Second indochinese war, AKA, Vietnam War

[Chenier]

Technically Vietnam was a military victory, and a political defeat. The Vietcong were no longer an effective fighting force after the Tet offensive.

A defeated force that continues to manage to repel the viet minh is defeated? Despite ongoing illegal US bombing following the official retreat?

Victory depends on what you set as your objectives. The objectives here were to prevent the viet cong from forming a government. This obviously failed.

The only thing the US achieved was killing a lot of innocents and poisoning generations with their outright criminal use of chemicals.

If you want to talk about this in detail, Chenier, please make a thread for it. I'm not going to go in-depth about what was wrong with your statements in this thread, because that would be off-topic.

Anyways, I wonder what Asylon's relationship with Kabrinskia will turn out to be in the next few months.

Umm sorry to dredge this up again... But Vietnam was hardly beaten after the war with the states... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

They had a war with China in 1979....


We do speak with Kabrinskia and Terran ever so often, mainly though Asylon only has time to maintain its huge kingdom and massive gold and food, our nobles are also too many to count at times so we spend hours doing headcounts and it takes a month to march from one end of Asylon to another. Playing in Asylon is like playing inside of a another entire map of Dwilight... Its just that involved and awesome compared to other realms...

*shakes head* I thought I had already asked that if someone had anything else to say about the subject they do so in the proper subforum, this thread is not that.

Do please enlighten us of this glorious American victory. Because clearly, they failed to prevent reunification, and the viet cong were still strong enough to defeat both the Red Khmers and the Chinese.

And if you consider this a victory, I guess you are implying that the USSR was victorious in Afghanistan as well, then?

[Glaumring the Fox]

Also check out Daniel Ellsberg... The man who basically brought down Nixon and therefore ended the the Vietnsm war 9 months later.

Btw been to Vietnam in 2000. Was awesome.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Do please enlighten us of this glorious American victory. Because clearly, they failed to prevent reunification, and the viet cong were still strong enough to defeat both the Red Khmers and the Chinese.

And if you consider this a victory, I guess you are implying that the USSR was victorious in Afghanistan as well, then?

You're confusing the viet cong with a unified Vietnam. Also, you do realize what happened when North Vietnam did unite the country? They gained all the equipment that the U.S. had given to the South Vietnamese when they pulled out. Which is why they were so well equipped to take on the Chinese. That war was not a total victory for them anyways, if you look into it further you'll see why. The Vietcong never formed a government, because the north took over the south when we pulled out.

What I meant to say was that militarily we were winning, but politically it was a loss because of what was going on at home. Had we stayed longer the North would have been defeated as they no longer had the support they once had from the vietcong after the Tet Offensive. I am not implying that the USSR won in Afghanistan, as that was a money pit they could ill-afford, while the U.S., simply put, had plenty of money to spare.

To sum it up, we lost the war, but not for the reasons you have listed. And one thing you should remember is that war is hell, innocents will die, no matter what conflict it was. Do you believe the allies in WWII were wrong to fight Germany, because they firebombed cities and slaughtered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians in the process? The allies destroyed entire cities, destroyed countless historical sites and pieces of art, and soldiers pilfered much of what was left and took it home with them at the end of the war. Those were the so-called "good guys". So no matter how you look at a war, there will be brutal acts committed. People will die, there will be destruction. It is unavoidable, once you are in the conflict.

[Chenier]

You're confusing the viet cong with a unified Vietnam. Also, you do realize what happened when North Vietnam did unite the country? They gained all the equipment that the U.S. had given to the South Vietnamese when they pulled out. Which is why they were so well equipped to take on the Chinese. That war was not a total victory for them anyways, if you look into it further you'll see why. The Vietcong never formed a government, because the north took over the south when we pulled out.

What I meant to say was that militarily we were winning, but politically it was a loss because of what was going on at home. Had we stayed longer the North would have been defeated as they no longer had the support they once had from the vietcong after the Tet Offensive. I am not implying that the USSR won in Afghanistan, as that was a money pit they could ill-afford, while the U.S., simply put, had plenty of money to spare.

To sum it up, we lost the war, but not for the reasons you have listed. And one thing you should remember is that war is hell, innocents will die, no matter what conflict it was. Do you believe the allies in WWII were wrong to fight Germany, because they firebombed cities and slaughtered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians in the process? The allies destroyed entire cities, destroyed countless historical sites and pieces of art, and soldiers pilfered much of what was left and took it home with them at the end of the war. Those were the so-called "good guys". So no matter how you look at a war, there will be brutal acts committed. People will die, there will be destruction. It is unavoidable, once you are in the conflict.

That' it? You went from saying that the americans won, to saying that the Viet Cong did not have a "total victory"? Implying they therefore did win.

The Viet Cong were also being supplied, they weren't dependant on looted equipment. Had the Viet Minh not been supplied, then guess what? The Viet Cong would have gained power like a breeze, and wouldn't have needed their equipment anyways. As for the sino-vietnamese conflict, the books I read attributed it more to chinese incompetance and them underestimating their enemy (such as by using the old traditional routes they used for centuries, allowing easy ambushes). Did the viet cong form government? If you want to be all technical and anal, you could say no. But they were largely affiliated with the northern forces and fought for reunification.

By what criteria do you judge the American army was "winning"? By my lectures, the Viet Cong weren't anywhere near the brink of defeat when the states pulled out. I guess you were well on your way of just killing everyone in the country, though. That is why I bring up Afghanistan: the war was for the Soviets similar to what Vietnam was to the states. Both fought a guerrilla faction armed and aided by the other superpower, both had to pull out because the political and economic costs of the war were too high. Seems to me that they should either both be considered a victory, or a defeat, but not one a victory and the other a defeat. Imo, they are both defeats.

Yes, "war is hell" and "innocents will die". That's why I think that 99% of wars were outright stupid, and were nothing short of tools for the elite to maintain their oppression on the rest of society. Do I believe the allies were wrong in fighting Nazi Germany? My god, that's a good one! Doesn't it suck, though, that they didn't actually attack when it really mattered? The US only pitched in when they got surprise attacked. The Soviets only pitched in for the same reason. France collaborated. I don't remember when the UK got involved, but the point is moot. Was fighting the nazis and imperial japan a good thing? Hell yea. Sucks that nobody declared the wars for the right reasons, though. Freeing the jews only came much later, it was not an issue at first.

Also, it's not because a war is justified that all acts in that war become justified as well. Not all means justify the ends.

In a way, the US participation in WW2 is the opposite of its involvement in the 1812 war: the first was done for !@#$ty reason with good consequences, the second was done for excellent reasons with !@#$ty consequences.

[Zakilevo]

War is a part of politics. You can't separate the two. America lost the Vietnam War. There is no such thing as winning militarily and losing politically.

Same goes for the Korean War. If America dropped a nuclear bomb in Manchuria, they 'might' have won the war.

[Chenier]

Same goes for the Korean War. If America dropped a nuclear bomb in Manchuria, they 'might' have won the war.

I don't consider obliterating the other country's people "winning". You might defeat the other, but it's a completely cowardly and criminal act.

I don't usually use the word "evil" for anything, but if anything's "evil", the nuclear bomb and these chemical/biological weapons are. Nothing justifies their use. Not in Korea, Iran, Vietnam, or Japan.

People are not responsible for the dirty governments imposed upon them by the elite.

And just to make it clear, Gustav, as you seem a tad patriotic: I hate my own government at least as much as I hate yours.

[Gustav Kuriga]

I'm not patriotic, I just don't have an idealized view of what the world ought to be, but just view the world as it is, and accept that as how good it will probably get.

[Zakilevo]

Trusting your government will probably be the dumbest thing you can do. Anyone with half a brain knows that many governments are run by moronic former lawyers who know nothing but argue in bull!@#$ ways.

[De-Legro]

Trusting your government will probably be the dumbest thing you can do. Anyone with half a brain knows that many governments are run by moronic former lawyers who know nothing but argue in bull!@#$ ways.

With the exception of being lawyers it sounds a lot like a internet forum. Well actually it sounds like the majority of human interactions.

[Chenier]

I'm not patriotic, I just don't have an idealized view of what the world ought to be, but just view the world as it is, and accept that as how good it will probably get.

One doesn't have to believe it'll improve to admit it's !@#$.

Some people have better governments then others. A perfect government's impossible, but desiring the improvement mine and yours is certainly within the bonds of of the reasonable.

People not caring and giving them free passes is the reason why the number of bad political leaders far outweighs the number of good ones. I'd rather not consider myself responsible for how bad things are and are becoming.

[Gustav Kuriga]

I haven't had the opportunity to vote, thank you, because I just recently was able to sign up to vote.

[Vellos]

War is a part of politics. You can't separate the two. America lost the Vietnam War. There is no such thing as winning militarily and losing politically.

Same goes for the Korean War. If America dropped a nuclear bomb in Manchuria, they 'might' have won the war.

Now that is a curious statement.

I would never in all my days have called the Korean War a defeat. To my knowledge, the war was not fought for the express purpose of destroying North Korea, but of preserving an anti-communist South Korea. Looks successful to me. Not total and decisive victory, but I would never in all my days have called it a defeat.