@lsh......Why cant you accept that the USA lost the Vietnam War? Alot of people say It was a defeat for the States. Are you catching my drift?Vilot_Hero
I think you need to make your own arguments, and actually read what I posted. :|
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]@lsh......Why cant you accept that the USA lost the Vietnam War? Alot of people say It was a defeat for the States. Are you catching my drift?The_Ish
I think you need to make your own arguments, and actually read what I posted. :|
Or you can just accept that the States lost:| The USA may of won several of the battles, but they still failed their objective. Which would cause a defeat. Alright?[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]@lsh......Why cant you accept that the USA lost the Vietnam War? Alot of people say It was a defeat for the States. Are you catching my drift?Vilot_Hero
I think you need to make your own arguments, and actually read what I posted. :|
Or you can just accept that the States lost:| The USA may of won several of the battles, but they still failed their objective. Which would cause a defeat. Alright?lol, no. You obviously just skimmed my points, and you were hoping to ride on Jointed's work to look like you knew something after you bailed the thread. If you want to make a meaningful argument, respond to the points I made earlier. Otherwise, good game.
[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]@lsh......Why cant you accept that the USA lost the Vietnam War? Alot of people say It was a defeat for the States. Are you catching my drift?The_Ish
I think you need to make your own arguments, and actually read what I posted. :|
Or you can just accept that the States lost:| The USA may of won several of the battles, but they still failed their objective. Which would cause a defeat. Alright?lol, no. You obviously just skimmed my points, and you were hoping to ride on Jointed's work to look like you knew something after you bailed the thread. If you want to make a meaningful argument, respond to the points I made earlier. Otherwise, good game.
I had to bail because I needed to study for a chemistry test:| And I gave facts in the form of the wiki links. Good game indeed(USA lost...That's all dude).Sounds like a good deal to me. Over the last decade or so, America has had free reign over the world and has done pretty much whatever it wanted. But now that is changing, I hope that we can get back to a time where there was a balance of power in the world between the east and west. Now with the rise of India and China, and Russia now back, we might be able to get to that place.ElectronicMagic
Yeah, the Cold War was wonderful, wasn't it?
I had to bail because I needed to study for a chemistry test:| And I gave facts in the form of the wiki links. Good game indeed(USA lost...That's all dude).Vilot_Hero
Yes, and you needed to be on GS forums to be AFK. And I actually countered your point by showing you how your own link disagrees with you - good job.
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]Sounds like a good deal to me. Over the last decade or so, America has had free reign over the world and has done pretty much whatever it wanted. But now that is changing, I hope that we can get back to a time where there was a balance of power in the world between the east and west. Now with the rise of India and China, and Russia now back, we might be able to get to that place.Rhazakna
Yeah, the Cold War was wonderful, wasn't it?
It's the fact that the USA has been acting like the world police and were being all cocky. Im sure other country's would approve of that.[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]Sounds like a good deal to me. Over the last decade or so, America has had free reign over the world and has done pretty much whatever it wanted. But now that is changing, I hope that we can get back to a time where there was a balance of power in the world between the east and west. Now with the rise of India and China, and Russia now back, we might be able to get to that place.Rhazakna
Yeah, the Cold War was wonderful, wasn't it?
Depends on how you look at it.
[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]I had to bail because I needed to study for a chemistry test:| And I gave facts in the form of the wiki links. Good game indeed(USA lost...That's all dude).The_Ish
Yes, and you needed to be on GS forums to be AFK. And I actually countered your point by showing you how your own link disagrees with you - good job.
It was bloody defeat!!Alright? Why would history textbooks say that the Americans lost the Vietnam War? Unless they're false:roll:It was bloody defeat!!Alright? Why would history textbooks say that the Americans lost the Vietnam War? Unless there false they're:roll:Vilot_Hero
Exactly which sources? Because even by your own posted source, it doesn't say the US lost.
Either way, you havn't given a single argument towards making your point, and now your resorting to "They lost! Believe me!".
You've made some insubstantial claims, and you wern't ready to back them up.
[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]I had to bail because I needed to study for a chemistry test:| And I gave facts in the form of the wiki links. Good game indeed(USA lost...That's all dude).Vilot_Hero
Yes, and you needed to be on GS forums to be AFK. And I actually countered your point by showing you how your own link disagrees with you - good job.
It was bloody defeat!!Alright? Why would history textbooks say that the Americans lost the Vietnam War? Unless they're false:roll:The United States withdrew from the Vietnam War after a cease-fire was put in place.
Some time after the American withdrawal the North once again invaded the south and rapidly overran the country.
While not technically a defeat, it was the first war in which the US did not accomplish it's goals fully and the South was eventually defeated.
@lsh......Why cant you accept that the USA lost the Vietnam War? Alot of people say It was a defeat for the States. Are you catching my drift?Vilot_HeroThe politicians lost.....not the military.;)
[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"] It was bloody defeat!!Alright? Why would history textbooks say that the Americans lost the Vietnam War? Unless there false they're:roll:The_Ish
Exactly which sources? Because even by your own posted source, it doesn't say the US lost.
Either way, you havn't given a single argument towards making your point, and now your resorting to "They lost! Believe me!".
You've made some insubstantial claims, and you wern't ready to back them up.
So the Americans won the Vietnam War according to you?[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]@lsh......Why cant you accept that the USA lost the Vietnam War? Alot of people say It was a defeat for the States. Are you catching my drift?LJS9502_basicThe politicians lost.....not the military.;)That means the USA did not accomplish all their goals right? That would make it a defeat/loss.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]@lsh......Why cant you accept that the USA lost the Vietnam War? Alot of people say It was a defeat for the States. Are you catching my drift?Vilot_HeroThe politicians lost.....not the military.;)That means the USA did not accomplish all their goals right? That would make it a defeat/loss.No. That's not what it means.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]@lsh......Why cant you accept that the USA lost the Vietnam War? Alot of people say It was a defeat for the States. Are you catching my drift?Vilot_HeroThe politicians lost.....not the military.;)That means the USA did not accomplish all their goals right? That would make it a defeat/loss.
No, because the wider strategy was containment, which the US succeeded in. Otherwise about hald the developing world would be communist today.
[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]@lsh......Why cant you accept that the USA lost the Vietnam War? Alot of people say It was a defeat for the States. Are you catching my drift?LJS9502_basicThe politicians lost.....not the military.;)That means the USA did not accomplish all their goals right? That would make it a defeat/loss.No. That's not what it means. Im pretty sure it does:|
[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"] So the Americans won the Vietnam War according to you?The_Ish
Ever heard of a draw?
Yeah right. America retreated while there were still troops in the region.[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"] Yeah right. America retreated while there were still troops in the region.The_Ish
Thank you for magnifying your own ignorance on the matter, and for showing that you don't read your own sources. :lol:
Iv read my sources, but have you?[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"] Im pretty sure it does:|LJS9502_basicIt means the military accomplished their agenda.;)Yet the war was labeled as a defeat for America?
[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]Your close but missed the point a bit. The US and NATO (aka its b**ches) are putting missile defense systems on Russian borders, and even want to get Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. So what does Russia do? The exact same thing, get onto the US borders, a taste of its own medicine. There is a huge double standard in the world, because when the US does something it is fine, but when Russia does the same thing it is evil. Russia really doesn't take Chavez too seriously, but hey why not, given that the US is on the door step, Russia just wants to equalize.Guys, its all about oil.
And revenge.
The situation is this: Russia and the US made some sort of deal concerning a pipeline through Georgia. This was back before and during the Clinton administration. In short, Clinton screwed Russia on the deal but Russia was too busy dealing with post- Communism stuff to care about it. This is why there is the conflict now, and why the US is compelled to side with Georgia (fighting for independence, right...) and why Russia even bothered in the first place.
Now that Russia is an up-and-comer and entering the modern political economy, they feel wronged and now theyre seeking revenge. The best way to do this is via oil. So now Russia is going to Venezuela (they have oil) because Venezuela hates the US, and so does Russia, but Russia cant really say that so they have to come up with some excuse to side with the dude that hates the US so they can do it vicariously
just my two cents
Kuhu
Russia is not the super power they used to be, what they're doing now is just unecessary. They should just shut up and step in line just like all the other easter European nations.
You couldn't be more wrong, Russia wields a global influence, though not militarily, but economically. Comparing Russia to the rest of eastern European countries, is like comparing Canada to Mexico. Russia is immensely powerful, and it is the only country who can stand up to the US, and of which the US is afraid of. Like it or not it is true. The only reason the is no war with Iran right now is because Russia is backing Iran.Russia isn't powerful. Their economy and infrastructure is weak and their military is outdated. And just look at their population, 140 million. Are you kidding me? The EU alone is enough to deter Russia. The only reason they're taken seriously is because they've got nukes, but we all know that bargainingwith nukes is the same as political and international suicide.
Look, the only thing stopping Russia from taking over the entire Europe is NATO. Russia has the man power, it has the tech. Russia has very good allies, such as Syria, Iran, India,, well basically all of middle east would support Russia, except for Pakistan. How is 140 million a small population? Germany didn't have this much, and they waged a global war. Russia would cut all communications in Europe first, the eliminate power plants with missile or air strikes, and then let loose the bombers. No nukes necessary. Russia still has all the intel on western Europe, and all the invasion plant left over from the USSR. Germany knows it, France knows it, The UK knows it, but is too proud to admit it. If it wansn't for the US all of europe would be speaking Russian right now. Also lets not forget that Russian GDP is higher then that of CanadaWhen did this happen? :S
2006 apparently.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"] Im pretty sure it does:|Vilot_HeroIt means the military accomplished their agenda.;)Yet the war was labeled as a defeat for America?Not true....that's too simplistic of an answer dude.
[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"] Iv read my sources, but have you?The_Ish
Flat out lie.
Otherwise you wouldn't have made such a claim.
*sigh*Can you just accept that the States lost the Vietnam War? No one wants this to continue for 500 days.[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"] Im pretty sure it does:|LJS9502_basicIt means the military accomplished their agenda.;)Yet the war was labeled as a defeat for America?Not true....that's too simplistic of an answer dude.I think thats pretty concrete. Tell me where it was labeled as a victory for America?
[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]*sigh*Can you just accept that the States lost the Vietnam War? No one wants this to continue for 500 days.The_Ish
No, because it isn't true, and I won't just so you don't have to admit you were wrong.
Cmon dude. I bet most people would agree that the States failed their objective and was considered a failure/defeat.[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]Your close but missed the point a bit. The US and NATO (aka its b**ches) are putting missile defense systems on Russian borders, and even want to get Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. So what does Russia do? The exact same thing, get onto the US borders, a taste of its own medicine. There is a huge double standard in the world, because when the US does something it is fine, but when Russia does the same thing it is evil. Russia really doesn't take Chavez too seriously, but hey why not, given that the US is on the door step, Russia just wants to equalize.Guys, its all about oil.
And revenge.
The situation is this: Russia and the US made some sort of deal concerning a pipeline through Georgia. This was back before and during the Clinton administration. In short, Clinton screwed Russia on the deal but Russia was too busy dealing with post- Communism stuff to care about it. This is why there is the conflict now, and why the US is compelled to side with Georgia (fighting for independence, right...) and why Russia even bothered in the first place.
Now that Russia is an up-and-comer and entering the modern political economy, they feel wronged and now theyre seeking revenge. The best way to do this is via oil. So now Russia is going to Venezuela (they have oil) because Venezuela hates the US, and so does Russia, but Russia cant really say that so they have to come up with some excuse to side with the dude that hates the US so they can do it vicariously
just my two cents
muscleserge
Russia is not the super power they used to be, what they're doing now is just unecessary. They should just shut up and step in line just like all the other easter European nations.
You couldn't be more wrong, Russia wields a global influence, though not militarily, but economically. Comparing Russia to the rest of eastern European countries, is like comparing Canada to Mexico. Russia is immensely powerful, and it is the only country who can stand up to the US, and of which the US is afraid of. Like it or not it is true. The only reason the is no war with Iran right now is because Russia is backing Iran.Russia isn't powerful. Their economy and infrastructure is weak and their military is outdated. And just look at their population, 140 million. Are you kidding me? The EU alone is enough to deter Russia. The only reason they're taken seriously is because they've got nukes, but we all know that bargainingwith nukes is the same as political and international suicide.
Look, the only thing stopping Russia from taking over the entire Europe is NATO. Russia has the man power, it has the tech. Russia has very good allies, such as Syria, Iran, India,, well basically all of middle east would support Russia, except for Pakistan. How is 140 million a small population? Germany didn't have this much, and they waged a global war. Russia would cut all communications in Europe first, the eliminate power plants with missile or air strikes, and then let loose the bombers. No nukes necessary. Russia still has all the intel on western Europe, and all the invasion plant left over from the USSR. Germany knows it, France knows it, The UK knows it, but is too proud to admit it. If it wansn't for the US all of europe would be speaking Russian right now. Also lets not forget that Russian GDP is higher then that of CanadaRussia has conscripts. When they get called for training, 60% show up. Their reserve forces use weaponry from the 1950 and 60s. Their active army gets to play with some neat toys on occasion, but they have to sell plane rides to tourists to pay for gas. The majority of their new tanks had to have their barrels retrofitted to fire old WWII shells because its the only thing they had in surplus.
Allies? I dont think many people want Russia to be the big boy on the block, even compared to the US. Most people still remember what the Soviet Union was like, and how horrible it was. Syria and Iran? I think Israel can handle them all by themselves. India? Not with the deals they have with the West.
They do have a large army, but its just...old and spent. Like George Foreman or Muhamad Ali. if Russia wants to be a big player in the 21st century, it will not be done by flexing muscles. They gotta be smart. Not to sound cliche, but its almost like Russia is living in the past.
And sorry, but a larger GDP than Canada? With no insult to my northern brethren, is that supposed to be funny?
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"] Im pretty sure it does:|Vilot_HeroIt means the military accomplished their agenda.;)Yet the war was labeled as a defeat for America?Not true....that's too simplistic of an answer dude.I think thats pretty concrete. Tell me where it was labeled as a victory for America?It wasnt a loss, our military was still in tact and we accomplished our goals, it was a political defeat, which is far from a military defeat. We have never been militarily defeated.
[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]@lsh......Why cant you accept that the USA lost the Vietnam War? Alot of people say It was a defeat for the States. Are you catching my drift?The_Ish
I think you need to make your own arguments, and actually read what I posted. :|
Or you can just accept that the States lost:| The USA may of won several of the battles, but they still failed their objective. Which would cause a defeat. Alright?lol, no. You obviously just skimmed my points, and you were hoping to ride on Jointed's work to look like you knew something after you bailed the thread. If you want to make a meaningful argument, respond to the points I made earlier. Otherwise, good game.
What are you arguing about? Vietnam was widely regarded as a failure, even by most Americans. There is no reason to have to defend what we did, because much of our fears were justified.[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]*sigh*Can you just accept that the States lost the Vietnam War? No one wants this to continue for 500 days.Vilot_Hero
No, because it isn't true, and I won't just so you don't have to admit you were wrong.
Cmon dude. I bet most people would agree that the States failed their objective and was considered a failure/defeat.I guess the US also lost the War of 1812 because they failed to acheive Canada... :|I think thats pretty concrete. Tell me where it was labeled as a victory for America?Vilot_HeroAs I've stated twice now the military did not fail. Thus, it's incorrect to call it a defeat.:|
[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Cmon dude. I bet most people would agree that the States failed their objective and was considered a failure/defeat.The_Ish
Fallacious logic. That doesn't make it true.
Especially when your claim just now is baseless.
America invaded Vietnam. America stomps battles here and there. America pulls out. Defeat.I think this is pretty simple to understand.
[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]*sigh*Can you just accept that the States lost the Vietnam War? No one wants this to continue for 500 days.MattUD1
No, because it isn't true, and I won't just so you don't have to admit you were wrong.
Cmon dude. I bet most people would agree that the States failed their objective and was considered a failure/defeat.I guess the US also lost the War of 1812 because they failed to acheive Canada... :|Yes, It was a huge defeat for the Americans.[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"] I think thats pretty concrete. Tell me where it was labeled as a victory for America?LJS9502_basicAs I've stated twice now the military did not fail. Thus, it's incorrect to call it a defeat.:| But they still failed an objective right? All I'm saying is that America did not completely win, which would mean they were defeated(Lost the war).
[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Cmon dude. I bet most people would agree that the States failed their objective and was considered a failure/defeat.Vilot_Hero
Fallacious logic. That doesn't make it true.
Especially when your claim just now is baseless.
America invaded Vietnam. America stomps battles here and there. America pulls out. Defeat.I think this is pretty simple to understand.
Here and there? we killed them militarily, although we took alot of casualties comparatively it is minuscule,North Vietnam
Total dead: ~1,177,446
Total wounded: ~604,000+
US
Total dead 58,149
2000 missing and wounded.
I wish we could just nuke them, then what would he say!
CWEBB04z
er touche?
Nuclear holocaust isn't a good ides ;)
What are you arguing about? Vietnam was widely regarded as a failure, even by most Americans. There is no reason to have to defend what we did, because much of our fears were justified.helium_flash
He keeps arguing that the US lost to the Vietcong. That we somehow "lost" the Vietnam war. We didn't. Many Americans back then were against the war because they thought it was unjustified, not because we were losing.
[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]*sigh*Can you just accept that the States lost the Vietnam War? No one wants this to continue for 500 days.Vilot_Hero
No, because it isn't true, and I won't just so you don't have to admit you were wrong.
Cmon dude. I bet most people would agree that the States failed their objective and was considered a failure/defeat.I guess the US also lost the War of 1812 because they failed to acheive Canada... :|Yes, It was a huge defeat for the Americans.Which is funny because historians call it a tie... because both sides failed to acheive their goals... :|America invaded Vietnam. America stomps battles here and there. America pulls out. Defeat.
I think this is pretty simple to understand.
Vilot_Hero
Once again, you show your ignorance on the matter.
A ceasefire treay was made. Everyone agreed to pull their troops back. If America lost, then so did Vietnam. Does that make sense to you? Because by your own logic, thats the outcome.
[QUOTE="helium_flash"]What are you arguing about? Vietnam was widely regarded as a failure, even by most Americans. There is no reason to have to defend what we did, because much of our fears were justified.The_Ish
He keeps arguing that the US lost to the Vietcong. That we somehow "lost" the Vietnam war. We didn't. Many Americans back then were against the war because they thought it was unjustified, not because we were losing.
Because America did lose the war:|[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"] Im pretty sure it does:|UrbanSpartan125It means the military accomplished their agenda.;)Yet the war was labeled as a defeat for America?Not true....that's too simplistic of an answer dude.I think thats pretty concrete. Tell me where it was labeled as a victory for America?It wasnt a loss, our military was still in tact and we accomplished our goals, it was a political defeat, which is far from a military defeat. We have never been militarily defeated.
You realize that you can't divorce the two in counter-insurgency warfare, right? Our tactics during the Vietnam War were counterproductive and inherently flawed. Your assertion that we accomplished our goals is so wrong, so baseless, so ignorant that I really don't know what to say. We used body counts as a baseline assessment for progress in the country. In counter-insurgency warfare body count is all but irrelevant. The people are the center of gravity. The people either sustain the insurgency or exterminate it. Counter-insurgent operations need multiple dimensions. If you perceive it as a conventional war and perceive things in terms of statistics-this many dead, this many weapons, this many friendly casualties, you are going to lose, and we did.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"] I think thats pretty concrete. Tell me where it was labeled as a victory for America?Vilot_HeroAs I've stated twice now the military did not fail. Thus, it's incorrect to call it a defeat.:| But they still failed an objective right? All I'm saying is that America did not completely win, which would mean they were defeated(Lost the war).
They did not accomplish ALL of their objectives, they did complish a good many of them, INCLUDING, making North Vietnam stop the war. Hence the Cease-Fire and peace talks that the US withdrew after.
South Vietnam lost the war, not the US.
[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Cmon dude. I bet most people would agree that the States failed their objective and was considered a failure/defeat.UrbanSpartan125
Fallacious logic. That doesn't make it true.
Especially when your claim just now is baseless.
America invaded Vietnam. America stomps battles here and there. America pulls out. Defeat.I think this is pretty simple to understand.
Here and there? we killed them militarily, although we took alot of casualties comparatively it is minuscule,North Vietnam
Total dead: ~1,177,446
Total wounded: ~604,000+
US
Total dead 58,149
2000 missing and wounded.
Well I guess Germany won world war 2 since they killed more troops than they lost...
The US was defeated in Vietnam, its objective was to keep South Vietnam from turning Communist and what happened? North Vietnam took over the turned the place communist. You don't have to lose your whole military to be a defeat, if you don't achieve your objective, it's a defeat. By saying America was not defeated in Vietnam is the same as saying the Soviets were not defated in Afghanistan.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment