• 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
I guess that's why the North Vietnamese used more Chinese weapons than Soviet weapons.

It's why the Chinese supplied the Khmer Rouge when the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia.
 
It's why the Chinese supplied the Khmer Rouge when the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia.

They were supplying weapons to the Khmer Rouge long before the Viets invaded Cambodia.
 
What apdst really means is defensive tactics and operations. In terms of grand strategy, occupying a foreign country can hardly be called a defensive action.

It's not. The best strategy might have been to have supported their indepence from france in the begining and made a partner, allowing a slow change without the blood shed and expense.
 
From a purely military sense, the United States won every battle and every tactical engagement. We didn't win "the war." If you're the New England Patriots and you win every regular season game, that perfect record doesn't mean **** if you lose to the Giants in the SuperBowl. So whether or not the US won in a military sense is irrelevant.

I think the better metaphor is they dominated the line of scrimmage, but lost the game. The distinction being the Pats winning out is impressive and on the record, but dominating the line of scrimmage in a single game is lost on everyone but the players as its not on the record.
 
They were supplying weapons to the Khmer Rouge long before the Viets invaded Cambodia.

Thats true but they were forced to pick a side when Indochina started to turn on itself and our "Domino theory" proved to be inaccruate, I've already explained that Vietnam was closer to Russia since it distrusted China's intentions in the region.
 
I think the better metaphor is they dominated the line of scrimmage, but lost the game. The distinction being the Pats winning out is impressive and on the record, but dominating the line of scrimmage in a single game is lost on everyone but the players as its not on the record.

Good one. I tried using a basketball metaphor but realized most people here aren't uber-basketball fans.
 
Instead of giving me one-liners how bout you actually tell me how winning in Vietnam would have done anything for America and Americans.

The question is: What is winning for America? What was the American objective? To stop Indochina from falling into Communism would require a long term commitment with bases in the area like Korea. So to claim that 7 years was long and resulted in more life lost than necessary appears bogus. To achieve that objective requires a permanent commitment much longer than 7 years.
 
The question is: What is winning for America? What was the American objective? To stop Indochina from falling into Communism would require a long term commitment with bases in the area like Korea. So to claim that 7 years was long and resulted in more life lost than necessary appears bogus. To achieve that objective requires a permanent commitment much longer than 7 years.

All that is true, in addition to assuming that stopping Indochina from falling to Communism was a worthy cause for Americans to lay their lives on the line.
 
They were supplying weapons to the Khmer Rouge long before the Viets invaded Cambodia.

And they continued to do that when the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia. While the USSR supported the Vietnamese. Shows you that the relationship between Vietnam and China is not as close as you implied. China was very much afraid of Vietnam competing with it for power in the region, not to mention their squabble about land that continues to this day.
 
Thats true but they were forced to pick a side when Indochina started to turn on itself and our "Domino theory" proved to be inaccruate, I've already explained that Vietnam was closer to Russia since it distrusted China's intentions in the region.

True dat, so now we're comparing apples to oranges. Yes?
 
It can, it just doesn't always work. Sure as hell worked during the Revolutionary War.

The Colonial Army fought a defensive strategy? Never knew that. Got anything to back it up?
 
Liberals/Media war policies and rules lost us the war and dragged it out for 7 years killing more American lives, pure and simple.
How about that it was a bull**** war started over bull**** reasons that should never have been started? You don't think maybe that had something to do with why there was so much anti-war sentiment and such little support in the media?
 
The Colonial Army fought a defensive strategy? Never knew that. Got anything to back it up?

The very nature of the Revolutionary War was defensive. We were on our home turf fighting off a British colonial occupation and invading forces. That in and of itself is defensive strategy, regardless of what kind of tactics we used.
 
The question is: What is winning for America? What was the American objective? To stop Indochina from falling into Communism would require a long term commitment with bases in the area like Korea. So to claim that 7 years was long and resulted in more life lost than necessary appears bogus. To achieve that objective requires a permanent commitment much longer than 7 years.

Correct that was our objective. But the whole reason for entering into the Vietnam war was to stop it. If we completely beat the northern Vietnamese, communism would have been eliminated in this "whole" region of indochina ( which only comprises of Vietnam and Laos)( Cambodia was a constitutional monarchy). If Vietnam went down the threat would have been eliminated. That's why we entered in the first place.
 
Feel free to condemn JFK at any time then.

How about that it was a bull**** war started over bull**** reasons that should never have been started? You don't think maybe that had something to do with why there was so much anti-war sentiment and such little support in the media?
 
This question was brought up in another thread about Libya which I don't want to derail any further; but I find it interesting. It appears that many people have a different perspective and I find it funny. So please, cast your vote and if you are enclined explain your choice.

I have voted the Vietnamese. The goal of their war was to reunite Vietnam and it was achieved.

Without question the Vietnamese won the Vietnam War(s).
 
True dat, so now we're comparing apples to oranges. Yes?

I don't even understand what thats supposed to mean... but back on topic. Would you not agree that the lasting situation in South East Asia is much closer to Vietnam's war goals than any other country's? And that the Vietnam War, meaning here the period of American involvement, was part of a much larger South Vietnam conflict going all the way back to the Japanese followed by the return of the French to the Americans to the war between Vietnam and China to the war between Cambodia which didn't end until a cease fire was signed in 1989 and a peace treaty in 1991.

North Vietnam in this time succeeded in defeating the French, and through inflicting heavy loses and a little diplomatic trickery get the US to leave, then forcibly reunite Vietnam, then at the same time defeat China on its northern border and conquer Cambodia.

The American part of the war was only stage to the Vietnamese they perceive this conflict as something much bigger than we normally do.

But I do agree that political leadership in the US was weak, the American public was not entirely behind the war, and the US military never lost a battle which it was engaged in during Vietnam. As Nixon put it "We won the war, but lost the peace."
 
Correct that was our objective. But the whole reason for entering into the Vietnam war was to stop it. If we completely beat the northern Vietnamese, communism would have been eliminated in this "whole" region of indochina ( which only comprises of Vietnam and Laos)( Cambodia was a constitutional monarchy). If Vietnam went down the threat would have been eliminated. That's why we entered in the first place.

I don't entirely agree, but that's another matter. The real question is whether or not stopping Communism in Southeast Asia a worthy goal at all to begin with. I fail to see how Communism in Indochina was a direct threat to the lives or safety of Americans, which in my opinion is the only sound justification for military intervention in another part of the world (unless it's a UN humanitarian peacekeeping mission like the Sudan or Congo).
 
Last edited:
The Colonial Army fought a defensive strategy? Never knew that. Got anything to back it up?

Invasion of Canada (1775) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh....

The American Revolution was in no way defensive, in fact it was the exact opposite. The powerbase of the Revolution was New England and from there we spread North, West, and South. After the US pushed Britian out of most of New England they decided to turn to the South and that is where most of the southern militias fought their battles, but it was hardly a defensive war since we were forcibly pushing them out of the colonial borders and really as far as we could push them. Remember at that time there weren't "13 colonies" there were just "the colonies" as far as the British were concerned there wasn't much difference between the colonies of Canada and those of what would be the future United States or those of the Caribbean.
 
Back
Top Bottom