K/D ratios in 'nam, a lot of those counted as combatants probably weren't combatants.
>>27519018 >then continue to complete original objective >ARVN was already a beaten skeleton army
Sure sounds like we left on good footing.
Look, I'm not going to argue that typically US forces ended engagements with tactical victories, but the objective was folly to begin with, and one that could not be accomplished with out compromising America's position in the world.
>>27519062 You're either willingly ignoring the fact that the US was there to 'assist' the South Vietnamese forces, or you are really so dense as to believe that the US was operating as the primary force by choice. Every military action was focused on making sure the ARVN could fight the fight the US wanted them to fight. The US failed spectacularly at this, both during the intervention and after the withdrawal.
>>27519062 >Post proof that the VC and NVA actually defeated US forces in the field.
happened quite a few times.
Nam was a way more balanced war militarily than you'd think. Not really comparable to the USSR in Afghanistan or Iraq or something.
I'm an enthusiast of US military power just as anyone here, but you ain't helping yourself if you`re donald-j-trumping the whole thing. Truth hurts, but willful ignorance is a real dishonesty to the actual vets.
hopefully in like 20yrs from now they will have a well-researched show WORST US PROXY WARRIOR - Iraq vs ARVN vs Saudi Arabia or something. The loser has to go up against those Ukrainian Waffen SS divisions who did nothing well except killing Jews.
The only people displaying that here are the ones like you. I am not even an American, its just a simple fact the NVA and VC never had the ability to force the US out and that they only won after a peace treaty was signed and the American military was gone.
And I was not referring to specific battles, I meant the war in general.
>>27518799 False sense of pride in the own military and the humiliation of defeat. Same thing with communists who nowadays claim that communism never failed by asserting that "real" or "true" communism never existed.
>>27519163 >The only people displaying that here are the ones like you. I am not even an American, its just a simple fact the NVA and VC never had the ability to force the US out and that they only won after a peace treaty was signed and the American military was gone.
A peace treaty they signed so that you could leave, so that they could win.
A peace treaty you signed because you wanted to leave.
A peace treaty you signed knowing that the South didnt stand a chance against the North.
You went 10 rounds and didnt wanna fight no more, you could have gone another 10 but you didnt want to pay the price. So you signed a convenient treaty and left.
If you were serious about meeting the goals you set when the war started, you would have left a "trip wire" force behind like in South Korea in order to prevent the North pulling any shit.
But you didnt, because you had no longer had the will to fight.
>>27518985 From the viewpoint of the US leadership of the time yes apparently. They viewed the whole thing through their Cold War tinted glasses and didn't understand that the Vietnamese were fighting for independence and would've sacrificed every last man, woman and child to achieve this aim. This is why the US never could have won this war, because the only way would have been to genocide the entire people. I have no doubt that the US military would gladly have done so with people like Curtis LeMay. But every sane person already knew that the sentence "We had to destroy the village in order to save it" was completely nuts. And to generalize it to an entire country even more so. The US could never in a million years have found the political will to do so. It was doomed to lose this war from the very start because of the misunderstanding of Vietnamese motivation. Read McNamara's reflections on this whole complex.
>>27519277 >Selective, cherrypicked history to tell a narrative :^) Not him, but why do you think the US army calls Vietnam a strategic failure? Protip: it's not because the US pullout was a clean one.
>>27519277 So the parts where: 1. The war sits at stale-mate for ~3 years, US public support for the war bottoms out. US presidential hopefuls start campaigning on the premise of curtailing/ending the war 2. The US withdraws and provides guarantees to the South 3. The US withdraws all guarantees 4. Saigon falls
>>27519398 >That they existed at all and what significance they had for all parties. The significance is that they allowed the US to withdraw knowing full well that if they did the South would fall. As I mentioned in my response regarding the accords.
Are you even reading my posts or is "cherry picked" and "narrative" all you have in your inventory today?
One thing I don't get is how South Vietnamese gets money, supplies, and expensive toys from the US, and they get the American army itself to come in and do much of the work for them, and then they still lose to a bunch of rice farmers armed with AKs.
Well, it happened again in Iraq. American support doesn't always mean victory.
>>27519466 >and then they still lose to a bunch of rice farmers armed with AKs.
South Veit government was corrupt and incompetant, lead by men who were so fearfull of political considerations that most of the army's officer corps were full of men chosen for political considerations.
While corruption was such that any money set aside for the actual people of Veitnam was squandered, meaning that the average guy in the street had no inclination to fight for the government - this is reflected by the trully staggering desertion rate in the ARVN and the fact that the govt had to literally press-gang people into service.
Then you take the fact that the US was trying to teach a bunch of rice farmers how to operate complex machinery and a generally very technical way of fighting which they struggled to grasp and cope with.
Then you take the fact that US trainers and advisors usually lead and conducted operations themselves (effectivly replacing the ARVN officer corps) so that when they left, the officers (generally) had no idea what they were doing.
The ARVN had some pretty badass units who fought to the death right up to the end (their rangers and marines), but generally their army was full og guys who didnt want to be there, had no idea what they were doing there and were gone as soon as the oppertunity presented itself.
>>27519466 >South Vietnamese There was no real thing as South Vietnam. The leadership was not accepted by the people so it's no wonder the support for unification was high. The US should have supported Ho Chi Minh from the beginning in his struggle for independence. They would have an allied leftist country in the region which would have provided a nice opposition to China and Russia.
>>27519531 It was a loss for the country. War is done for political purposes, not just to see who can kill the most guys. If the political aims are not met, the war is lost, even if the army manages to dominate the enemy. "Military victory" is meaningless, because the military exists to serve political aims.
Or to put it in a simpler way your idiot teenage ass might understand: in war, a better k/d ratio than the other guys doesn't mean you automatically win.
I'm sorry that you have to be babied to the truth. Here, I'll do it for you. See my definition of war above.
Now what is a war goal? It is the strategic/political objective of the war. What was the war goal in Vietnam? a) To preserve the independence of South Vietnam b) To end American involvement with a peace treaty
Now, when the war ended, both of those goals were met. US involvement ended in 72 and the Paris Peace Accords were signed in January 73, officially ending U.S. involvement in the war. At that time, the war goals were met. a) South Vietnam was still independent b) A peace treaty was signed
Saigon, of course, didn't fall until April 1975, years after the war had ended for the US.
Thus, the US completely met its war goals. There is no way you can dispute this. Unless you are making the novel and absurd claim that a war can be lost N amount of years after it ended. Of course, you can't define N because you're subjectively talking out of your ass. It would be like if the US removed all military from South Korea and in 2017 the North invaded and won, to you, that would mean that the Korean war in the 1950s was a "loss." Which is absurd, and you know it.
Or in another example, WWI was a French loss because they were taken over by Germany 20 years later.
Anyways, the US met its war goals when the war was over, which equals victory. End of story.
>>27519610 For the 1,000,000th time, the Paris Peace Accords were nothing less than a surrender from the US. If the Communists invaded SK a second time after 1953 the US would have intervened again, this was not the case with Vietnam. The US had no means whatsoever to enforce the deal and everyone knew it. It was a convenient way to withdraw while saving some face.
>>27519610 >To end American involvement with a peace treaty This was not a strategic objective at the beginning of the war. The objective was to defeat the NVA, not to fight until a peace treaty could be signed.
The US army officially labels the Vietnam war a "strategic failure".
None of your autismal bullshit will change that.
And it's not like the US army is alone in labeling Vietnam a failure:
>"in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail." -Henry Kissinger (then secretary of state)
>"the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion." -Robert McNamara (then secretary of defense)
>"until we know the enemy and know our allies and know ourselves, we'd better keep out of this kind of dirty business. It's very dangerous" -Maxwell Taylor (general and one of THE men behind the Vietnam war, talking about Vietnam in hindsight)
But that analogy doesn't work because winning a kickball game in no way relates to the war goals of the US in Vietnam, which were achieved.
It's more like saying the US was protecting person B from person A in a fight, but the US wasn't actually trying to knock out A, they just wanted to protect B. The whole time saying "look, A, if you'll just stop fighting I'll leave." And then A said okay I'm tired of getting my face punched in, they shook hands, and the US left. And then a while later person A goes and beats up person B when the US isn't around.
>>27519652 Are you going to actually explain why I'm wrong? I'm not. Everyone knew the North was going to attack the South again, and everyone knew the US couldn't do a thing about it with 90% of the country against war.
>>27519694 Then why do these threads keep doing >America lost Vietnam >see that burger, it's failure >you fail forever >you lost, let me rub it in your face >doesn't matter if Vietnam likes you now >American will never win
>>27519760 What the he'll are you going on about? The US went to war with the goal of saving South Vietnam. Public opinion forced the government to sign a "peace treaty" they had no authority to enforce in 1973. It was a surrender.
>Mr Sorley's line, however, refers to the year 1970, when Viet Cong guerrilla activity had fallen to an extremely low level and Americans found themselves free to travel to areas of the countryside that had previously been off-limits. (That Mr Sorley identifies the ability of American soldiers to travel freely with "winning the war" is revealing.) Mr Sorley's argument is that to the extent that the Vietnam War was a "people's war" in the South, the Communist insurgency was defeated after the failed Tet offensive through intelligent counterinsurgency techniques; the South ultimately lost not to a people's war, but to a regular invasion by North Vietnamese main forces. Here is one way to express the problem with Mr Sorley's thesis: a year after he contends "the war was won", the South Vietnamese army (ARVN) attempted to strike into Laos to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail that was resupplying North Vietnamese army (NVA) forces still stationed inside southern territory. The South Vietnamese were annihilated, in part because their command structure remained riddled with Communist sympathisers who had given away the timing of the operation, and in part because South Vietnamese commanders who derived political power from the strength of their units declined to risk their troops to rescue rival commanders. (For more on this, a recommendation for the Pentagon's reading list: Andrew Wiest's "Vietnam's Forgotten Army".)
Some South Vietnamese units fought bravely. For their trouble, they ended up dead, or incarcerated as POWs in the North. After three years of American "Vietnamisation" of the war, and despite being furnished by their American patrons with one of the world's largest and best-equipped armies and air forces, the ARVN remained unable to clear its own territory of NVA units or to mount a credible attack against their supply lines. The South Vietnamese government remained weak, corrupt, factionalised, and essentially fictive, and you cannot have a real army without a real government.
>More importantly, the South Vietnamese government was a fictive, corrupt shell not because America had not given it enough aid, but in part because we had given it too much. Mr Sorley is generally weakest of all when he writes about the South Vietnamese government; in his Wall Street Journal op-ed he claims that Nguyen Van Thieu, South Vietnam's last in a long line of scheming generals-turned-weak-dictators,
> took the courageous step of organizing and arming a People's Self-Defense Force to back up localized defense forces that defended their home provinces. Thieu's own view, validated by the results, was that "the government had to rest upon the support of the people, and it had little validity if it did not dare to arm them."
>This is an interesting view for someone who stole the 1967 election with widespread ballot-stuffing and then threw one of his rivals into jail for accusing him of it, who bought the votes of representatives on the floor of parliament for anywhere from $350 to $1800 a pop, who repeatedly refused to send his most loyal divisions into combat against the NVA because he needed them in case of a coup by his own generals, and who ultimately fled the country with its entire gold reserves stuffed into his suitcases, leaving his braver subordinates to face the NVA tanks. The words Mr Sorley ascribes to Mr Thieu were clearly placed in his mouth by American COIN proponents, and for Mr Sorley to pretend that they represent Mr Thieu's own views is poor history.
>If the US played their cards right, I bet even the Vietnamese would be willing to allow Naval Bases in Vietnam if the US can guarantee that the Chinks fuck off. Yes, they hate the Chinks more than Americans. The grudges between Vietnam and China goes back 1000 years. A single war is nothing in comparison.
This is exactly what's happening though. The TPP is designed to benefit Vietnam at the expense of China and as a result the USN would be allowed to station "antipiracy" personnel in Vietnam to "protect trade"
>>27519665 > person A goes and beats up person B when the US isn't around The US know that B can't hold up against A, A will not stop beating B, and still go away. How is that successful in protecting B?
>>27519983 Not to mention that it was no secret that you could never trust communists to keep their word if they had the upper hand. If the goal was to stop the spread of communism, it failed miserably.
Because it was a complete tactical success, and stupid people don't know the difference between strategy and tactics.
We won every single major engagement, and crippled both the NVA and the NLF. But in the end it didn't matter, because the American public turned against the war, and North Vietnam succeeded in their goals.
Vietnam was the first televised war, and unlike World War II, nothing was white washed for propaganda purposes. Thus, the American public saw war as it truly is for the first time since the Civil War. And they immediately turned against it. That war wasn't lost in Vietnam. It was lost in America.
>>27520327 Then they're almost as wrong as you. The US stopped the spread of communism DURING the Vietnam War. Anything that happened after the US pulled out has nothing to do with the Vietnam War. Also, the Vietnamese government itself stated that the war was a stalemate, dumbass. But I'm sure you'll just ignore facts in front of your face.
>>27520425 http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/youth-vietnam-war-fall-saigon/391769/ Just about everyone in Vietnam loves America and either doesn't give a shit about the war or thinks it was a draw. Please self immolate.
>>27520583 So US generals are retarded. What else is new? The United States signed a peace treaty with North Vietnam in 1973. The north invaded the south in 1975, 2 years after surrendering to the US. It's like if your friend is being abused by her husband so you beat the shit out of him, and when you leave he rapes your friend while pretending he won the fight.
>>27520667 They're also wrong. You can't lose something you're not doing. We were no longer fighting the north when they invaded the south. That's like saying France won the French and Indian war because they got back some of their lost land years after the end of the war.
>>27519466 Read a book called "The Sling and the Stone". 4GW and how to fight it has been poorly understood and executed by most nation-state actors. It's not an issue of technology or production. It is a political game.
>>27520804 No. My main argument is that you can't lose a war you're not fighting. Your main argument is the opposite, which is fucking stupid. If Obama said the earth was flat, would you believe him because he's in a position of power? Of course not. So why would you believe something as illogical as losing a war you weren't in because someone in a position of power said so? That's like saying East Germany lost the Korean war because an ally of it lost, even though Germany had nothing to do with that conflict.
>>27520878 Just because they looked at it doesn't mean they're right. You physically can't lose a war that you're not fighting. Let's say through some miracle, Germany convinces America and Russia to lay down their arms and go home in the second world war. 2 years later, the US invades Japan, who is still fighting. Would you then say Germany lost? Of course not. The north achieved their goal for victory after surrendering to the US. The US had nothing to do with what happened after that surrender. What part of this do you refuse to understand?
anyone who thinks the US government and military didnt know exactly what was going to happen after they pulled out is totally delusional and not worth engaging, even on a south vietnamese prostitution and rice cooking forum
i mean this is 'Stalin did nothing wrong' vatnik level delusion
>>27520992 >Also, didn't they fuck up by removing full-auto capabilities early on? No, but apart from the powder change they used the aluminum magazines that were invented as throw away type magazines for one time use over and over. These quickly got bent lips from overuse which caused feeding errors and thus further stoppages.
>>27521002 Again, I obviously do. The US army VASTLY and laughably outclassed the viet cong. Even Vietnam says the US won tactically. The US made the north surrender. After leaving because of victory, the US left the south undefended. The north attacked the south successfully for the first time because the US had won and gone home. This is a fact. Please just give up, you have lost.
>>27521108 What's to argue? The facts are all here, plain for everyone to see.
You're just using those facts to come to an obviously deluded conclusion. As evidenced by the fact that the people who orchestrated, led, fought, and finished the Vietnam war thoroughly disagree with you.
>>27521080 I've had this argumenr with people before,its pointless to argue with them because they cant understand the fact that the peace treaty where north vietnam conceeded defeat due to being bombed back into the stone age was a thing. They refuse the idea that usa's part in the contlict ended in 1973 under a north vietnamese defeat and that the second conflict which the nva spent 2 years recieving aid and trainig from china and ussr was a almost separate conflict due to a peace treaty being signed with usa 2 years prior
>>27521196 Mate the reason they said it was a strategic defeat is because in their minds the only goal was to protect south vietnam, something that the democrats sabotaged by the way after the nva restarted hostilities in 1975.
I have one question for you buddy, if a nation signs a peace treaty due to severe military losses does that not end that specific conflict?
>>27521176 The same point said several times doesn't make it right. You're fucking stupid if you think somebody 50 years in the future with access to everything about the subject matter knows less than some guy with stars on his hat that stared at a map for a few minutes.
>>27521252 It is to me. USA signing some facing saving bullshit treaty to leave with its pride intact doesn't change the fact that they got their asses handed to them and left with their tale behind their legs.
>>27521228 The US propped up the south successfully. The north signed a peace treaty and surrendered to the US. AFTER that war ended, the north attacked the south. Please learn to read, and please self-immolate.
People never seem to mention the oil embargo South Vietnam was under at that time. So not only did the Democrats in Washington slash money given to SV at that time from Billions to a couple Million, they couldn't even get fuel to run their fighting vehicles let alone their economy.
>>27521300 >he US propped up the south successfully. The north signed a peace treaty and surrendered to the US. AFTER that war ended, the north attacked the south. Please learn to read, and please self-immolate.
That is in no way at all what happened.
The US needed to withdraw, so they found a way out and the North obliged.
>>27521331 >forced The bombing campaign was a joke. They didn't give a shit about their mud huts being blown up, they signed the X on the dotted line and let the yanks leave. No one for a second thought that the conflict was finished (besides you of course).
>>27521342 This. As much as I enjoy watching yuropoors/autistOPs run into their playpen walls repeatedly, the yuropoor/autistOP has successfully lost his arguments multiple times, and through resorting to hilarious parroting of the same logical fallacy has lost any chance of my support. The thread has served its purpose.
>>27521360 A joke? MILLIONS were killed in these bombing runs. Their entire country was annihilated by napalm. Their children were mutated horribly by agent Orange bombs. The bombings were horrible and completely destroyed Vietnam's will to fight.
>>27521296 Not if you arrived with the intention of winning the game.
To continue with the sports analogy what happened is this:
>Team A sucks and is going to get reemed >This is unacceptable for.. Team USA >Team USA plays for team A instead >After a very brutal half, team A is marginally ahead, but it has cost them dearly with many star players injured, team USA's fans dont want team USA while furthermore team USA doesnt want to play because team USA just figured out that the second half has been extended by 20-30 years. >The rival team does not want to play as well, knowing that another brutal 20-30 years of being smashed into the ground is ahead of it >Team USA and the rival team come to an agreement to call it a draw (but the pundits rate it was a complete tactical victory for team USA) and that the rival team will never again try to play team A. Team USA is now able to gracefully leave the arena with pride intact >Second half commences >yet holy shit, the rivals are lining up on the feild with team USA nowhere in sight >team A steps up to face them >10min later >match is called because rival team has murdered team A
>>27521409 >You might as well copy paste the same message Well you still seem to think you know more about the Vietnam war than the political and military leaders who orchestrated, led, fought, and finished it.
>>27521406 >MILLIONS were killed in these bombing runs and MILLIONS were born next year >Their entire country was annihilated by napalm some stretches of jungle you mean? regrown the next year >Their children were mutated horribly by agent Orange bombs yeah, a few of the weak ones to make more room for the strong >The bombings were horrible and completely destroyed Vietnam's will to fight until they restarted fighting just as the last choppers were leaving?
>>27521442 And would US generals from a single side of the war, know more then the vietnamese soldiers, guerrillas, civilians and generals who fought in country, experiencing just about every side of the war? I thought not faggot.
>>27521414 Well you can say that the usa wanted out, but the way they achieved that was bombing the north into submission which can't really be said to be a military defeat.
It would be the equivalent of saying you and your buddy beats a guy til he passes out, the day after he wakes up and stabs your friend. You didn't lose the fight but you fucked up in protecting your buddy
>>27521478 That they only have experiences of what their side suffered and no knowledge of what the other side suffered? All the US army generals know is that they were recalled. They know not of the annihilation of any modernity in the Vietnamese peninsula, the several million dead, or the lasting effects of such a horrid war on their homeland.
>>27521496 >They were wrong. ... says an anonymous keyboard warrior.
>That they only have experiences of what their side suffered and no knowledge of what the other side suffered? You really think the military and political leaders behind the Vietnam war had no knowledge of the damage suffered by the North Vietnamese?
>>27521507 >That they only have experiences of what their side suffered and no knowledge of what the other side suffered? You really think the military and political leaders behind the Vietnam war had no knowledge of the damage suffered by the North Vietnamese?
>>27521531 They have the NUMBERS sure, but they do not know the experience of it. The experience of learning your entire village with your entire family was burnt to the ground and doesn't exist anymore. Of your capital being bombed, of your fellow man killed by something he had no idea was coming, or had the ability to fight back against.
The point is simply this: It may be TECHNICALLY a separate war, but that separate war met the goals that the US started the first war to meet. And it is only a seperate war because the US wanted out of the first war and left knowing full well that the South could not stand alone.
Hence why Veitnam is considered a geo-political failure.
>>27521529 >the usa slaugtered the north vietnamese Having a high kill ratio fighting a 3rd world country is not some crowning achievement.
America failed in all the objectives they set out for themselves, every single search and destroy mission was bunk, training the South Vietnamese was an utter failure, they could never deal with Cambodia and Laos, etc.
>>27521603 They were wrong on a moral level friendo. The vietnamese were a shattered peoples. Tell me with that smug fucking face of yours, that EVERY single relative you had, almost every single friend, and basically everyone you knew, was burned to a crisp, in the matter of ten minutes, that you wouldn't be devastated. That you wouldn't wish for suicide. Go ahead tell me that you goddamn, son of a fucking faggot.
>>27521530 >Well, your statements about Linebacker effectiveness are open for debate.
>Following the success of anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary, in March 1968 U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson halted bombing operations over the northern portion of the North Vietnam (Operation Rolling Thunder), in order to encourage Hanoi to begin negotiations. Shortly thereafter Hanoi agreed to discuss a complete halt of the bombing...
>Nixon ordered the heavy Operation Linebacker II bombings of North Vietnam in December 1972. These operations were also designed to keep North Vietnam at the negotiating table and to prevent it from abandoning negotiations...
They came and stayed at the table directly due to the bombings.
This is not up for debate.
>With regards to beating the US, they never beleived they could from the start - their objective was allways to bleed them out and make it too costly, just like the frogs.
Except thats not what happened at all, the US did not leave or retreat under fire, like the frogs.
>But where you are categorically wrong is with the oil crises.
>The communist leaders had expected that the ceasefire terms would favor their side. But Saigon, bolstered by a surge of U.S. aid received just before the ceasefire went into effect, began to roll back the Viet Cong.
>The oil price shock of October 1973 following the Yom Kippur War in Egypt caused significant damage to the South Vietnamese economy. The Viet Cong resumed offensive operations when the dry season began and by January 1974 it had recaptured the territory it lost during the previous dry season..
>At the start of 1975, the South Vietnamese had three times as much artillery and twice the number of tanks and armored cars as the opposition. They also had 1,400 aircraft and a two-to-one numerical superiority in combat troops over their Communist enemies. However, the rising oil prices meant that much of this could not be used.
>>27521643 Tell me which North Vietnamese army units they successfully surrounded and destroyed? Not a single one, they always slipped away. They got bodies on the ground but never enough to win the war.
>>27521689 You are the one who only takes in half of the argument. The Vietnamese people themselves, the people whos homeland was the fighting ground of this war, openly say it was a stalemate at worst.
Try getting your history from something besides a Prager University video. Some ammunition shipments weren't going to save South Vietnam, if anyone was really dedicated to stopping the North sending troops would've still been an option, but it wasn't.
>>27521710 >The Vietnamese people themselves, the people whos homeland was the fighting ground of this war, openly say it was a stalemate at worst. Because they turned capitalistic, and China is once again their mortal enemy.
You'll still find plenty of Vietnamese who still resent the US too, don't you fret.
The US wanted out, and got North and South to sign a meaningless paper that allowed the US to save face. Less than 2 years later the entire South was completely overrun by the communists, and 20 years of US military efforts were down the drain.
So it's no mystery why the US military and political leaders consider Vietnam a strategic failure.
>>27521478 >"US generals from a single side of the war" are saying THEY THEMSELVES failed. the us generals are not america, the us military failed strategic objectives and won tactically, which is irrelevant.
The question was, why did THE USA lose to vietnam? Easy, the USA did not lose, its military branches left on a somewhat bad note.
America won against communism, as is obvious today.
Were you to ask if the american military lost in vietnam, your answer would be somewhat correct pertaining to certain objectives, but that wasnt the question, so learn to read before you spout out hippie nonsense.
Do you honestly think the US military and political leaders didn't know about any of this when they called the Vietnam war a failure?
>>27522051 The US political and military leaders at the time (and presently) called the Vietnam war a failure, based on the same information you have access to (and then some). Public opinion in the US very much agrees.
>>27522082 Wrong. If the South had been stronger than the North, the US wouldn't have sent nearly as many troops as they did. When they left, they didn't leave a "trip wire force" like they did in Korea, ensuring that the North doesn't try to re-invade. If they had done that however, Vietnam wouldn't be the Communist shithole it is today. But they didn't because they were tired.
If you don't consider war to be some dick-measuring contest that determines which country is the best, you have no reason to keep being in denial. Just admit it to yourself that the US isn't invincible, and that a loss in Vietnam doesn't make the US inferior. And stop letting your blind patriotism get to your head.
>>27522257 >but somehow this means the US still won the war? yes, in 1975 noone saw the outcome as a win because its effects werent seen. after vietnams war with china shorty after and the fall of east germany, communism failed and the war in vietnam turned out to be worth the investment, it became part of a series of efforts destroying communism forever.
>>27522325 >The US army was completely uninvolved Standing idly by after pulling out is in no way uninvolved.
Hence why US political and military leaders call Vietnam a failure.
>>27522328 >if they did, they wouldnt have signed the peace treaty The peace treaty was a meaningless piece of paper, and not two years after it was signed the entire South was overrun by the communists.
Hence why US political and military leaders call Vietnam a failure.
>>27522403 you cant argue with statists, they will gobble up anything "official" even if its covered in semen, infact, especially so.
fucking MACVSOG "officially" didnt even exist until 1980, that doesnt mean they werent commiting war crimes on a daily basis fucking the shit out of charlie. so much so, that there was a cash reward for any NVA responsible for killing a SOG member.
I don't get why people think Vietnam was a failure
I think the reason why our military thinks we "lost" was because it wasn't the steamroll we thought it would be. We thought, "lol, how can they stand up to our big American awesome", and then they did. And suddenly, we couldn't just roll through everything. And we were actually receiving more casualties than we thought we would and Americans back home got pissed because people actually died in a war
>>27522465 >I dunno, ask the US army, Kissinger, Taylor, MacNamara, ... >Appeal to authority....again.... i would if i could, but they didnt really comment on vietnam too much after it was obvious the war was a success after all.
>>27522465 >MacNamara its also mcnamara, if youre going to be an uninformed shill, at least get it right.
>>27522484 Because the US tried to many years to prop up Vietnam and years later they left, separate conflict or not, South Vietnam fell and all those years of fighting was rendered absolutely meaningless. It's not really a victory if all your efforts weren't worth much in the end.
>>27522565 If they wanted to make themselves and the government look good they would say the exact same thing you did. "We protected S Vietnam while we were there", "Communism was contained", "we killed so many of those gooks", "we never lost a field battle", blah blah blah. But instead they said "these sets of foreign policies the country was on for many years and that we''ve worked on was a failure".
>>27522555 His argument is that the people behind the operation would have more knowledge of the conflict than the average person ever would. It's not a groundbreaking argument, but calling out a fallacy certainly isn't. It's more like a way to evade having to respond with a counterargument.
>>27522597 >If they wanted to make themselves and the government look good they would say the exact same thing you did. nope, it was and still is popular opinion that the war was useless, to agree with the public is to build rapport.
>>27522643 >>making themselves look good it did, they built rapport with a nation that hated them for being baby killers. they agreed they were wrong, like a politician admitting he fucked up and was going to "change things" for the better.
there wasnt a better move they could have made tbh.
>>27522640 I'm not defending him or his argument, because it doesn't prove anything. I'm defending his position on the subject. But mostly attacking you for naming the same logical fallacy over and over again.
You: "appeal to authority, you're wrong" Me: "actually arguing poorly doesn't make him wrong" "...but it proves he's not right" "actually it only proves he's arguing poorly, aka not providing any objective proof" "That's actually what I meant" "That was completely pointless and meant nothing. Doesn't diminish his belief, or ehances yours. After all, you are using speculation as your argument as to why the US would admit to a tactical defeat"
Thread replies: 384 Thread images: 29
Thread DB ID: 60868
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.