Well, the military won on the ground, despite having a 12000 mile long logistics chain, with no battles lost over all those years of action in-country. Oh, and they could neither deny resupply to their enemies from outside the country nor attack effectively behind enemy lines.
Other than Uncle Walter and the damn hippies, with their public campaign against any victory, yes we won the war. We lost the peace, however, after leaving the country in the hands of Democrat legislators who failed to live up to our obligations.
On the other hand, I love Pho, and such restaurants would be far rarer here had it not been for the North crushing the South, and the subsequent exodus. So I have that going for me.
In Vietnam, we achieved Nixon’s “peace with honor,” i.e., we lost.
And Mr. Clinton was a pot-smoking, long-haired draft dodger protesting in the UK – which became a prerequisite for being President of the United States, either that, or being a two-bit Chicago politician community organizer.
No, but sources close to the Clintons say that Hillary once visited there under threat of constant sniper fire. Or was that somewhere else… I can’t recall..
Mikee is right. The army had left like two years before the fall of South Vietnam. You can thank the Democrat congress in charge at the time. They were so insistent that we lost Vietnam that they advertised to the world that the South would be on it’s own should the North try again and then cut all non-military support for the South hastening it’s fall.
Of course they just taught us in school that we lost Vietnam and leave it at that, but we all know how those teachers lie!
Sounds like the near future will be a repeat of the past, with a Democrat congress cutting support for the fledgling Iraq in face of Iran’s covert aggression. Once Iraq’s government falls and the country falls into civil war the peaceniks will be screaming 24/7 how we “lost” Iraq.
The biggest difference – not that there are really many similarities to begin with – with the Vietnam War was that the administration actually listened to a-holes like John F’ing Kerry when they whined about not surging in Vietnam and surrendering to a third world country, while Bush ignored their ignorant capitulation and let our military do what they do best…which resulted in complete success.
Depends on who “We” is….We, the Marines and Soldiers on the ground were busy kicking the stuffing out of the NVN, yes including TET which we won soundly….the eggrolls couldn’t take a straight up firefight.
But if “We” are the buffoons in Washington…..we gotz ourselves an a$$handing, straight up.
In Vietnam we used more napalm……….. we should napalm Iraq into a cinder as we leave. That would be funny.
There is only one war The United States Lost and that is the war of 1812 ( face it guys we got beat bad by the Brits Military wise) but since then we have not lost war military wise that I can think ( well okay the war of Southern Independence could be counted a loss depending on if your a yankee boy or not). But I think that if we had had Napalm in the war of 1812 we also could have won that. Just tell the Taliban we’re going to Napalm the Hindu-Kush Mountains ( I think that it would work as the fires would drain all the oxygen out the caves they hide in!) and watch them laugh ” ohh hahaha the U.S would never do that!” BAM ” Holy Mother of ******!!”
As long as we have lots of Napalm we can’t lose.
Remember go Napalm or Go Nuclear.
And Bill Clinton can go find the Vietnamese version of Monica Lewinsky.
Left wing moonbat nut tards consider the fire bombing of Dresden to have ended in a draw since they disapprove of the tactics and are not sure who they should have been rooting for. Now they get to appease China, Russia and radical Islamists, a Democrats wet dream.
If by “We” you mean the anti-American protesters, the democratic party leadership, the domestic terrorists and the others supporters of the Null, then yes, ‘we’ won.
We can’t win here at home how do you win anywhere else? About the only chance left is all 48% that voted for Palin, dye and streak their hair, stop bathing, load their faces, belly buttons and testicles with cheap imitation zirconium studs, tatoo “Satan” on every square inch of their bodies, immerse themselves in pidgeon dung, say nothing but the words “it’s all relative man”, join the democrat party, become community organizers/agitators, demand an end to capitalism and pledge allegiance to Obama. Making your sh*t stink worse than the Marxists already do may drive them to the other side. Presto! Majority.
I say we just watch the home videos that John Kerry shot, and we will know what REALLY happened there. I hear he was a really big hero and stuff. He knew he’d be great in a war, and certain he’d be a hero, so he decided to document his greatness, so no one could forget. Oh, and if he decided to ever run for public office, he’d have it handy. I think John McCain ,also was over there, somewhere, briefly, but he wouldn’t know as much about it, as John Kerry. I think he was hiding out in some prison camp letting the real heroes like Kerry take on the big battles, Doncha know?
Speaking of YouTube-ee type things, Conservative Grapevine has video of nine or so insplodergeants getting “Hellfire” rained down on them, courtesy of Uncle Sams best and bravest.
Oh yeah, Cracked Magazine has a Watchmen “game” featuring a Dongtastic battle scenes and a hilarious ending with the ultimate blue hued warrior. USSJC do not go there, it will frighten you the most.
Oh yeah, part two – Hats off to Sgt Relic and all those who wore and wear the uniform of freedom. Without all the millions of you guys over the years I’m pretty sure this whole internet thing would not be even a pipe dream today. Unless it was started to give French lessons, also known as the international language of surrender.
No Frank the Demoncrats were in charge then too. We lost, our people fought and died for nothing. We NEVER learn from our mistakes. We are “retarded” like that (since it’s now politically correct to make fun of the mentally disabled).
All that I can tell you is that when I left RVN in 1967 we were winning, we never lost a battle, and stood toe to toe i
in the DMZ outnumbered by at least 5 to one on the ground agaist the best the NVA had.
I needn’t point out again that we had broke the Viet Cong and reduced the NVA to four operational divisions shortly before we left Vietnam. Militarily we have pretty well destroyed any force encountered since the Civil War. Unfortunatly the People back home, including the (predominatly inept) elected officials back home can still loose Iraq and A-stan by ducking out. Occupations are time and labor intensive and cost lives, especially when dealing with xenophobic, highly centric value systems that see any others as inferior; eg. Islam. Been a while since we had to occupy so I guess that has been forgot.
We’ve done more in less time with a Lot fewer casualties in Iraq than in Vietnam.
The fighting courage of the individual warriors then and now has not faded;
But in Iraq we had better arms, armor and munitions, a clear objective, public support and a President and Congress who (by a slim margin) weren’t ashamed of winning.
How to save our gains in Afghanistan?
Arm the women!
“Go back to wearing a tent, no school, no job, and letting myself be stoned
for being raped? (sound of bullet being racked into firing chamber) I don’t THINK so!”
The libs love to talk about Vietnam because we lost, and hope the same thing for all the other military endeavors from Grenada, to Afghanistan, to Iraq and so on. They love America just like Michael Vick loved dogs.
ACTUALLY WE WON THE VIETNAM WAR AT LEAST TWICE. IN TRIUMPH FORSAKEN THE AUTHOR POINTS OUT HOW WE WERE WINNING IN THE EARLY 60s, SOLELY THROUGH THE USE OF ADVISORS AND SUPPLYING EQUIPMENT. THE LIBERALS DID NOT THINK THAT THE SOUTH’S PRESIDENT WAS SUFFICIENTLY LIBERAL ENOUGH ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND KENNEDY WANTED TO AVOID GIVING HENRY CABOT LODGE A CAMPAIGN ISSUE, SO HE AND ROBERT KENNEDY AGREED TO A COUP WHICH KILLED THE PRESIDENT. THE SOUTH VIET PRESIDENT HAD BEEN AN ARDENT AND EFFECTIVE ANTI-COMMUNIST. IT WAS NOT UNTIL SEVERAL YEARS LATER THAT US TROOPS SHOWED UP. THE TET OFFENSIVE IN 68 WAS A STAGGERING DEFEAT FOR THE COMMIES, BUT THE LIBERAL MEDIA WAS CLUELESS SO THEY REPORTED IT AS AN AMERICAN DEFEAT. EVEN DESPITE THAT, NIXON SUCCESSFULLY GOT OUR TROOPS OUT AND LEFT SOUTH VIETNAM IN A POSITION TO PROTECT ITSELF. THEN IN 72 THE LIBERALS VOTED TO END ALL AID TO SOUTH VIETNAM, THUS GUARANTEEING A COMMIE VICTORY.
We could ask Bill Clinton. He was there, right?
Well, the military won on the ground, despite having a 12000 mile long logistics chain, with no battles lost over all those years of action in-country. Oh, and they could neither deny resupply to their enemies from outside the country nor attack effectively behind enemy lines.
Other than Uncle Walter and the damn hippies, with their public campaign against any victory, yes we won the war. We lost the peace, however, after leaving the country in the hands of Democrat legislators who failed to live up to our obligations.
On the other hand, I love Pho, and such restaurants would be far rarer here had it not been for the North crushing the South, and the subsequent exodus. So I have that going for me.
It looks like Iraq is winning more than we are.
In Vietnam, we achieved Nixon’s “peace with honor,” i.e., we lost.
And Mr. Clinton was a pot-smoking, long-haired draft dodger protesting in the UK – which became a prerequisite for being President of the United States, either that, or being a two-bit Chicago
politiciancommunity organizer.We were winning when I left.
No, but sources close to the Clintons say that Hillary once visited there under threat of constant sniper fire. Or was that somewhere else… I can’t recall..
🙂
Mikee is right. The army had left like two years before the fall of South Vietnam. You can thank the Democrat congress in charge at the time. They were so insistent that we lost Vietnam that they advertised to the world that the South would be on it’s own should the North try again and then cut all non-military support for the South hastening it’s fall.
Of course they just taught us in school that we lost Vietnam and leave it at that, but we all know how those teachers lie!
Sounds like the near future will be a repeat of the past, with a Democrat congress cutting support for the fledgling Iraq in face of Iran’s covert aggression. Once Iraq’s government falls and the country falls into civil war the peaceniks will be screaming 24/7 how we “lost” Iraq.
Clinton DID serve. He was always bragging about being”knee deep in the grass.” Oh, sorry, wrong grass.
The biggest difference – not that there are really many similarities to begin with – with the Vietnam War was that the administration actually listened to a-holes like John F’ing Kerry when they whined about not surging in Vietnam and surrendering to a third world country, while Bush ignored their ignorant capitulation and let our military do what they do best…which resulted in complete success.
Depends on who “We” is….We, the Marines and Soldiers on the ground were busy kicking the stuffing out of the NVN, yes including TET which we won soundly….the eggrolls couldn’t take a straight up firefight.
But if “We” are the buffoons in Washington…..we gotz ourselves an a$$handing, straight up.
Hi everbodies…..
In Vietnam we used more napalm……….. we should napalm Iraq into a cinder as we leave. That would be funny.
There is only one war The United States Lost and that is the war of 1812 ( face it guys we got beat bad by the Brits Military wise) but since then we have not lost war military wise that I can think ( well okay the war of Southern Independence could be counted a loss depending on if your a yankee boy or not). But I think that if we had had Napalm in the war of 1812 we also could have won that. Just tell the Taliban we’re going to Napalm the Hindu-Kush Mountains ( I think that it would work as the fires would drain all the oxygen out the caves they hide in!) and watch them laugh ” ohh hahaha the U.S would never do that!” BAM ” Holy Mother of ******!!”
As long as we have lots of Napalm we can’t lose.
Remember go Napalm or Go Nuclear.
And Bill Clinton can go find the Vietnamese version of Monica Lewinsky.
We killed a lot of commies. That was certainly a win.
In 2009, we got a commie for a president. I see that as a loss.
we could ask Joe The Biden….oh wait he got like a trillion deferments so he could smoke pot and do hippy socialist liberal crap with Bill Clinton
We can aask Al Gore he served…but I’m sure all he’ll say is it caused global warming
US?
Militarily – Yes.
Politically – No.
Southeast Asia?
Thanks to our democrat party, the people of Southeast Asia were the real losers. To quote Solzhenitsyn from a similar context:
“Walk among their graves, and ask them.”
Left wing moonbat nut tards consider the fire bombing of Dresden to have ended in a draw since they disapprove of the tactics and are not sure who they should have been rooting for. Now they get to appease China, Russia and radical Islamists, a Democrats wet dream.
“did we win in Vietnam?”
Depends on who you mean by “We”.
If by “We” you mean the anti-American protesters, the democratic party leadership, the domestic terrorists and the others supporters of the Null, then yes, ‘we’ won.
We can’t win here at home how do you win anywhere else? About the only chance left is all 48% that voted for Palin, dye and streak their hair, stop bathing, load their faces, belly buttons and testicles with cheap imitation zirconium studs, tatoo “Satan” on every square inch of their bodies, immerse themselves in pidgeon dung, say nothing but the words “it’s all relative man”, join the democrat party, become community organizers/agitators, demand an end to capitalism and pledge allegiance to Obama. Making your sh*t stink worse than the Marxists already do may drive them to the other side. Presto! Majority.
Winning is a eurocentric concept. what does it matter if one wins but loses the favor of his fellow man!
Response to #18 well if you win, you could threaten to bomb the hell out of your fellow man. Read the nuke the moon theory page.
I refuse to concede that the Vietnam War is over.
YES, we won! The complete and unconditional surrender took place on December 25, 1991 when the USSR ceased to exist.
I say we just watch the home videos that John Kerry shot, and we will know what REALLY happened there. I hear he was a really big hero and stuff. He knew he’d be great in a war, and certain he’d be a hero, so he decided to document his greatness, so no one could forget. Oh, and if he decided to ever run for public office, he’d have it handy. I think John McCain ,also was over there, somewhere, briefly, but he wouldn’t know as much about it, as John Kerry. I think he was hiding out in some prison camp letting the real heroes like Kerry take on the big battles, Doncha know?
We were winning when I left!
Dodsfall says:
We killed a lot of commies. That was certainly a win.
In 2009, we got a commie for a president. I see that as a loss.
WWKMD = What Would Karl Marx Do?
Probably bend the ear of Iran and enter into YouTube diplomacy. YouTube is funner than NCAA picks, FWIW.
Speaking of YouTube-ee type things, Conservative Grapevine has video of nine or so insplodergeants getting “Hellfire” rained down on them, courtesy of Uncle Sams best and bravest.
Oh yeah, Cracked Magazine has a Watchmen “game” featuring a Dongtastic battle scenes and a hilarious ending with the ultimate blue hued warrior. USSJC do not go there, it will frighten you the most.
Oh yeah, part two – Hats off to Sgt Relic and all those who wore and wear the uniform of freedom. Without all the millions of you guys over the years I’m pretty sure this whole internet thing would not be even a pipe dream today. Unless it was started to give French lessons, also known as the international language of surrender.
No Frank the Demoncrats were in charge then too. We lost, our people fought and died for nothing. We NEVER learn from our mistakes. We are “retarded” like that (since it’s now politically correct to make fun of the mentally disabled).
All that I can tell you is that when I left RVN in 1967 we were winning, we never lost a battle, and stood toe to toe i
in the DMZ outnumbered by at least 5 to one on the ground agaist the best the NVA had.
I know Im a couple day late on this.
I needn’t point out again that we had broke the Viet Cong and reduced the NVA to four operational divisions shortly before we left Vietnam. Militarily we have pretty well destroyed any force encountered since the Civil War. Unfortunatly the People back home, including the (predominatly inept) elected officials back home can still loose Iraq and A-stan by ducking out. Occupations are time and labor intensive and cost lives, especially when dealing with xenophobic, highly centric value systems that see any others as inferior; eg. Islam. Been a while since we had to occupy so I guess that has been forgot.
We’ve done more in less time with a Lot fewer casualties in Iraq than in Vietnam.
The fighting courage of the individual warriors then and now has not faded;
But in Iraq we had better arms, armor and munitions, a clear objective, public support and a President and Congress who (by a slim margin) weren’t ashamed of winning.
How to save our gains in Afghanistan?
Arm the women!
“Go back to wearing a tent, no school, no job, and letting myself be stoned
for being raped? (sound of bullet being racked into firing chamber) I don’t THINK so!”
God Bless all you vets for serving.
The libs love to talk about Vietnam because we lost, and hope the same thing for all the other military endeavors from Grenada, to Afghanistan, to Iraq and so on. They love America just like Michael Vick loved dogs.
ACTUALLY WE WON THE VIETNAM WAR AT LEAST TWICE. IN TRIUMPH FORSAKEN THE AUTHOR POINTS OUT HOW WE WERE WINNING IN THE EARLY 60s, SOLELY THROUGH THE USE OF ADVISORS AND SUPPLYING EQUIPMENT. THE LIBERALS DID NOT THINK THAT THE SOUTH’S PRESIDENT WAS SUFFICIENTLY LIBERAL ENOUGH ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND KENNEDY WANTED TO AVOID GIVING HENRY CABOT LODGE A CAMPAIGN ISSUE, SO HE AND ROBERT KENNEDY AGREED TO A COUP WHICH KILLED THE PRESIDENT. THE SOUTH VIET PRESIDENT HAD BEEN AN ARDENT AND EFFECTIVE ANTI-COMMUNIST. IT WAS NOT UNTIL SEVERAL YEARS LATER THAT US TROOPS SHOWED UP. THE TET OFFENSIVE IN 68 WAS A STAGGERING DEFEAT FOR THE COMMIES, BUT THE LIBERAL MEDIA WAS CLUELESS SO THEY REPORTED IT AS AN AMERICAN DEFEAT. EVEN DESPITE THAT, NIXON SUCCESSFULLY GOT OUR TROOPS OUT AND LEFT SOUTH VIETNAM IN A POSITION TO PROTECT ITSELF. THEN IN 72 THE LIBERALS VOTED TO END ALL AID TO SOUTH VIETNAM, THUS GUARANTEEING A COMMIE VICTORY.