in military speaking ,the victory means occupy the land in the end.

in stratagem speaking ,if the original purpose have been achieved successfully it means victory.

if we declare cietnam win, but we should know that the cost for their victory was very high,and only the victory-itself can not compensate all the things they lost in the past.

if we declare the usa was defeated,but we should know that the usa was not defeated by the forces of the vietnam but by the poll in the united states....commen people in usa began to anti-that-war.

in my own opinion.::::
viennam win,but in high cost;usa lost,but was not defeated by the vietnam but by the commen people of the united states.

Originally Posted by yingying

in military speaking ,the victory means occupy the land in the end.

in stratagem speaking ,if the original purpose have been achieved successfully it means victory.

if we declare cietnam win, but we should know that the cost for their victory was very high,and only the victory-itself can not compensate all the things they lost in the past.

if we declare the usa was defeated,but we should know that the usa was not defeated by the forces of the vietnam but by the poll in the united states....commen people in usa began to anti-that-war.

in my own opinion.::::
viennam win,but in high cost;usa lost,but was not defeated by the vietnam but by the commen people of the united states.

Your English is a little hard to follow ... BUT ... I think you put the end result into a nutshell.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

Your English is a little hard to follow ... BUT ... I think you put the end result into a nutshell.

what do you mean ?
in facti can not catch the point of your words.
do you say that what i said was in brief? and they are all right?

Yes ying that is the meaning of the idiom he used.

Well, definitely no disputes about it!

I don't believe the protesters had much to do with the defeat in Vietnam (the only thing they did was lower the moral of the troops). The United States of America has won very unpopular wars (The Revolution, Civil War, WWI and Korea). I believe anyone who believes that the protesters caused the defeat are dead wrong. Nixon was not a weak president however when Watergate happened we got Ford (who was very much a pansy) who refused to back SV when attacked by the North (after US troops had left once the truce was signed). The war was not lost at the tip of a gun but by the tip of a pen.

And you lived through these times right?

Originally Posted by bulldogg

And you lived through these times right?

What does that have to do with anything?

There are people on this board who have posted on this topic who lived during Vietnam and some who fought in Vietnam and you are coming in here refuting what they have to say on the matter. I am just trying to establish the base of the authority of which you speak. You claim that they are "dead wrong" so you must have some ground breaking news to share for such a vociferous claim. I wait with baited breath.

As enlisted people, we were told not to wear our uniforms when traveling because of the good possibility of being spat upon, hit with a hard object, beaten senseless or even killed. That wasn't the Government, that was dope smoking, vermin infested, worthless louts who eventually wound up in our education system as teachers and administraters, why hell, you may even know a few of them. Then, of course, Jane Fonda is nominated as one of the Women of the Year or some such Bravo Sierra, by the same louts.