Current Events > How did the idiot ass U.S. lose the war to the flip flop wearing Vietnamese?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Those pieces of shit had napalm, agent orange, tanks, armor, helicopters, superior military power yet they lost the war to people wearing flip flops and rice hats or whatever you call them

Because it was impossible to win.

The US either had to destroy the entire country or flee. Sure the US could kill literally everyone but Vietnam wasn't two armies fighting across vast lands it was Guerrilla warfare constantly picking at you in anyway they could, usually from within the populace you were claiming to be there to protect.
---

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Because it was impossible to win.

The US either had to destroy the entire country or flee. Sure the US could kill literally everyone but Vietnam wasn't two armies fighting across vast lands it was Guerrilla warfare constantly picking at you in anyway they could, usually from within the populace you were claiming to be there to protect.

Since then we haven't learned our lesson.
---

The South Vietnamese were corrupt and didn't have the support of the people. The US were fighting a war that was impossible to win and they knew it all the way back when it started but were too embarrassed to pull out that early.

Because they refused to go nuclear.
---

The Vietnamese used militia tactics against us in an environment our military wasnt trained to deal with. Add in faulty weapons and equipment and men who didnt have a real cause to fight for and you have a monster quagmire. We shouldnt have let that conflict go on nearly as long as it did. We literally started out as moral support for the French.

Gotta stop dat communism
---

We know that Vietnam was not a necessary war for America. Uncle Sam lost, and the communists won -- yet the most damaging legacy inflicted on America by the final communist victory in Vietnam was simply to American pride, and not to American security or freedom. Those two things were never at stake. Americans came to sense this by 1970, which was why the war increasingly came to be seen as wasteful and futile.

So if the outcome made no difference to America, what could any justification for the war rest on? It has to rest on what a communist takeover meant for the people of South Vietnam. This was supposed to have been -- should have been -- a war fought for the sake of the Vietnamese. Yet some Americans seemed (and still seem) to treat South Vietnamese lives like paper cups: cheap and disposable, as if their only value was to provide the American military with opportunities for training and target practice. Which is stupid, because as soon as the war was fought as if the South Vietnamese didn't matter, as if they were just bit-part players on an American stage, as if they were the enemy, then the conflict became pointless and all those lives were wasted.

When you demand "victory at any cost" for the sake of pride in a conflict like Vietnam, then regardless of who pays the price, it's indefensible and perverse.

Uncle Sam kept fighting in a Third World backwater in southeast Asia for as long as he did because, at bottom, he didn't want to look like a quitter. More and more Americans had to die so those who had already died were not seen as having died in vain. But there's little virtue in sticking with a misguided cause.
---

Wtf are you talking about? Dr. Manhattan and The Comedian lead our boys to an easy victory.
---

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

Funkdamental and trelve cover it
---

Because it wasnt a normal conventional war and the USA fought the war like it was a normal convential war lol
---

First of all, we didn't lose the war-- It was a tie. Besides, they're grateful. They have McDonald's now.
---

Funkdamental posted...

We know that Vietnam was not a necessary war for America. Uncle Sam lost, and the communists won -- yet the most damaging legacy inflicted on America by the final communist victory in Vietnam was simply to American pride, and not to American security or freedom. Those two things were never at stake. Americans came to sense this by 1970, which was why the war increasingly came to be seen as wasteful and futile.

So if the outcome made no difference to America, what could any justification for the war rest on? It has to rest on what a communist takeover meant for the people of South Vietnam. This was supposed to have been -- should have been -- a war fought for the sake of the Vietnamese. Yet some Americans seemed (and still seem) to treat South Vietnamese lives like paper cups: cheap and disposable, as if their only value was to provide the American military with opportunities for training and target practice. Which is stupid, because as soon as the war was fought as if the South Vietnamese didn't matter, as if they were just bit-part players on an American stage, as if they were the enemy, then the conflict became pointless and all those lives were wasted.

When you demand "victory at any cost" for the sake of pride in a conflict like Vietnam, then regardless of who pays the price, it's indefensible and perverse.

Uncle Sam kept fighting in a Third World backwater in southeast Asia for as long as he did because, at bottom, he didn't want to look like a quitter. More and more Americans had to die so those who had already died were not seen as having died in vain. But there's little virtue in sticking with a misguided cause.

uh

is it me or does this sound a lot like the Iraq war
---

fuzzylittlbunny posted...

First of all, we didn't lose the war-- It was a tie. Besides, they're grateful. They have McDonald's now.

Lol what? South Vietnam fell to the communists. They won. It wasn't a tie.

The Korean War was a tie.
---

foreveraIone posted...

Funkdamental posted...

We know that Vietnam was not a necessary war for America. Uncle Sam lost, and the communists won -- yet the most damaging legacy inflicted on America by the final communist victory in Vietnam was simply to American pride, and not to American security or freedom. Those two things were never at stake. Americans came to sense this by 1970, which was why the war increasingly came to be seen as wasteful and futile.

So if the outcome made no difference to America, what could any justification for the war rest on? It has to rest on what a communist takeover meant for the people of South Vietnam. This was supposed to have been -- should have been -- a war fought for the sake of the Vietnamese. Yet some Americans seemed (and still seem) to treat South Vietnamese lives like paper cups: cheap and disposable, as if their only value was to provide the American military with opportunities for training and target practice. Which is stupid, because as soon as the war was fought as if the South Vietnamese didn't matter, as if they were just bit-part players on an American stage, as if they were the enemy, then the conflict became pointless and all those lives were wasted.

When you demand "victory at any cost" for the sake of pride in a conflict like Vietnam, then regardless of who pays the price, it's indefensible and perverse.

Uncle Sam kept fighting in a Third World backwater in southeast Asia for as long as he did because, at bottom, he didn't want to look like a quitter. More and more Americans had to die so those who had already died were not seen as having died in vain. But there's little virtue in sticking with a misguided cause.

uh

is it me or does this sound a lot like the Iraq war

People have been comparing Iraq and Vietnam since 2004 >_>
---

Genocet_10-325 posted...

fuzzylittlbunny posted...

First of all, we didn't lose the war-- It was a tie. Besides, they're grateful. They have McDonald's now.

Lol what? South Vietnam fell to the communists. They won. It wasn't a tie.

The Korean War was a tie.

*whoosh*
---

DarkTransient posted...

Because they refused to go nuclear.

Using nuclear weapons in a guerrilla war would be just about the stupidest thing ever
---

fuzzylittlbunny posted...

First of all, we didn't lose the war-- It was a tie. Besides, they're grateful. They have McDonald's now.

I swear to God this sounds so familiar...This has to be a quote from some movie or tv show. I know that because if it were your words there would be a :< or :3 face in that post lol

Ah, got it. Red Forman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju2-8uUvRNs" data-time="
---

Pretty sure the tie was also mildly in reference to a Kevin Kline quote in A Fish Called Wanda.
---

Cookie for getting the That '70s Show reference :3
---

To have "won" in Vietnam would have required the wholesale destruction of the country. The US and its allies weren't just fighting North Vietnam, but an ideology. Ideologies aren't easily defeated, something the US still hasn't learnt.

There were calls for nuclear weapons to be deployed but it's going to be difficult to try and even pretend to hold the moral high-ground during the Cold War if you use atomic weapons - especially if you're already the only country to have ever used them. The US as a nation and as a mindset cannot bear to be seen to be the villain.

There was little public appetite for escalating the conflict and Congress was gun-shy, the bombing of the Ho-Chi-Minh trail across borders drew enough ire. Screeching "Muh gomunism be after our profits!! Muh freedums!!" can only be said so many times before people get tired of that shit. The anti-war protests and social climate of the era made it even harder to carry out the Vietnam War.

The US could never have won in Vietnam unless it levelled it, Laos, Cambodia and then took on China and the Soviet Union. Dominoes go in both directions. Either way, Vietnam got torn to pieces, a generation of men got fucked over by their country and the world got a bit more miserable.
---

How did the idiot ass U.S. lose the war to the flip flop wearing Vietnamese?

Because those flip-flop wearing civilians had guns. Something that should be noted by the kind of people who say "do you think an armed citizenry could really stop a tyrannical U.S. government??"
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Because it wasnt a normal conventional war and the USA fought the war like it was a normal convential war lol

Not even.

The strategy the US used was absolutely awful. The head general thought in this new age of warfare that taking territory and holding it wasnt the way to go, but for armys to roam around killing people and taking bodies until one side gave up.

Thus the US never held down the territory they took and the Vietnamese would just re-set up shop once the US left.

Fucking idiot.
---

The Admiral posted...

How did the idiot ass U.S. lose the war to the flip flop wearing Vietnamese?

Because those flip-flop wearing civilians had guns. Something that should be noted by the kind of people who say "do you think an armed citizenry could really stop a tyrannical U.S. government??"

a "tyrannical US gov't" wouldn't care about who they killed (or else they wouldn't be declaring martial law). in the Vietnam situation (And similar ones) the gov't is holding back so to follow the "rules". no rules, no survival for rebels.

We only lost because of unpatriotic Americans and a media that was out to give propaganda to the enemy for ratings.
---

The US has lost a lot more wars than it's won
---

short answer is

The war was super unpopular

So Gerald Ford was trying to court political favor by pulling resources out of Vietnam but EBUL COMMUNIST needed to be stop so he couldn't pull out entirely and the military just never got the resources they needed to win. They were sent with not enough men, not enough equipment, not enough training, etc, and he lost the election anyway.

Fuck him.
---

Anisoptera posted...

---

Colorahdo posted...

The US has lost a lot more wars than it's won

Won
Ww1
Ww2
Spanish American war
Iraq war
Desert Storm
Aghanistan war
Revolutionary War
Civil War
Barbary Wars (sorta)
Mexican American War

Lost
Quasi war (sorta)
Vietnam war

Inconclusive
War of 1812
---

Corrik posted...

Inconclusive
War of 1812

they burned down the fucking white house
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Corrik posted...

Inconclusive
War of 1812

they burned down the fucking white house

And they had no means to win the war because of what was going on in Europe so they made a treaty in which neither side really gave up anything.

That is like saying the allies lost ww2 cuz Paris was captured.
---

Corrik posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Corrik posted...

Inconclusive
War of 1812

they burned down the fucking white house

And they had no means to win the war because of what was going on in Europe so they made a treaty in which neither side really gave up anything.

That is like saying the allies lost ww2 cuz Paris was captured.

I mean I feel comfortable saying France and Poland lost in WW2. But not the allies in general.
---

The treaty released all prisoners and restored all captured lands and ships. Returned to the United States were approximately 10,000,000 acres (40,000 km2) of territory, near Lakes Superior and Michigan, and in Maine.[20] American-held areas of Upper Canada (present-day Ontario) were returned to British control, and the American-held territory in Spanish Florida taken from Britain and officially uninvolved Spain were returned to Spanish control. The treaty thus made no changes to the pre-war boundaries. Britain promised to return the freed black slaves that they had taken. In actuality, a few years later Britain instead paid the United States $1,204,960 for them.[21] Both nations also promised to work towards an ending of the international slave trade.[22]

Pierre Berton wrote of the treaty, "It was as if no war had been fought, or to put it more bluntly, as if the war that was fought was fought for no good reason. For nothing has changed; everything is as it was in the beginning save for the graves of those who, it now appears, have fought for a trifle:.
---

Genocet_10-325 posted...

fuzzylittlbunny posted...

First of all, we didn't lose the war-- It was a tie. Besides, they're grateful. They have McDonald's now.

Lol what? South Vietnam fell to the communists. They won. It wasn't a tie.

The Korean War was a tie.

It wasnt a tie because we just wanted to leave. We got a ceasefire, said everything is good now and left. North Vietnam reorganized and proceeded to take over a few years later since South Vietnam was never capable of defending itself.
---

The US didnt lose the war. We pulled out during a stalemate. The southern Vietnamese were destroyed and taken over after we left. They lost the war and we had nothing to do with it. Saying America lost the war sounds like we went ahead and conceded south Vietnam to the communists and were like fuck lol you got me, take this land that never belonged to us in the first place and keep it.

Besides all of the rationale stated by everyone else, I personally believe that had the US gotten involved earlier (and I mean like 5-6 years), it wouldve never fell to the communists. They let it turn into a shit show before they did anything, and got involved during the height of a million social revolutions in the US. But due to the poor timing, everything went to shit.
---

lol at thinking we won in Afghanistan
---

Colorahdo posted...

lol at thinking we won in Afghanistan

I mean, by what measures didn't we win?
---

I think you're all missing the obvious answer: it's because Trump wasn't there. If he was, we would have won easily, even if he didn't have a weapon.
---

uwnim posted...

Genocet_10-325 posted...

fuzzylittlbunny posted...

First of all, we didn't lose the war-- It was a tie. Besides, they're grateful. They have McDonald's now.

Lol what? South Vietnam fell to the communists. They won. It wasn't a tie.

The Korean War was a tie.

It wasnt a tie because we just wanted to leave. We got a ceasefire, said everything is good now and left. North Vietnam reorganized and proceeded to take over a few years later since South Vietnam was never capable of defending itself.

*whoosh #2*
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Corrik posted...

Inconclusive
War of 1812

they burned down the fucking white house

canada won that war
it wasnt inconclusive
just accept it you are like the sad guy who claims a break up was mutual even though everyone knows it wasnt
---

fuzzylittlbunny posted...

uwnim posted...

Genocet_10-325 posted...

fuzzylittlbunny posted...

First of all, we didn't lose the war-- It was a tie. Besides, they're grateful. They have McDonald's now.

Lol what? South Vietnam fell to the communists. They won. It wasn't a tie.

The Korean War was a tie.

It wasnt a tie because we just wanted to leave. We got a ceasefire, said everything is good now and left. North Vietnam reorganized and proceeded to take over a few years later since South Vietnam was never capable of defending itself.

*whoosh #2*

I wasn't talking to you.
---

We didn't really win WWI so much as we cleaned up at the end. Imagine the boxing match in Rocky 1 between Rocky and Apollo. They are both exhausted beaten bloody messes that can barely stand. Then in the last round some guy bigger than both of them jumps in the ring and starts beating on Rocky. That fresh guy taking a side at the last second was the US, it simply sped up the end the of the war to a conclusion that pretty much already inevitable.
---

Why leave my post in the quote then <_<
---

fuzzylittlbunny posted...

Why leave my post in the quote then <_<

Less work. Really annoying to remove unneeded parts of the quote stack from a phone.
---

Well okay, if thats what you want... I mean I personally dont find it too hard to highlight a single paragraph, but its no big deal.
---

Our goal was to prop-up South Vietnam, a nation which was created in a peace deal between the Vietnamese rebels led by Ho Chih Minh and the French, the former colonial overlords. The two states were supposed to be united after an election, but the South cancelled the election because they knew Ho Chih Minh would win(I mean, his popularity wasn't even about the communism thing, mostly the drove-out-the-French thing).
At the time, the U.S. subscribed to a (in hindsight, utterly ridiculous) Domino Theory, whereby if one country fell to Communism, the entire region would follow(barring U.S. intervention, of course!) So we took over propping-up South Vietnam from the French, which turned out to be a fool's errand, because:

1) The South Vietnamese regime was a highly unpopular dictatorship dominated by minority Catholics
2) Ho Chih Minh, and thus North Vietnam, were hugely popular all across Vietnam
3) Our efforts to prop up the South Vietnamese regime made it even less popular
4) The fact that the war went on seemingly endlessly without any improvement in the status quo(and plenty of atrocities committed by U.S. and allied soldiers) in spite of being expanded to include massive bombing campaigns aimed at North Vietnam and a side-war in Cambodia made it increasingly unpopular at home.

Eventually, we settled for peace and left behind the status quo. However, without us to prop it up, South Vietnam collapsed and was absorbed by North Vietnam. Vietnam fell to Communism. Cambodia ended up way worse. We managed to avoid a similar misadventure for, like, 25 years.

Lastly, I leave the thread with this: http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1562-8-facts-about-vietnam-war-i-learned-as-viet-cong.html
Cracked actually interviewed a Vietnamese veteran of the Viet Cong about his experiences recently.

I guess with Outland510 leadership the US would have won.

Alas.
---

You guys really need to watch the Ken Burns series on Vietnam. It's really informative. It will also say why Nixon was the worst President in US history.
---