Da US lost da Vietnam war!

...

>1965+52
>communism is dead
We won in the end

yeah and hitler won because the ussr eventually collapsed

>the absolute state...

>Implying Domino theory held any merit.
>Implying Laos and Cambodia weren't driven into the arms of the Communists largely because of the Americans stomping around in Vietnam.
>Implying that Communist Vietnam has ever invaded another nation other than (Communist) Cambodia.

All it means is that we no longer considered it worth the effort.

So nk, china, vietnam, venezuela, laos and Cuba are western liberal democracies?

Which is still losing. If you don't hold that to be a loss, then you run into other ridiculous assertions that are equivalent, like how the USSR didn't lose Afghanistan and the British didn't lose the American revolution.

>What happened after you stopped fighting doesn't matter
Yet somehow America lost in Vietnam....

venezuela is a liberal democracy

Actually, the British did win the American Revolution since Canada is still in the Commonwealth.

I forget, how many Canadian provinces were in open rebellion against the crown come 1776?

Good job with that reading comprehension.

If you think the British goal in the American revolution was "just hold onto Canada", you are wrong. That's why barely any of the fighting was in Canada, none of the speeches in Parliament about the subject mention Canada, and they embark on a huge and expensive war in places like Virginia and Delaware and Massachussetts, none of them in Canada.

It was the American colonies in revolt, and the ones that the British were attempting to suppress, not Canadian ones.

Oh sry forgot chavez is already dead

Lol, the Soviets literally retreated under attack by the Mujahideen and Lord Cornwallis SURRENDERED to the United States, his entire army was captured!

There is no comparison to Vietnam, the Soviet Withdrawal comes close and I could honestly humor the idea that they were not defeated either if it weren't for the fact that they were impotent to prevent enemy forces from attacking withdrawing troops.

More retard wojaks please

>the nazi germany didnt lost because there is still nazis around(trump)
your logic

>the Soviets literally retreated under attack by the Mujahidee
What? They with drew after signing an accord with the US and Pakistan (Geneva Accords). And the DRA lasted as long after the withdrawal as the RVN did.
They are pretty much the exact same circumstances, apart from the lower Soviet losses.

>Lol, the Soviets literally retreated under attack by the Mujahideen
And the Americans scrambled out of the Hanoi embassy about an hour behind the NVA?

> Lord Cornwallis SURRENDERED to the United States, his entire army was captured!
So? A force some 2.5 times its size was still sitting in New York. The British could have easily fought on longer had they been inclined. They wren't, and that's how America won.

>There is no comparison to Vietnam,
Yes there is. It's literally the same as every other war in history that has been won coercively instead of controllingly. The Maccabean revolt, the Sino-Russian border conflicts of the 17th century, the Genoese withdrawal from Corsica, the Ming loss to Si Ren Fa, etc.There are lost of them.

>either if it weren't for the fact that they were impotent to prevent enemy forces from attacking withdrawing troops.
That's the stupidest criterion for victory or loss in a war that I've ever heard. I guess the Spanish won the Dutch independence war because there hand't been fighting in the Netherlands itself for the last 3 years of the conflict, and the Spanish troops withdrew without interference.

>claiming victories your country had nothing to do with
im sure glad Napoleon finally showed those soviets whats what

>What? They with drew after signing an accord with the US and Pakistan
and the Mujahideen failed to honor the terms of that accord and continued their attacks against Soviet forces, to the point the Soviets actually complained to the UN and the US about it but nothing could be done.

Yes, almost like what happened in Vietnam. Who would of thought?

>And the Americans scrambled out of the Hanoi embassy about an hour behind the NVA?
Are you retarded? That's an embassy.

>So? A force some 2.5 times its size was still sitting in New York.
irrelevant.
They SURRENDERED.
Give me a single example of an American general surrendering a US army to the North Vietnamese. Just one!

In a parallel thread someone already claimed the french rev. Being Marxist, if we follow that idea Nappy by becoming Emporer fucked the soviet part of the marxists in the revolution

>almost like
Except not, as the North Vietnamese actually adhered to the terms of their cease-fire.

>Are you retarded? That's an embassy.
Which had marine combat troops stationed in it when the country fell.

Oh, and the actual troop withdrawals under Nixon were also shot at as they went back from their forward posts, so I don't know what your point is at this juncture.

>irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant. Britain was fully capable of continuing hostilities. They decided that doing so was unlikely to succeed and certainly not worth the expense and bloodshed involved.

>Give me a single example of an American general surrendering a US army to the North Vietnamese. Just one!
That is a completely irrelevant comparison you idiot. Wars are political violence. Governments try to achieve one or more goals through the use of armed force. You get that goal? You won. You don't get that goal? You lost. Whether or not you could have kept fighting longer, or you had a general surrender (but not a captain, that's COMPLETELY different), or whether you got a K:D ratio over some arbitrary number is all equally meaningless. WHat determines victory is the political aims achieved or not achieved.

America went into the war to keep South Vietnam free from North Vietnamese/Communist influence. They failed to do that. Ergo, they lost.

You're looking at it the wrong way, the Soviet defeat of the Germans was Napoleon's revenge upon the Prussians and the Tsar.

The terms of the cease fire were to withdraw from South Vietnam. They never left those areas they took in the Easter Offensive.

>You get that goal? You won. You don't get that goal? You lost.
>le war is politics by other means meme
Lol brainlet.
Military and political goals are entirely separate fields, and if we're going to link them then you must therefore roll the war in Vietnam in with the larger Cold War, which America objectively won.

Would you claim the Nazis defeated the Soviets because they drove them out of Ukraine?

the hell is wrong with guns OP

>Be N. Vietnam
>writing system still BLEACHED
>send millions of your own young men to die needlessly in a horrible, nightmarish meat grinder.
>sacrifice your civilian population to constant American bombings so horrifying in their cost that the Americans themselves had to hide how much damage they did to you and still refuse any negotiation with American statesmen (lol)
>torment and torture innocent South Vietnamese farmers and villages, intimidating them into supporting you, only to have their huts and rice stores burned down and all the men in their town shot by Marines, skipping off and running away to the jungle, not even bothering to protect them
>send thousands of Vietnamese dissidents to "re-education" jungle gulags, starving and torturing them for decades
>insert Nationalistic rhetoric into your propaganda even though your own ideology tells you not to, jail any fellow commies who criticize you for that, or any other oxymoronic shit you do
>end up the puppets of bigger communist nations, with one of your """ALLIES""" actually invading and occupying your northern territories
>upon winning, deface the graves and oppress the families and relations of the army that had fought against you, sending what little that surrendered to you to jungle gulag
>completely fuck up your country with retarded land reform (at least they were being ideologically consistent, lol)
>Fund and bolster the Khmer "have spectacles? prepare to lose your testicles" Rouge
>Khmer "Head too big? Your grave you'll dig" Rouge
>Khmer "Highbrow gets the high cal" Rouge
>Khmer "Bullets in brains too huge" Rouge
>decade goes by
>still a shithole
>pass """REFORMS"""
>become another cog in International Capital
>government is basically fascist with a red and yellow aesthetic (Authoritarian state retaining the institution of Capitalism) making shitty consumer goods for countries better than you

Vietnam is easily one of the world's and America's biggest meme of all time.

>Military and political goals are entirely separate fields,
No they aren't. Military goals are subordinate to political goals; you don't try to occupy the hill, kill the enemy, whatever the "Military goal" is except insofar as how it helps you get your political goal. Nobody goes to war to just kill lots of people on the other side.

>and if we're going to link them then you must therefore roll the war in Vietnam in with the larger Cold War,
Why? It was a discrete conflict with discrete goals and while certainly influenced by such, was separate from the larger struggle with Communism/the USSR. You can be equally retarded and reductionist to any small conflict in the context of a larger one.

>The Umayyads lost the 717-718 war in Hispania because they failed to take Constantinople and decisively defeat Christian political entities.
Is a statement working on the exact same logic and is equally retarded.

>Would you claim the Nazis defeated the Soviets because they drove them out of Ukraine?
No, because the goal of the Nazi party was not to simply occupy Ukraine, it was to eliminate the state sponsor of "Judeo-Bolshevism". They did not do this. And while the occupation of the Ukraine gave them resources necessary to continue the war for a few more years, it was not nearly enough.

It's amazing how they've advanced in the past decade alone. Quality of life has advanced incredibly quickly. I have an old friend who travels three for business. The advancements made in just one generation blows my mind.

Better than to be under the frogs or a corrupt state

the US didn't lose, our helicopter manufacturers just decided they had made enough of a profit after 10 or so years of throwing helicopters into the jungle and having them blow up.

you don't make money off of a war by winning it quickly and efficiently.

>Military goals are subordinate to political goals
lol and in a state that is run by the military? Whoops, so much for that nonsensical claim.

>You can be equally retarded and reductionist to any small conflict in the context of a larger one.
You mean exactly like you're doing now by arbitrarily declaring the war in Vietnam a "discrete conflict with discrete goals" when the whole cause of the conflict was the fear of domino theory making it not a "discrete conflict" since it ties into South East Asia as a theater in the Cold War?

>No, because the goal of the Nazi party was not to simply occupy Ukraine, it was to eliminate the state sponsor of "Judeo-Bolshevism". They did not do this
but America LOST in Vietnam, even though the goal of America was not simply to occupy Vietnam but to halt the spread of Communism in Asia with the aim of bringing about the collapse of Communism and instituting a unipolar world, and they DID do this.
right...

They are capitalist democracies yes

>send some replaceable soldiers to fight in your interests
>your interests change over time and you pull them out
>people claim you "lost"

explain this?

retreat /=/ defeat

It was in the best interest of the US to retreat. Thats a victory if anything

ya they've somehow nearly completely eliminated people not pooing in the lew unlike some more wealthy asian nations...

>>send millions of your own young men to die needlessly in a horrible, nightmarish meat grinder.
Similar to Americans after Jap bombed them.
>>torment and torture innocent South Vietnamese farmers and villages
Probably learned from the French, Jap and Americans. French got tons of prisons to torture people back then.
>>end up the puppets of bigger communist nations, with one of your """ALLIES""" actually invading and occupying your northern territories
Sure, they didn't rekt the chinks after both the Americans and Chinks told them not to unite the country.
>>Fund and bolster the Khmer "have spectacles? prepare to lose your testicles" Rouge
They didn't have enough rice to help themselves, where did this come from?
>>decade goes by
>>still a shithole
Maybe it has something to do with embargo, the bombs and mines and agent orange leftover.

ITT: delusional Burgers
Just deal with reality already. You lost.

Get a fucking clue:

>Treaty of Paris peace accord meant the north SURRRNDERED
>US K:D ratio was incredibly high
>Communism didn't spread to other parts of Aasia
>Vietnam is now poor and dirty
>Soviet Union collapsed lieterally 15 years later

The VC didn't win shit.

your interest was not to lose more thousands and thousands of young ppl because you were L O S I N G
LOSING
LOSERS
AMERICANS ARE BIG FAT LOSER
RICE AND KALASHNIKOVS>amerfarts!

americans lost, they lost, lost lost lost
hahahahha

weird how hitler was like, i'm against secret societies and i'm gonna stop the commies and then JFK was like, i'm against secret societies and i'm gonna stop the commies... and people bring up the German to Russian k/d ratio to say the Germans really won and they bring up the American to VC k/d ratio to say America really won. Parallels... parallels everywhere.

WE WUZ WIKTORZ N SHEIT ?

To be fair, Vietnam really sorted itself out in the end; its developing very well and managed to avoid some calamitous post-commie collapse

>set goals
>fail
>shift goalposts
>suddenly win

Baffling post. Sometimes I'm worried these aren't ironic.

This is the former capital of South Vietnam, once called Saigon.

After the United States won the war of Vietnam, it was renamed Ho Chi Minh city, in honor of their hated enemy.

It was a lesser part of the whole Cold war which Democracy beat out Communism

>political system beat out economic system
Really gives one cause to ponder

Please go on, I'm interested to see how far you're going to run with this and move away from the original point.