Vietnam

[fernando]

I mean...I always had the idea the US got defeated in Vietnam, but I spoke to some Americans about it, and they say they US didnt get defeated but left Vietnam because of the change of policy...

So you peeps have more info on that perhaps?

[SittingBull47]

Some people call it a "tie" (didn't know you could tie in war), others say the above. Other's still blame "rotten domestic dissent" as a certain nationalistic neighbor puts it. Vietnam was an illegal war (sort of like today). We had no support for it (again), the French thought we were stupid for wanting to invade the country to protect it from the communists (when I say we, I mean the united states), and many people were turned off by this blatant showing of U$ belligerence. That's pretty much an all around defeat.

[Kurai Tsuki]

I suppose it could be considered a change in policy, one which was made after it was seen that the United States could not win when people were so dedicated to struggling against them. As the United States withdrew before they could be completely overcome, it can be called a change of policy, just as the Iraeli government could call pull out from Lebanon a change of policy, even though it was made amidst increasing attacks.

Even if the United States changed its policy towards Vietnam, the Viet Cong still deserves all the credit for this change, for it would most likely not have been made without their devotion. Imperialism doesen't change on its own.

[Kurai Tsuki]

One of the things that bothers me about the American public during the Vietnam war is that the anti-war movement actually toned down a great deal before the war actually ended.

Right now the United States is experiencing some massive moral defeats in Iraq as it becomes clear that it is not a humanitarian mission, but there is less word of an anti-war movement. This would be a great time of which protestors could take advantage, but they area actually becoming less active.

[DaCuBaN]

"Skinheads all round, no score draw"

Remember: The winning side in every war is the one that has the shortest haircut :D

[Kurai Tsuki]

You have an interesting sig DaCuban, the first time I heard the word Speciest was in the sequel to Dr Dolittle, I thought it was a joke word at the time ^.^

[Hawker]

A right wing in my school said "America never lost the war in Vietnam they were there to control the situation"

What a hypocrite the US basically fought the entire war for South Vietnam,so basically it was their war.

[Kurai Tsuki]

The, "situation," in Vietnam was that Ho Chi Minh and northern Vietnam wanted to set up a country that would be independent and economically strong; they thought they would have America's support. The United States, being the interventionist superpower of the world, did not wish to let this happen.

[Guerrilla22]

Technically the US was not losing the war when they withdrew, but they were far from winning the war also. The "policy change" was obviously in reaction to the huge outcry against the war from the American public.

After the signing of the Geneva Accords in 1954, the country was divided at the 17th parallel. This was supposed to be temporary and nation wide elections were supposed to be held, but due to the fact that the Viet Mnh enjoyed the support of almost the entire Vietnamese population, the South pulled out of the agreement and refused to allow the elections to happen.

After reaching an agreement in 1972, the NVA retreated back to their side of the 17th parallel, leaving the Viet Cong to fight on their own. THe US armed and trained the South, in an attempt to make them able to sufficiently be able to defend themselves, as part of Nixon's plan to gradually reduce US troop levels in Vietnam, which was aimed at an eventual total withdarw.

The US provided air support for a while, and there were still Americans on the ground to advice and train the South Vietnamese, but it was actually the South Vietnamese Army that couldn't contain the NVVa, once they came back over the boarder and when Saigon fell in '74 there was very little US military involvement in Vietnam, however anyway you want to look at it, the US gave up and went home, didn't surrender, but just gave up.

[Urban Rubble]

The U.S clearly lost in Vietnam. Nationalism and ignorance can make you call it many things, policy change, withdrawal, but the fact is, if we could have definitively won the war we would have.

It's a bit of a different kind of loss though. In the majority of wars the nations fighting are relatively close, so there is territory to be won. When the U.S was beaten in the war, the Vietnamese had to plans to take over the United States, their "win" was simply the expulsion of U.S troops from Vietnam. The U.S withdrew because they had invested 10 years into a war and still had no serious end in sight. That plus the protests back at home is why we pulled out.

[refuse_resist]

It's amazing how the U.S. government didn't learn its lesson in Vietnam since everything that happend back then is happening now.

Just like how many people were exposed to agent orange back then, people are being exposed to depleted uranium now.

[Abajo con el imperialismo]

empires raise and fall because for their arrogance:P
vietnam was a loss for the united $tate$ they had to leave because the life losses where terrible and alot of money was wasted

[Subversive Pessimist]

They used napalm/agent orange (same thing? I don't remember which) in Iraq, too. I think they called it something like B58/B52 (something like that). They took out some chemicals and replaced them with others. Same thing, different name.

[Guerrilla22]

They used napalm in Iraq, napalm is is some sort of petro-chemical mixture than explodes into a massive ball of fire. Agent Orange, was a herbicide used to kill jungle growth, later on it was discoved that AO caused cancer and after denying it for years, the uS government finally had to admitt it and pay out the medical bills of Vietnam vets exposed to it.

The same thing is happening today, only with the depleted uranium tipped shells, used by tanks and for artillery pieces, which is what cause the Gulf War Syndrome Who knows how long untill the US government admitts that these shells are toxic.

[bunk]

they didn't use agent orange in Iraq??

[Guerrilla22]

No, as I explained in my previous thread, they stoped using it after Vietnam, in fact they never really had a chance to use it again, anyway there would be no reason to use a herbicide in Iraq since its one big desert. Justice is right though, napalm was used in Iraq and Afghanistan, only the government is careful only to refer to it by its designated code, which I can't remeber what it is.

[Wiesty]

the u.s. just withdrew because they were being defeated and they were running low on resources

[Wiesty]

it was also due to their lack of knowledge to all the weather and terrain, it was kind like the war in the pacific back in ww2.

the ho chi mihn trail was also one of their losses, because great ammounts of supplies were easily being transported back and forth

and the nortnern vietnam, had dug a huge tunnel system, with unseeable sniper nests and etc.

plus there were the booby traps, vietcong

and when it came to war the northern vietnam may not have been more equipped, but they sure as hell were smarter in combat,

and one mistake the americans made was that
they say the only way to beat ur enemy is to know ur enemy
and america didnt know their enemy

[The Forum Idiot]

Yea, America relied on the support of their large ammount of troops to outnumber and their technologically far superior weapons (M16A1s) While the VC used complex tactics and tricks with much lesser technology (AK-47s and SKSs or somethinG).

[bunk]

If you speak to vets though they would have preffered AK-47 the M16A1 was notorious for jamming.
I think youy mean SKS simonov

[Wiesty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 06:41 PM
If you speak to vets though they would have preffered AK-47 the M16A1 was notorious for jamming.
I think youy mean SKS simonov
ya, most historians and veterans and gun experts will say the ak 47 was better, it was manufactored cheaper, and faster, it was so easy to use that kids could use them, they wouldnt jam, and they werent as heavy

[Micah EL Layl]

peace...
well....the USA entered the Vietnam war not only to bring white rule to Vietnam but also to boost weapon sales...
drug sales...and of course to kill non whites in the name of
population control...also a more sinister plot to have Black
Americans go and kill Black Vietnamease people which would
bring about the era of Black on Black crime in the USA......
of course all you mosquito's are going to swarm about what
i just typed but hey.....thats life....
but yes i think N. Vietnam did win that war.........
peace to Ho Chi Minh and everyone who gave their lifes to fight
the devil.....

[bunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 11:05 PM
ya, most historians and veterans and gun experts will say the ak 47 was better, it was manufactored cheaper, and faster, it was so easy to use that kids could use them, they wouldnt jam, and they werent as heavy
Not strictly true AK's are heavier than M16's

[Guerrilla22]

But as my Dad (a Vietnam vet) would tell you: the early M-16 was a piece of shit, it would jam constantly, and it seemed especially proned to jamming when you needed it the most.

[monkeydust]

The US most definately lost the conflict.

They underestimated the extent to which the ordinary Vietnamese would oppose them, in the end, the US withdrew without achieving their goals in any substantive manner.

[Guerrilla22]

I'd say the US lost the Vietnam War is definitely a fair acessment, end of post?

[(*]

I will say that the US was defeated though. Although, that doesn't mean that the othr side won. How many millions of Vietnamese died?

[Guerrilla22]

3-5 million, but they accomplished what they set out to do and the US didn't.

[CubanFox]

'Nam was curious because, on the strategic level, America wiped the floor with the North Vietnamese. The US Army, experienced as it is in big battles, never lost a single battle with the NVA.

However!

The Vietcong, experienced as it was in guerilla warfare, wiped the floor with the Americans on a tactical level! And in the end, they won, as guerillas often do when their enemy has somewhere to run to.

The Americans, victorious in the "formal war" but utterly defeated in the war of attrition, were forced to withdraw, and in general made a complete arse of themselves on the world stage.

[monkeydust]

I will say that the US was defeated though. Although, that doesn't mean that the othr side won. How many millions of Vietnamese died?

Quite right, and, in retrospect, the same could be said of a number of other wars.

After the second world war, Britain was very much a "loser", even though she had "won". The same could be said of the Crimean war. Similarly, France's victory at the end of WW1 must have seemed very hollow.

[Abajo con el imperialismo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 11:05 PM
ya, most historians and veterans and gun experts will say the ak 47 was better, it was manufactored cheaper, and faster, it was so easy to use that kids could use them, they wouldnt jam, and they werent as heavy
thats true m16 jams alot thats is what mostly caused soldiers to die in mayor battles ak47 never jams and had a very powerful firepower, I dont understand why U.S forces still use the m16 and replace it with the oicw

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 11:50 AM
3-5 million, but they accomplished what they set out to do and the US didn't.
I strongly disagree with this claim. The U.S. didn't succeed in its greatest hopes, but it did succeed in destroying Vietnam, which continued after the Vietnam War with foreign wars, embargos, and sanctions. They prevented Vietnam from making itself a successful example as an alternative to U.S.-imposed systems, which was the ultimate goal of the U.S. Tragically, that means the Vietnamese failed at creating a successful example of an alternative to a U.S.-imposed system, which is also in part, their own fault as well. If you ask me, the U.S. really won, not neccessarily the Vietnam War, but the point of it, the larger conflict. Today, Vietnam is becoming more and more a right-wing Capitalist society, opening up to foreign exploitation, while continuing to have a poor Human Rights record. Who really won?

[DISTURBEDrbl911]

in all technicallities, how can someone "win" a war? in any outcome of a war, everyone loses

[PRC-UTE]

The US lost militarily. They were driven out with their tails between their legs, their conscripts refused to even fight in the end. Yet they achieved their mission of punishing a third world country for resisting. That region is badly messed up and will be for some time.

[bolshevik butcher]

The U$ lost due to attrition, they couldn't afford to take any more losses, where as the Viet Cong were fighting for freedom the U$ were just a bunch of imperia$ts fighting in a distant land.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:48 AM
in all technicallities, how can someone "win" a war? in any outcome of a war, everyone loses
eh that's dissagreable. I see what your getting at but the outcome of a war is significant and sides do win, eg the vietcong won a united vietnam.

[Big Boss]

The Vietcog did in fact won the conflict. They lost an inmense number of good soldiers who were giving their lives to fight against the imperialist invader. They won their freedom but it all changes with time and Vietnam is not looking good now. There is a side that wins and another one that fails during a war, the loss of both sides is the human cost. Also, I don't blame the veterans at all because they were doing what their goverment told them to do. Damn imperialistic coutry that uses it's soldiers and citizens to carry out genocide and acts of invasion against countries that have a different ideology!!

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 04:48 AM
in all technicallities, how can someone "win" a war? in any outcome of a war, everyone loses
The capitalists usually win big.

[Urban Rubble]

The US lost militarily.

That's not true. The U.S won the majority of the battles. They even inflicted more casualties during the Tet offensive than the VietCong.

But you're right about the ARVN soldiers, they pretty much refused to fight the whole time. Half of them were VC spies.

[PRC-UTE]

That's not true. The U.S won the majority of the battles. They even inflicted more casualties during the Tet offensive than the VietCong.


Well by that standard you could say that Washington's Continental Army lost their war for independence. The Redcoats won most of the battles and the CA took more casualities.

The PLA/NLF defeated the US strategy of normalisation (shifting the weight of the occupation to pro-US natives). The US literally could not sustain a campaign and were forced out, no matter how many individual battles they won.

Also, according to Noam Chomsky, 'VietCong' is actually an insult, but I don't speak Vietnamese and woudln't know for sure. I've heard that the forces fighting for independence used the title 'people's liberation army' and 'national liberation front'.

[RedFlagOverTrenton]

NLF was the name used by the South Vietnamese guerilla forces fighting against the Saigon government, or in other words, the irregular guerilla forces originating mostly IN south vietnam. The PLA was the regular army of the North, if I'm not mistaken. They were seperate organizations, though fighting with each other for a common purpose.

[RedFlagOverTrenton]

Oh, and Vietcong meant "Vietnamese Communist" or something like that. It was used disparagingly, implying that the NLF freedom fighters were Soviet or Chinese communist pawns.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 11 2005, 06:05 PM

The US lost militarily.

That's not true. The U.S won the majority of the battles. They even inflicted more casualties during the Tet offensive than the VietCong.

That is true, but the Tet offensive was a psychological victory on the Viet Cong's part.

And militarily also it was very sound, it took weeks upon weeks for the United States and South Vietnamese soldiers to retake all of the captured points from the Viet Cong.


Just as the war in Iraq is today, Vietnam was a war that could not be won by the United States, no matter how hard they tried.

[PRC-UTE]

RedFlagOverTrenton - thanks for the info. ;)

[Urban Rubble]

Well by that standard you could say that Washington's Continental Army lost their war for independence. The Redcoats won most of the battles and the CA took more casualities.

I didn't say they lost the war. The North obtained their desired outcome, a unified Vietnam. The U.S failed to acheive their outcome, a Capitalist South Vietnam. However, when you use the term "militarily" that implies something more than the overall war. The North won for alot of reasons that I won't go into, but the main reason they won is because they had 200,000 kids per year turning legal for the draft and they were all ready to die to win. The North would have never given up, the U.S realized that they'd have to level the entire country. In the end, military might had little to do with it. But the fact remains, militarily speaking, the U.S was ahead.


The PLA/NLF defeated the US strategy of normalisation (shifting the weight of the occupation to pro-US natives). The US literally could not sustain a campaign and were forced out, no matter how many individual battles they won.

Yes, I never said otherwise. By the end of the war the South's ARVN was about half Vietcong double agents. That's what I mean by when I say that they won the war by other means than military strength. They won because they had the support of 80% of the country.


Also, according to Noam Chomsky, 'VietCong' is actually an insult, but I don't speak Vietnamese and woudln't know for sure. I've heard that the forces fighting for independence used the title 'people's liberation army' and 'national liberation front'.

It's not really an insult.

During the French War and the war with the Japanese (when U.S OSS officers were training Ho and his crew) they called themselves the Vietminh (I can't remember the meaning of that). After the French war ended and the country was divided, the U.S war picked up steam. The Vietminh resurfaced as the main insurgencey south of the line. The Diem government in the South didn't like the positive memories from the victory over the French connected with the current insurgencey, so he orded them to be called the Vietcong (Vietnamese Communist). It was kind of gradually accepted, even by alot of the "Vietcong" themselves.




That is true, but the Tet offensive was a psychological victory on the Viet Cong's part.

Yeah, it was the turning point back at home for the anti war movement.


And militarily also it was very sound, it took weeks upon weeks for the United States and South Vietnamese soldiers to retake all of the captured points from the Viet Cong.

I never said the Vietcong weren't "sound". They were the most effective guerilla insurgencey the world has probably ever seen.

You guys do understand that there were two different groups fighting the U.S and the South right ? The Vietcong (or PLA/NLF) were the guerillas in the south. The NVA was the actual Northern Vietnamese army.

[Break the Chains]

I heard that the Americans had not really been defeated but more that they were fighting a losing battle, but I could be wrong this is just somthing I heard.
http://www.ezln.org/fotos/raul_ortega/08.jpg[QUOTE]Rise up in arms

[Wurkwurk]

The truth about it is that ARVN troops did the majority (but not the vast majority) of the fighting on the allied side. Both the Americans and the ARVN, when fighting a large number of NVA or Vietcong in places such as Ia Drang, Khe Sanh, of in the Tet Offensive, decimated the North Vietnamese with air power and fire-base tacticts 95% of the time. How many countless NVA lives where lost in human wave attacks against fire bases and fortified cities, I weep to tell.

But coming to guerilla warfare, the (unfortunatley) lesser half of the war, the NLF (Vietcong) had a distinct advantage. Usually major towns along rivers and along major highways and railways where under allied control, but in the marshes, the jungle away from the rivers, and in the highlands, the NLF reigned supreme. In the Mekong river delta, for example, only 60% of the population was under South Vietnamese control, even though the capital Saigon was less than a day's drive away. Coming to the central highlands and Cap Bac peninsula, the countryside was almost completely removed from allied control.

The US suffered few casualties when compared to North Vietnam: 58,500 Americans, 160,000 ARVN, and an estimated 1,000,000 NVA & NLF military casualties. They could have stayed in Vietnam if they wanted and held their Fire Bases and fortified towns for decades, if they had strong support. Thank God they did not. People where pissed off at a war that shouldn't have been fought, and politicians the ridiculous sums of money lost.

Militarily, the US (and to a lesser extent, the ARVN) dominated (as the high proportion of the war was not Guerilla warfare). Politically, the US and South Vietnam lost, both due to exaustion, lack of will, and lack of popular support. The only reason the North could wage a war since the Japanese occupation in WWII is the amazing popular support with the regular folk: an independent poll taked during the Second Indochina War (Vietnam War in less formal terms) showed that 80% of South Vietnamese supported Ho Chih Minh and supported the North. If it wasn't for such popular support, the North would have been crushed like a gnat.

Remember, it wasn't superior arms that won the day against America and South Vietnam, it was the consistent determination of the North (and communist South) Vietnamese. It was only in political terms that America lost.

Cheers,
Wurkwurk

P.S. Tet embodied the war in the sense that North Vietnam lost big time militarily, but America lost support-wise. Around 1,500 Americans, 4,000 ARVN, and 45,000 NVA where killed in the offensive, a North Vietnamese catastrophe in every sense of the word.