Who won the vietnam war?

[trumpet600]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

A little bit of sunday humour at the expense of our cousins over the pond

[Rob_F]

lol, class

Rob

[Simpo Two]

Contrary to popular belief, the US pulled out because popular opinion at home forced the politicians to rethink. It could have been won, but was not. Rather like the first Gulf War in fact.

However the image of beserk Marine junkies napalming little girls while the gallant VCs hide in tunnels has become the winner.

[Munter]

I'm sure you could do the same in the UK.

The OH couldn't name a country beginning with U for a minute. Ukraine was her eventual answer.

[rhinochopig]

Simpo Two said:

Contrary to popular belief, the US pulled out because popular opinion at home forced the politicians to rethink. It could have been won, but was not. Rather like the first Gulf War in fact.

However the image of beserk Marine junkies napalming little girls while the gallant VCs hide in tunnels has become the winner.

With respect, I have to disagree, America and Australia could never have "won" the Vietnam war. At nearly every level it was un-winnable.

[hot metal]

Seen this before ,hard to believe isn`t it?

[$nake eye$]

Munter said:

I'm sure you could do the same in the UK.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=w_mkwB9ayK4&feature=related

[plasticpig]

rhinochopig said:

Simpo Two said:

Contrary to popular belief, the US pulled out because popular opinion at home forced the politicians to rethink. It could have been won, but was not. Rather like the first Gulf War in fact.

However the image of beserk Marine junkies napalming little girls while the gallant VCs hide in tunnels has become the winner.

With respect, I have to disagree, America and Australia could never have "won" the Vietnam war. At nearly every level it was un-winnable.

It wasnt their war to win anyway. The war was between the Repulic of Vietanm and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. If the DRV werent communist the USA wouldnt have got involved.

[Pesty]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ONCrE4IoSsY&feat...

[rsv gone!]

rhinochopig said:

Simpo Two said:

Contrary to popular belief, the US pulled out because popular opinion at home forced the politicians to rethink. It could have been won, but was not. Rather like the first Gulf War in fact.

However the image of beserk Marine junkies napalming little girls while the gallant VCs hide in tunnels has become the winner.

With respect, I have to disagree, America and Australia could never have "won" the Vietnam war. At nearly every level it was un-winnable.

Depends on your definition of 'won'. With more time they could have made a bloody mess and ended with a similar situation to Iraq, with constant guerilla attacks. Worth considering that the Chinese were propping North Vietnam up, though.

With 60,000 dead Americans and around 2 million dead or unaccounted Vietnamese, nobody really won.

As Simpo says, USA lost the PR war. The way the USA treated its homecoming (retreating) troops was disgusting, though.

[Battenburg Bob]

The Vietnam war was the classic case of why Politicians should be shot at birth. US pilots were not allowed to attack air-to-air missile sites, enemy air bases, anti aircraft guns or anything else that threatened them. All targets were approved by the President himself.

The micro-management of the war by the White House led to the war going on for many years and made it un-winnable.

(As for the clip, go into any UK town and you'd get the same response. More and more people cant's even write their own names these days unless it's abbreviated into 'text' speak!)

[Nobody You Know]

Nobody won, but the innocent Vietnamese people lost

[JagLover]

rhinochopig said:

Simpo Two said:

Contrary to popular belief, the US pulled out because popular opinion at home forced the politicians to rethink. It could have been won, but was not. Rather like the first Gulf War in fact.

However the image of beserk Marine junkies napalming little girls while the gallant VCs hide in tunnels has become the winner.

With respect, I have to disagree, America and Australia could never have "won" the Vietnam war. At nearly every level it was un-winnable.

Of course they could have won it, it was a failure of political will, not military power.

[tinman0]

Chinese won.

[Eric Mc]

JagLover said:

rhinochopig said:

Simpo Two said:

Contrary to popular belief, the US pulled out because popular opinion at home forced the politicians to rethink. It could have been won, but was not. Rather like the first Gulf War in fact.

However the image of beserk Marine junkies napalming little girls while the gallant VCs hide in tunnels has become the winner.

With respect, I have to disagree, America and Australia could never have "won" the Vietnam war. At nearly every level it was un-winnable.

Of course they could have won it, it was a failure of political will, not military power.

The trouble with a war like this is that there was never a clearly defined notion of knowing what it meant to "win". The best wars are where the objective of the war is simple and understood by all those fighting. A common comment amongst US troops sent to Vietnam was "Why are we here?".

If the objectives aren't clear, then "winning" is impossible - because no one knows what "winning" actually means.

Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 11th January 15:44

[Kuroblack350]

There's an interesting book written by an American officer entitled something like 'Eating Soup with a Knife" which will explain a lot. It suggests that Countinsurgency warfare is like eating soup with a knife, messy and slow...

It basically compares and contrasts the British situation in Malaya, and the American situation in Vietnam - obviously with vastly different outcomes.

One of the key points is that the Americans 'lost' because their armed forces were unwilling to change and adapt to the situation. They had a huge miltary that was geared up for a WWII type ground war, guerilla (sp) warfare was unknown to them, and they had no answer to it whatsoever...

(Save for a few Cambodian rich special ops teams, that is)

The stats it puts out are mind blowing, such as the amount of rounds expended for the death of each enemy combatant - absolutely unreal.

Also, 'Vietnam - a War lost and Won' is a good, short summary of the war.

[havoc]

Eric Mc said:

JagLover said:

rhinochopig said:

Simpo Two said:

Contrary to popular belief, the US pulled out because popular opinion at home forced the politicians to rethink. It could have been won, but was not. Rather like the first Gulf War in fact.

However the image of beserk Marine junkies napalming little girls while the gallant VCs hide in tunnels has become the winner.

With respect, I have to disagree, America and Australia could never have "won" the Vietnam war. At nearly every level it was un-winnable.

Of course they could have won it, it was a failure of political will, not military power.

The trouble with a war like this is that there was never a clearly defined notion of knowing what it meant to "win". The best wars are where the objective of the war is simple and understood by all those fighting. A common comment amongst US troops sent to Vietnam was "Why are we here?".

If the objectives aren't clear, then "winning" is impossible - because no one knows what "winning" actually means.

The only way the US could have 'won' the war was by turning the North into one large crater. Even then, as said above, there would still be massive insurgency troubles in the South, so that would only have been a victory comparable to the current state of Iraq...which is to say pyrrhic at best.

Further, to turn the North into a crater would have required large scale deployment of nuclear ordnance which would have turned the US into an international pariah. So they'd have actually won that particular war but lost so much more.


In summary, I don't think the US could have 'won' that war...because too many of the people they were 'defending' didn't believe in what they were doing and didn't believe in / trust the US soldiers.

[tinman0]

Kuroblack350 said:

It basically compares and contrasts the British situation in Malaya, and the American situation in Vietnam - obviously with vastly different outcomes.

One of the key points is that the Americans 'lost' because their armed forces were unwilling to change and adapt to the situation. They had a huge miltary that was geared up for a WWII type ground war, guerilla (sp) warfare was unknown to them, and they had no answer to it whatsoever...

Apparently we offered the yanks a lot of material about jungle warfare at the time and it was turned down because they knew what they were doing.

[Gun]

You can't argue with the guy who thought Tony Blair was an actor though, he saw through him much faster than all those fools who voted him in!!

[Mr Dave]

The Aussies and Kiwis did manage to put in a bloody good account for themselves it has to be said.