• 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
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.
happen to be personally familiar with the blackbirds and the taking out of targets in the north (and south)
but despite the ability to pound physical targets, we lost the war
we did not have the support of the people
the enemy outlasted us
we then declared victory and ran like hell
abandoning those indigenous citizens who had exposed themselves by being our allies
to insist we won is quite pathetic
history tells us we clearly lost that war - one which should never have been fought

history tells us that on april 30, 1975, the vietnam war ended with the capture of saigon by communist forces and the surrender of general duong vanh minh and his cabinet in the presidential palace

if you need further indication of which side won, do you really think any but the communists would have renamed saigon ho chi minh city



one lesson of that war, still not learned by us, is that we at one time provided military support to the viet minh, to later become our enemy
they subsequently used their lessons in military tactics we taught them to great advantage against us
 
How did they quit...seems to me like we quit by leaving.

The war was won hands down by the weapons manufacturers and arms suppliers. Same winners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
 
Reagan didn't bring down the Berlin wall or end the cold war, Gorbachev did.
 
The war was won hands down by the weapons manufacturers and arms suppliers. Same winners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

that may be your opinion but its not fact. the vietnamese socialists won.
 
Post 229 buddy :)

lpast, this is the section that mattered to me:

April 23, 1975 - 100,000 NVA soldiers advance on Saigon which is now overflowing with refugees. On this same day, President Ford gives a speech at Tulane University stating the conflict in Vietnam is "a war that is finished as far as America is concerned."

April 27, 1975 - Saigon is encircled. 30,000 South Vietnamese soldiers are inside the city but are leaderless. NVA fire rockets into downtown civilian areas as the city erupts into chaos and widespread looting.

April 28, 1975 - 'Neutralist' General Duong Van "Big" Minh becomes the new president of South Vietnam and appeals for a cease-fire. His appeal is ignored.

April 29, 1975 - NVA shell Tan Son Nhut air base in Saigon, killing two U.S. Marines at the compound gate. Conditions then deteriorate as South Vietnamese civilians loot the air base. President Ford now orders Operation Frequent Wind, the helicopter evacuation of 7000 Americans and South Vietnamese from Saigon, which begins with the radio broadcast of the song "White Christmas" as a pre-arraigned code signal.

At Tan Son Nhut, frantic civilians begin swarming the helicopters. The evacuation is then shifted to the walled-in American embassy, which is secured by U.S. Marines in full combat gear. But the scene there also deteriorates, as thousands of civilians attempt to get into the compound.

Three U.S. aircraft carriers stand by off the coast of Vietnam to handle incoming Americans and South Vietnamese refugees. Many South Vietnamese pilots also land on the carriers, flying American-made helicopters which are then pushed overboard to make room for more arrivals. Filmed footage of the $250,000 choppers being tossed into the sea becomes an enduring image of the war's end.

April 30, 1975 - At 8:35 a.m., the last Americans, ten Marines from the embassy, depart Saigon, concluding the United States presence in Vietnam. North Vietnamese troops pour into Saigon and encounter little resistance. By 11 a.m., the red and blue Viet Cong flag flies from the presidential palace. President Minh broadcasts a message of unconditional surrender. The war is over.

I don't see anywhere in that timeline that indicates that the North gave up, and that the US didn't. We withdrew from Vietnam without reunifying it under a Pro-US regime. That sounds like giving up to me. The North reunited Vietnam under a Communist regime. It sounds like the Vietnam War was a military victory for them, where exactly did they "give up"?
 
happen to be personally familiar with the blackbirds and the taking out of targets in the north (and south)
but despite the ability to pound physical targets, we lost the war
we did not have the support of the people
the enemy outlasted us
we then declared victory and ran like hell
abandoning those indigenous citizens who had exposed themselves by being our allies
to insist we won is quite pathetic
history tells us we clearly lost that war - one which should never have been fought

history tells us that on april 30, 1975, the vietnam war ended with the capture of saigon by communist forces and the surrender of general duong vanh minh and his cabinet in the presidential palace

if you need further indication of which side won, do you really think any but the communists would have renamed saigon ho chi minh city



one lesson of that war, still not learned by us, is that we at one time provided military support to the viet minh, to later become our enemy
they subsequently used their lessons in military tactics we taught them to great advantage against us

Now, ask yourself why the US did not support the South with massive air and naval forces in 1975 as we did in 1972, i.e., Linebacker I?

The Democrats wanted the South to loose, so they, as is the tradition of the Democrats, stabbed the South in the back, with the passage of the Case-Church Amendment, then said, "See, they lost. We told you they would loose."

The Democrats made sure the South would loose but the USA did not.
 
Now, ask yourself why the US did not support the South with massive air and naval forces in 1975 as we did in 1972, i.e., Linebacker I?

The Democrats wanted the South to loose, so they, as is the tradition of the Democrats, stabbed the South in the back, with the passage of the Case-Church Amendment, then said, "See, they lost. We told you they would loose."

The Democrats made sure the South would loose but the USA did not.

where the **** did u hear this story?
 
Now, ask yourself why the US did not support the South with massive air and naval forces in 1975 as we did in 1972, i.e., Linebacker I?

The Democrats wanted the South to loose, so they, as is the tradition of the Democrats, stabbed the South in the back, with the passage of the Case-Church Amendment, then said, "See, they lost. We told you they would loose."

The Democrats made sure the South would loose but the USA did not.

This is a very narrow view of war and victory. You can blame democrats/liberals/media/hippies, for losing the war. That's fine, if that's your opinion. But there is absolutely no way that the United States "won" in Vietnam. In the end we reached none of the objectives that we set for ourselves when we decided to become involved in Vietnam, despite winning every significant tactical engagement. In short, we did not achieve (even remotely) anything that we set out to do when we first got involved in Vietnam. That is not the definition of victory in war.
 
Last edited:
"Strategic retreat" is merely a bull**** PC synonym for "we got the **** outta there" because the NVA was taking over Saigon.

Call it what you want. It still saved thousands of casualties, and that was what really counted, especially if you were one of them.

ricksfolly
 
honestly, America didnt 'lose' the vietnam war because we never had anything TO lose. we werent a key player, we were merely an annoyance to the NVA and a staller of the inevitable. we didnt lose anything in vietnam except human capital which the government doesnt give two ****s about. we made money. thats the bottom line, we didnt lose we just made money.

THAT BEING SAID, we didnt 'win' either.
 
Last edited:
Vietnam wasn't a war - it was a police action. At least as far as the U.S.'s involvement.

Surely you jest....58000 Americans were slaughtered for no apparent reason and you have the gall to claim it wasnt a war? You are very naive.
 
Call it what you want. It still saved thousands of casualties, and that was what really counted, especially if you were one of them.

ricksfolly

you mean american causalities, and that is what really counted, right?
 
The question is who lost the War, and the answer is The Media starting with Walter Cronkite and of course the Politicians that would not let the Military win it.

Cronkite at the time the most trusted man in America reported the war was lost in 1068 and the political support went to hell after that. Thing was Walter based his report on the Tet Offensive that was surprise attacks all over South Vietnam. Thing is we beat back the Offensive and never lost a major Battle.
 
Surely you jest....58000 Americans were slaughtered for no apparent reason and you have the gall to claim it wasnt a war? You are very naive.

It was never declared, and so wasn't a war. Back in the '60s, the government didn't call it a war, but a "military action." It was an end run around the Constitution, which gives the power to declare war to Congress and not to the president.
 
It was never declared, and so wasn't a war. Back in the '60s, the government didn't call it a war, but a "military action." It was an end run around the Constitution, which gives the power to declare war to Congress and not to the president.

In reality it was a war. Doesn't matter that Congress decided not to officially declare it a war. In realistic terms, for all intents and purposes, it was a war. "military action" or "police action" are just PC bull**** terms.
 
Last edited:
I won the war, Because I just missed the draft and now I can go there, sit on the beach and for a couple of bucks they will bring me Gin and Tonic. I win.
 
In reality it was a war. Doesn't matter that Congress decided not to officially declare it a war. In realistic terms, for all intents and purposes, it was a war. "military action" or "police action" are just PC bull**** terms.

Agreed, and yet it was not considered proper or patriotic to refer to it as a "war" back when it was going on. It was not officially a war at the time.

End runs around the Constitution often involve "PC bull**** terms." there are lots of examples of calling something by a new name in order to get around a law.

Why were the captives in the war in Iraq referred to as "enemy combatants" instead of "prisoners of war" if it was a war?
 
Agreed, and yet it was not considered proper or patriotic to refer to it as a "war" back when it was going on. It was not officially a war at the time.

End runs around the Constitution often involve "PC bull**** terms." there are lots of examples of calling something by a new name in order to get around a law.

Why were the captives in the war in Iraq referred to as "enemy combatants" instead of "prisoners of war" if it was a war?

I agree. Same reason. Just because the war is fought against an unconventional enemy, Presidential administrations think they have the right to bend the rules a little bit.
 
Back
Top Bottom