Are you trying to say that the u.s actually won the war in vietnam?
Its nice to see that you dont want to give your country a bad label by saying the u.s didnt win the war but the truth is that the u.s pulled out because of heavy u.s casualties adding up to around 60,000 and the fact that vietnam was very hard to take control of without creating a mass insurgency which was responsible for most u.s casualties.
The anti-war protests started before the u.s went to vietnam just like the anti war protests for iraq started long before the actual war. Why would the u.s government ignore the protests and only pay attention to them after 7 years of war?

Originally Posted by prolific

Are you trying to say that the u.s actually won the war in vietnam?

Good heavens, I certainly hope not. We can justify it however we like, but the USA really and truly lost for the first and only time courtesy of the Vietnam Conflict.

Its nice to see that you dont want to give your country a bad label by saying the u.s didnt win the war but the truth is that the u.s pulled out because of heavy u.s casualties adding up to around 60,000

Incorrect. First of all, Within about a 10 year period, taking 60,000 casualties is light casualties, not heavy. Consider the casualties taken by both sides of the Korean Conflict in just 2 year!

and the fact that vietnam was very hard to take control of without creating a mass insurgency which was responsible for most u.s casualties.

"Taking control of Vietnam" was not what created the "Insurgency" in South Vietnam. Forcing the creation of a non-Communist half of Vietnam -- hence the creation of the nation of South Vietnam -- touched off much of it, but the insurgents (Vietcong) were:
1.) A definite minority.
2.) Cannot be said to have been acting alone. Their initial creation continued existence was heavily dependent upon the support of the USSR, China and North Vietnam. Without these outside factors, the Vietcong would have been a shortlived, failed rebellion.
3.) As we are now seeing in Iraq, when you are nowhere close to having the majority vote, brutalizing the opposing magority into submission is one thing to try.

The anti-war protests started before the u.s went to vietnam just like the anti war protests for iraq started long before the actual war. Why would the u.s government ignore the protests and only pay attention to them after 7 years of war?

The two conflicts are similar there, but name for me any war in modern history that didn't have your "give peace a chance" or " ... peace in our time" (Chamberlain) stupidity around. There are always people crying peace when peace is counterproductive and even absolutely damning. At the outset of Vietnam, that segment of Americans was very very tiny.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

This bit of loveliness. Surely does look all terrible and inhumane when you only take this one frame and slap it onto the cover of your Magazine (it was Time magazine I believe). Makes our role in Vietnam seem like we were absolute monsters, doesn't it? But if you watch the video of exactly the same incident, you realize that the "crying" face is not crying at. It was an expression of rage, but this frame catches it with his eyes closed and all scrunched up. Time (or whover it was) just picked to perfect frame to make it look like something completely different than it was. This gentleman had just been captured. He had just knocked down a couple soldiers and was in the process of breaking and running. The guy with the gun does in fact shoot him in the head. Had he not done so, this man might very well have escaped.

I believe that was a South Vietnamese Police Officer firing the gun, they actually had a picture of this in my school and through some miracle they even had a caption that put it into context, kind of, read something like this: "South Vietnamese Police Officer kills a captured Vietcong." Quite amazing.

Originally Posted by prolific

Are you trying to say that the u.s actually won the war in vietnam?
Its nice to see that you dont want to give your country a bad label by saying the u.s didnt win the war but the truth is that the u.s pulled out because of heavy u.s casualties adding up to around 60,000 and the fact that vietnam was very hard to take control of without creating a mass insurgency which was responsible for most u.s casualties.
The anti-war protests started before the u.s went to vietnam just like the anti war protests for iraq started long before the actual war. Why would the u.s government ignore the protests and only pay attention to them after 7 years of war?

This was a political loss, not a military loss, that's the difference we are trying to point out to people like yourself.

Originally Posted by prolific

Are you trying to say that the u.s actually won the war in vietnam?
Its nice to see that you dont want to give your country a bad label by saying the u.s didnt win the war but the truth is that the u.s pulled out because of heavy u.s casualties adding up to around 60,000 and the fact that vietnam was very hard to take control of without creating a mass insurgency which was responsible for most u.s casualties.u.s government ignore the protests and only pay attention to them after 7 years of war?

Are you trying to say that the American military was defeated in Vietnam?
It's sad to see so many people taking things out of context and even believing untruths designed to make America look bad. The truth is the U.S. withdrew its military because of changing public opinion influenced by communist funded, inspired, and trained agitators, of this there is no doubt.
The fact is that there was no true South Vietnamese insurgency.
How could anti-war protests exist before the war? What the heck would they be protesting?
During the early conflict, the protestors were a minute group of students that would have been protesting something else if not Vietnam, kind of like PETA. Who pays them much attention?

Well, Good point. But most movie's portray the Americans losing the war! That is the sterotype broadcast by the TV.

Exactly zander, they are movies (like King Kong). Hollywood is not exactly a good source for the truth is it?

Well, it definitely isn't!

DING DING DING We have a winner!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
This bit of loveliness. Surely does look all terrible and inhumane when you only take this one frame and slap it onto the cover of your Magazine (it was Time magazine I believe). Makes our role in Vietnam seem like we were absolute monsters, doesn't it? But if you watch the video of exactly the same incident, you realize that the "crying" face is not crying at. It was an expression of rage, but this frame catches it with his eyes closed and all scrunched up. Time (or whover it was) just picked to perfect frame to make it look like something completely different than it was. This gentleman had just been captured. He had just knocked down a couple soldiers and was in the process of breaking and running. The guy with the gun does in fact shoot him in the head. Had he not done so, this man might very well have escaped.


Originally Posted by Damien435
I believe that was a South Vietnamese Police Officer firing the gun, they actually had a picture of this in my school and through some mirable they even had a caption that put it into context, kind of, read something like this: "South Vietnamese Police Officer kills a captured Vietcong." Quite amazing.

The NV man is question was in fact an NVA or VC officer (I forget which) caught in a combat area wearing civilian clothes. In other words, he was a spy. The South Vietnamese officer who pulled the trigger had just been informed that the NVA officer was fighting in the area that his family lived in. Now, if you read the Geneva convention, you will find that the punishment for spies caught in a combat area is summary execution. The police officer simply did his job and it was completely legal.
Yep, it surprised the hell out of me as well.

Dean.

Yes well that may be true Dean, but even w/o the Geneva Conventions, the man was a prisoner attempting to escape. He was attempting to do so by force, so even if he hadn't been a spy, he was attempting to run away from, in effect, an arresting officer. The arresting officer, to simplify, shot him before he could escape. Would he have been executed anyway? In all likelihood, yes.