• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who won the Vietnam War?

Who won the Vietnam War?

  • The French

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The British

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The Americans

    Votes: 6 6.1%

  • The Canadians

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The Chinese

    Votes: 3 3.0%

  • The Russians

    Votes: 3 3.0%

  • The Japanese

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The Vietnamese

    Votes: 46 46.5%

  • No one

    Votes: 23 23.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 18 18.2%
  • Total voters
    99
March said:
It was a war and the Vietnamese totally won it.

Nobody could logically disagree with this statement: "The government of Vietnam won the war against the United States government."
Click to expand...

If they did win...you can thank the gutless democrats who started the nam war then didnt have the balls to allow us to win it...and let us die by the thousands why they pulled each others fingers....Nixon was elected and ended the nam war in 3 days by sending B52s to bomb hanoi...Lyndon Baines Johnson scum couldve done that years earlier and saved many american and vietnamese lives
 
lpast said:
If they did win...you can thank the gutless democrats who started the nam war then didnt have the balls to allow us to win it...and let us die by the thousands why they pulled each others fingers....Nixon was elected and ended the nam war in 3 days by sending B52s to bomb hanoi...Lyndon Baines Johnson scum couldve done that years earlier and saved many american and vietnamese lives
Click to expand...

We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than all of World War 2, so clearly that was also an ineffective strategy as well. I'm not sure that "winning" Vietnam was ever possible to begin with. At what point would you lay down your arms if a foreign country invaded the United States? Once they took D.C.? Would if they bomb the **** out of your cities, would that stop to you, or would you take to the countryside?

Think about this: Who has a greater interest in the conflict, the United States or the people who live there? Who has a greater will to win, a desire to fight to the death, no matter the costs financially or in lives? I know I'm not willing to bankrupt this country for Vietnam, nor am I willing to sacrifice Americans. I would gladly bankrupt this country for America though. What about you? Would you fight for Vietnam as selflessly as you would for America?

An inherent design flaw in every pro-war hawk always seems to be the inability to comprehend human nature or sociology. They don't seem to understand that wars are not won simply with guns. Insurgencies have the potential to last forever, until the end of occupation. In the end, they always fail to acknowledge the level of sacrifice necessary for victory. Would you sacrifice your sons? Daughters? Grandparents? Your life savings? Your house? Because the insurgents will. This is their home, they are literally fighting for their homes. What are you fighting for, your government?
 
March said:
We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than all of World War 2, so clearly that was also an ineffective strategy as well. I'm not sure that "winning" Vietnam was ever possible to begin with. At what point would you lay down your arms if a foreign country invaded the United States? Once they took D.C.? Would if they bomb the **** out of your cities, would that stop to you, or would you take to the countryside?

Think about this: Who has a greater interest in the conflict, the United States or the people who live there? Who has a greater will to win, a desire to fight to the death, no matter the costs financially or in lives? I know I'm not willing to bankrupt this country for Vietnam, nor am I willing to sacrifice Americans. I would gladly bankrupt this country for America though. What about you? Would you fight for Vietnam as selflessly as you would for America?

An inherent design flaw in every pro-war hawk always seems to be the inability to comprehend human nature or sociology. They don't seem to understand that wars are not won simply with guns. Insurgencies have the potential to last forever, until the end of occupation. In the end, they always fail to acknowledge the level of sacrifice necessary for victory. Would you sacrifice your sons? Daughters? Grandparents? Your life savings? Your house? Because the insurgents will. This is their home, they are literally fighting for their homes. What are you fighting for, your government?
Click to expand...

And the Vietnamese have a LONG history of insurgencies against China in their history to draw inspiration from...
 
March said:
We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than all of World War 2, so clearly that was also an ineffective strategy as well. I'm not sure that "winning" Vietnam was ever possible to begin with. At what point would you lay down your arms if a foreign country invaded the United States? Once they took D.C.? Would if they bomb the **** out of your cities, would that stop to you, or would you take to the countryside?

Think about this: Who has a greater interest in the conflict, the United States or the people who live there? Who has a greater will to win, a desire to fight to the death, no matter the costs financially or in lives? I know I'm not willing to bankrupt this country for Vietnam, nor am I willing to sacrifice Americans. I would gladly bankrupt this country for America though. What about you? Would you fight for Vietnam as selflessly as you would for America?

An inherent design flaw in every pro-war hawk always seems to be the inability to comprehend human nature or sociology. They don't seem to understand that wars are not won simply with guns. Insurgencies have the potential to last forever, until the end of occupation. In the end, they always fail to acknowledge the level of sacrifice necessary for victory. Would you sacrifice your sons? Daughters? Grandparents? Your life savings? Your house? Because the insurgents will. This is their home, they are literally fighting for their homes. What are you fighting for, your government?
Click to expand...

March your not even on the same page as me. Bombing Hanoi the enemy base stopped the vietnam war in 3 days

December 26, 1972 - North Vietnam agrees to resume peace negotiations within five days of the end of bombing.

The History Place - Vietnam War 1969-1975
 
apdst said:
And, what is a war?

What part of, "from a tactical point of view", don't you get?
Click to expand...

That's precisely it. You don't win WARS from a tactical point of view. You win BATTLES. Wars are won on the strategic level. Wars are won when political objectives are achieved. If you can win every battle, but you don't achieve your political objectives, then winning battles is useless.

Winning battles doesn't mean you win the war. Victory in war is not determined by a tally of who won more battles. It is determined by who achieved their strategic/political objectives. We sure as hell did not achieve our political objectives in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese did.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
That's precisely it. You don't win WARS from a tactical point of view. You win BATTLES. Wars are won on the strategic level. Wars are won when political objectives are achieved. If you can win every battle, but you don't achieve your political objectives, then winning battles is useless.

Winning battles doesn't mean you win the war. Victory in war is not determined by a tally of who won more battles.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right.

The Vietnam "war" was but a battle in the war against Communism. The United States won the Vietnam war when the North Vietnamese sued for peace during the Christmas Bombing (Linebacker II). The United States won the strategic war against Communism when the Soviet Union fell apart.

Bottom line: We won.
 
a777pilot said:
That's exactly right.

The Vietnam "war" was but a battle in the war against Communism. The United States won the Vietnam war when the North Vietnamese sued for peace during the Christmas Bombing (Linebacker II). The United States won the strategic war against Communism when the Soviet Union fell apart.

Bottom line: We won.
Click to expand...

The Cold War, sure.
 
a777pilot said:
That's exactly right.

The Vietnam "war" was but a battle in the war against Communism. The United States won the Vietnam war when the North Vietnamese sued for peace during the Christmas Bombing (Linebacker II). The United States won the strategic war against Communism when the Soviet Union fell apart.

Bottom line: We won.
Click to expand...

Thats a viewpoint Ive never put together. Sounds about right to me, lets not forget the end result Reagan breaking down the berlin wall.
 
lpast said:
Thats a viewpoint Ive never put together. Sounds about right to me, lets not forget the end result Reagan breaking down the berlin wall.
Click to expand...

It was Germans who broke down the Wall. I have tremendous respect for Reagan, but let's get real here...
 
StillBallin75 said:
It was Germans who broke down the Wall. I have tremendous respect for Reagan, but let's get real here...
Click to expand...

So you dont think reagan had anything to do with the wall coming down ?
 
StillBallin75 said:
It was Germans who broke down the Wall. I have tremendous respect for Reagan, but let's get real here...
Click to expand...

You think Regan's Speech didn't help encourage them. Regan's spending which force the USSR to try and match us dollar for dollar weaken them and weaken there hold on Germany and the Warsaw pact countries. One of many reasons the why the soviets didn't retaliate against the east Germans like they did to the Hungarians during there rebellion. Regan had a lot to do with that Wall coming down.
 
lpast said:
So you dont think reagan had anything to do with the wall coming down?
Click to expand...

cpgrad08 said:
You think Regan's Speech didn't help encourage them. Regan's spending which force the USSR to try and match us dollar for dollar weaken them and weaken there hold on Germany and the Warsaw pact countries. One of many reasons the why the soviets didn't retaliate against the east Germans like they did to the Hungarians during there rebellion. Regan had a lot to do with that Wall coming down.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe Reagan had SOMETHING to do with the wall coming down. Did HE tear it down? No. Was he even the main reason the wall came down? Not remotely. The wall came down due to a chain of events, a series of missteps taken by the East German leadership. Saying "Reagan tore the wall down" is giving him entirely too much credit while diminishing the role of others.

Berlin Wall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Günter Schabowski, a spokesperson for the politburo, had the task of announcing this; however he had not been involved in the discussions about the new regulations and had not been fully updated.[65] Shortly before a press conference on 9 November, he was handed a note that said that East Berliners would be allowed to cross the border with proper permission but given no further instructions on how to handle the information. These regulations had only been completed a few hours earlier and were to take effect the following day, so as to allow time to inform the border guards — however, nobody had informed Schabowski. He read the note out loud at the end of the conference. When the Italian journalist Riccardo Ehrman, the Berlin correspondent of ANSA newsagency, asked when the regulations would come into effect, Schabowski assumed it would be the same day based on the wording of the note and replied "As far as I know effective immediately, without delay". After further questions from journalists he confirmed that the regulations included the border crossings towards West Berlin, which he had not mentioned until then.[66]

Walking through Checkpoint Charlie, 10 November 1989Soon afterwards, a West German television channel, ARD, broadcast incomplete information from Schabowski's press conference. A moderator stated: "This ninth of November is a historic day." "East Germany has announced that, starting immediately, its borders are open to everyone."[65]

After hearing the broadcast, East Germans began gathering at the wall, demanding that border guards immediately open its gates.[65] The surprised and overwhelmed guards made many hectic telephone calls to their superiors about the problem, but it became clear that no one among the East German authorities would take personal responsibility for issuing orders to use lethal force, so the vastly outnumbered soldiers had no way to hold back the huge crowd of East German citizens. In face of the growing crowd, the guards finally yielded, opening the checkpoints and allowing people through with little or no identity checking. Ecstatic East Berliners were soon greeted by West Berliners on the other side in a celebratory atmosphere.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
Yes, I believe Reagan had SOMETHING to do with the wall coming down. Did HE tear it down? No. Was he even the main reason the wall came down? Not remotely. The wall came down due to a chain of events, a series of missteps taken by the East German leadership. Saying "Reagan tore the wall down" is giving him entirely too much credit while diminishing the role of others.

Berlin Wall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Just like anything else Politics there are conflicting views on this. Some say reagan and his polices were instrumental and some wont admit it
 
lpast said:
Just like anything else Politics there are conflicting views on this. Some say reagan and his polices were instrumental and some wont admit it
Click to expand...

I believe that some of Reagan's policies were instrumental in ending the Cold War. I also believe that Americans generally don't give enough credit to Gorbachev for his role.

With respect to just the Berlin Wall, a good speech might have some effect on people, but it was ultimately not the main reason the Wall came down.
 
a777pilot said:
That's exactly right.

The Vietnam "war" was but a battle in the war against Communism. The United States won the Vietnam war when the North Vietnamese sued for peace during the Christmas Bombing (Linebacker II). The United States won the strategic war against Communism when the Soviet Union fell apart.

Bottom line: We won.
Click to expand...
[emphasis by bubba]

that post tells me how long you have been drinking the kool aid

there is no way in hell that we won that war ... the first of a string of military engagements in which we should never have been present in the first place
 
You might want to go back and research the effects of Linebacker II. We had the NV on their knees begging for us to stop. They sued for peace. We won.

After just three days all their air force was grounded. All their AA missiles were gone and they would not dare turn on their radars. Their harbors were closed and mined. All their oil stores was gone. Their logistical contacts with the Chinese were gone. The USAF and Navy aircraft were in total and complete domination of the skys. At one point even the Air Force generals were saying there were no more targets of value to hit, with the exception of the dikes. That would have just caused massive civilian casualties. I've talked to some of the POWs that were there during Linebacker II. They know.....We won!


Read your history. We won.
 
a777pilot said:
You might want to go back and research the effects of Linebacker II. We had the NV on their knees begging for us to stop. They sued for peace. We won.

After just three days all their air force was grounded. All their AA missiles were gone and they would not dare turn on their radars. Their harbors were closed and mined. All their oil stores was gone. Their logistical contacts with the Chinese were gone. The USAF and Navy aircraft were in total and complete domination of the skys. At one point even the Air Force generals were saying there were no more targets of value to hit, with the exception of the dikes. That would have just caused massive civilian casualties. I've talked to some of the POWs that were there during Linebacker II. They know.....We won!


Read your history. We won.
Click to expand...

What did we win?
 
a777pilot said:
You might want to go back and research the effects of Linebacker II. We had the NV on their knees begging for us to stop. They sued for peace. We won.

After just three days all their air force was grounded. All their AA missiles were gone and they would not dare turn on their radars. Their harbors were closed and mined. All their oil stores was gone. Their logistical contacts with the Chinese were gone. The USAF and Navy aircraft were in total and complete domination of the skys. At one point even the Air Force generals were saying there were no more targets of value to hit, with the exception of the dikes. That would have just caused massive civilian casualties. I've talked to some of the POWs that were there during Linebacker II. They know.....We won!


Read your history. We won.
Click to expand...

I know plenty of South Vietnamese, and many Vietnamese refugees, who would disagree...
 
The Vietnam war was won on the streets of America.

The VC and NVA lost every battle when they stood and fought against the US.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I know plenty of South Vietnamese, and many Vietnamese refugees, who would disagree...
Click to expand...

That accounts for what exactly ? I know plenty of mexicans that believe the USA is just a suburb of mexico
 
lpast said:
That accounts for what exactly ? I know plenty of mexicans that believe the USA is just a suburb of mexico
Click to expand...

How exactly did we win in Vietnam? We certainly weren't able to impose a pro-American regime throughout both North and South. We didn't "roll back" Communism. We achieved few, if any, political objectives that our leaders set out to achieve when we first became involved in Vietnam. What precisely did we win? Bombing the enemy into submission doesn't really mean anything if they are still able to cross the DMZ and take over the whole damn country...
 
StillBallin75 said:
How exactly did we win in Vietnam? We certainly weren't able to impose a pro-American regime throughout both North and South. We didn't "roll back" Communism. We achieved few, if any, political objectives that our leaders set out to achieve when we first became involved in Vietnam. What precisely did we win? Bombing the enemy into submission doesn't really mean anything if they are still able to cross the DMZ and take over the whole damn country...
Click to expand...

Everyone loses in war but the definition of win is when the enemy quits and the NV quit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom