Current Events > If America really powerful country. why it lost to Vietnam?

(+) Yeah! (+)

?
---

Vietnam #1

America stopped fighting for freedom and instead prioritized profit. This is why theyve lost every other war since.
---

cause it english pick troll

Clearly you're ignorant of what actually happened during that time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yVc_GEAyA" data-time="
---

The trees. The trees.

Attrition and a lack of support from the public to see it through
---

Were great at blowing things up from a great distance, we're not actually particularly good at actually fighting on the ground. The Taliban ran us out of Afghanistan and the insurgents ran us out of Iraq with hand me down cold war era weaponry.

I appeared in the midst of the battlefield and said "please don't" and the rest is history.
---

I got shot right in the buttocks
---

American soldiers afraid of mosquito
---

ArchiePeck posted...

Were great at blowing things up from a great distance, we're not actually particularly good at actually fighting on the ground. The Taliban ran us out of Afghanistan and the insurgents ran us out of Iraq with hand me down cold war era weaponry.

The problem in these instances is that firepower on its own isn't enough to put down an enemy who uses guerrilla tactics. The U.S. is very, very good at killing enemy solders, but body count isn't how you win wars, no matter how many times General Westmoreland repeated otherwise.
---

There is no doubt that America would have won given time, but they would have also basically wiped Northern Vietnam off the map

America was slaughtering the Viet Cong by the droves. It wasn't even close. But they were also sustaining heavy casualties and the cause had too much support behind it to stop without ridiculous bloodshed

That and the heavy pressure on home-soil to end the war (justly so, imo, started by a false flag operation after all...) meant it was better for the USA to collect itself and remove itself from the war

Viet Cong did not defeat the USA. They simply held on long enough for the USA to give up

Edit: I see a post about Afghanistan and Iraq and I'll say this:
Islamic Radicalism is far too complex a creature to compare to Vietnam or other guerrilla operations. Its pervasiveness through the region is deep-seated and veeerrry influential. Yes, the USA did suffer against the terrain. Yes they failed to win over the rural population, who were already bitter about invaders because of the Soviets. But this is another instance where, given time, the USA would no doubt be successful in its mission.

The question is, whether or not the bloodshed is worth it.

Personally I think the region is worth saving but IDK how
but at the very least we were successful in arming the populace against Daesh and crumbling their physical assets to near nothing
---

home field advantage.

the USA mostly plays away games when it comes to war. home games are against it's own citizens.
---

Hippy traitors took us down from the inside
---

Ken Burns' Vietnam War documentary is fantastic and if you're genuinely curious about the answer to your question I highly recommend watching it.
---

Also we were committing some horrifying war crimes down there...
best to end it...
---

Vietnam > 'merica confirmed, QED

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

home field advantage.

the USA mostly plays away games when it comes to war. home games are against it's own citizens.

Also LMAO this is the perfect response.
---

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

Also we were committing some horrifying war crimes down there...
best to end it...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

Here is one of them.
---

We would of won in 1946 if we held up our bargain with Ho Chi Minh and let Vietnam become a free democracy, like they wanted.
---

ArchiePeck posted...

Were great at blowing things up from a great distance, we're not actually particularly good at actually fighting on the ground. The Taliban ran us out of Afghanistan and the insurgents ran us out of Iraq with hand me down cold war era weaponry.

Stfu.

Politicians gave up because they were scared other countries like Russia and China would join in against us and they did want another world war
---

We were fighting them on their home terf while they were using Guerra war fare tactics. Its a really difficult war to win. The United States was under a similar situation during the Revolutionary War. Although we did have significant help from the French.
---

BalisticWarri0r posted...

ArchiePeck posted...

Were great at blowing things up from a great distance, we're not actually particularly good at actually fighting on the ground. The Taliban ran us out of Afghanistan and the insurgents ran us out of Iraq with hand me down cold war era weaponry.

Stfu.

Theyre not wrong

FursonaNonGrata posted...

Theyre not wrong

They're also just repeating what they've heard dozens of other pundits say (and what they said is a gross simplification of US military capabilities)

Generally people who have never actually looked into this stuff will say "oh the USA can bomb things but look at what happens when we try to fight goat farmers"

They don't understand what the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Daesh are capable of, what lengths they go to to try and deceive the US.
---

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

FursonaNonGrata posted...

Theyre not wrong

They're also just repeating what they've heard dozens of other pundits say (and what they said is a gross simplification of US military capabilities)

Generally people who have never actually looked into this stuff will say "oh the USA can bomb things but look at what happens when we try to fight goat farmers"

They don't understand what the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Daesh are capable of, what lengths they go to to try and deceive the US.

Cool

Chicken posted...

America stopped fighting for freedom and instead prioritized profit. This is why theyve lost every other war since.

---

North Vietnam didn't really win until a few years after we left. So long as we were there, they couldn't re-unify the country. South Vietnam had no real ability to defend themselves and we had no good reason to be there so eventually the political pressure caused us to leave.
---

Chicken posted...

America stopped fighting for freedom and instead prioritized profit. This is why theyve lost every other war since.

Thiiiis

We literally fight war incorrectly now.

X-Pac_Heat posted...

Chicken posted...

America stopped fighting for freedom and instead prioritized profit. This is why theyve lost every other war since.

Thiiiis

We literally fight war incorrectly now.

No we dont, the point of every war is to enrich the military industrial complex and justify its existence. Every war does this spectacularly. The rich get richer, the soldiers dont matter.
---

Asymmetrical warfare
---

The NVA/VC won because of tactics. General Westmoreland was fighting "the last war", referring to WWII. He saw Vietnam as a series of objectives, and kept trying to fight as such, expecting to fight head on, in the traditional European/American style. General Giap knew that he could not defeat the US head on. He employed ambushes, hit and run tactics, diversion, a huge spy network, and deceit to win. The US killed the VC nearly 10-1, but the US civilians support of the war declined from nearly 80% approval at the beginning to less than 20% by the end. General Giap won the war on American soil, in the minds and hearts of the American people.

Read this, it was Giap's inspiration for his tactics;
http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html
---

Hippies.
---

Vietnam waited long enough for Americans to realise they were the bad guys

the American military operates on the basic strategy is to overwhelm people with superior firepower and it is the basis for how all their combat operations have been conducted since WWII, problem is that often leads conventional fores woefully under trained for insurgency operations (see how badly IED's were against our troops in Iraq when not expecting a serious militant campaign, the Pentagon didn't properly armor most American troop transports/other ground vehicles)
---

We didnt lose. We're on a break.
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

We would of won in 1946 if we held up our bargain with Ho Chi Minh and let Vietnam become a free democracy, like they wanted.

It's remarkable how often the issues we face today are the result of the West being a bunch of liars. Imagine if after WWI UK/France held up their promises to the Arabs and didn't try to carve up the Ottoman empire.
---

So America really like to attack other countries from a far way using their ship or jet.

Do American soldiers don't know combat?
---

It turns out that a bunch of citizens with guns spread out across a country with deep knowledge of the local terrain is really hard to beat as a tyrannical government.
---

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

There is no doubt that America would have won given time

Sure, give anyone an infinite amount of time and eventually they'll reach a point where they are doing great.

DarthGravid posted...

The NVA/VC won because of tactics. General Westmoreland was fighting "the last war", referring to WWII. He saw Vietnam as a series of objectives, and kept trying to fight as such, expecting to fight head on, in the traditional European/American style. General Giap knew that he could not defeat the US head on. He employed ambushes, hit and run tactics, diversion, a huge spy network, and deceit to win. The US killed the VC nearly 10-1, but the US civilians support of the war declined from nearly 80% approval at the beginning to less than 20% by the end. General Giap won the war on American soil, in the minds and hearts of the American people.

Read this, it was Giap's inspiration for his tactics;
http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html

goes a bit beyond this. VC ceased to exist after the tet offensive.

the US couldn't actually attack the NVA directly with ground troops, only bombing. we had our hands tied by our relatonship with china and the USSR, essentially there was a risk of fighting the korean warall over again, and that had to be avoided.
---

They'd have had to completely scorch the North of Vietnam with Nuclear weapons - which would have led to an all out nuclear war. They used constant high altitude carpet bombing, chemical and incendiary weapons instead - bombing multiple nations as well as Vietnam, but it still wasn't enough.

The US was fighting a war internally as well as externally. They were fighting to protect their "interests" as well as part of the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The US was fighting ever increasing negative public opinion where if they were to use the nuclear option [there were pushes by the military to do so] they'd have utterly lost any moral high-ground which the US is so desperate to maintain.

Vietnam had been fucked by the French, was fucked by the puppet Diem government and was fucked by the US. There was no way they weren't going to fight to the end.

The US just wasn't able or allowed to go all the way. I can't remember where it's from, either a quote or a film line but it was along the lines of the US military were fighting in Vietnam with one hand tied behind their back and another around their balls on Congressional order.
---

Hicks233 posted...

The US just wasn't able or allowed to go all the way. I can't remember where it's from, either a quote or a film line but it was along the lines of the US military were fighting in Vietnam with one hand tied behind their back and another around their balls on Congressional order.

EXACTLY

If you remove all the restrictions / limitations, there wouldn't be a opposing force left.

If you're fighting on somebody else's home turf, they don't have to necessarily win most of the battles.

They just have to survive long enough to out last the opposition, even if you take countless beatings.

That's the Home Turf advantage.

Don't worry, we gave the USSR the same kind of treatment in the Afghanistan war.

They lost the Afghanistan war and it was a key point in bringing down the USSR!
---

And then it poses a tough question: what are the objectives of the war? Do the requirements for achieving these objectives impose costs greater than the gains they offer?

In Vietnam we didn't even have clearly stated objectives.
---

Darkman124 posted...

And then it poses a tough question: what are the objectives of the war? Do the requirements for achieving these objectives impose costs greater than the gains they offer?

In Vietnam we didn't even have clearly stated objectives.

Vietnam [for the US] was a proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union. The objectives were to deny the formulation and establishment of a Communist state in the country and to maintain "interests". Not for any humanitarian reason, or ideological one, but because [according to the at the time used domino theory] if one nation falls to Communism, then another, and another will - and that mean less potential markets for the US and its interests.

The objective for the [North] Vietnamese was to kick out the colonialists, first the French, then the puppet supporting US + Allies. Then they'd seek to unify the country under a Communist government - which is what happened.

War is typically over resources or religion. The war in Vietnam was a war for potential influence and market opportunity in SE Asia for the US and for independence for the Vietnamese - if you were happy with the way things were in Vietnam before its partition then you were screwed either way - the dissolution of European Colonialism post WW2 created a lot of messes that were going to happen sooner or later.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g9qVwCpxwA" data-time="
---

Chicken posted...

America stopped fighting for freedom and instead prioritized profit. This is why theyve lost every other war since.

How did we lose Desert Storm?
---

the US couldn't actually attack the NVA directly with ground troops, only bombing. we had our hands tied by our relationship with china and the USSR, essentially there was a risk of fighting the korean war all over again, and that had to be avoided.

Yea we couldn't have gotten too rowdy or aggressive without pissing our other rivals off.

Just proxy war nonsense.

Still I wonder if China or the Soviet Union would have risked their own destruction if they have had gotten too involved or if they would just let it go.
---

Nixon really fucked things up
---

gorilla warfare > america
---