I'm noticing a lot of attention put into a thread that has a pretty obvious answer: Yes the US lost cuz you bloody well can't claim victory when you give up. No the military didn't lose the war, it was hippies and politics back home that lost Vietnam. While it was very impressive what the VC and NVA were able to throw together throughout the Vietnam War, its well known that they never won a major engagement. That's why they resorted to terrorism and extremely unorthodox tactics. We were lousy at dealing with those tactics on the whole, but learned more and more as time went on.

Thats why on a military level the Vietnam war was a 100% succes! We won every major conflict, our operations were a success. On a political level we lost. AND WE NEVER SURRENDERED! We were ordered out not raising a white flag!

Militarily, it was not a defeat. But we can't claim victory obviously. It stings but that comes down as a loss. It's 100% upon the heads of the people back home, the military did an outstanding job.

Originally Posted by Missileer

We lost VietNam, not the VietNam war. America won every major battle it fought and losses in the NVN army and VC are still unknown and probably never will be known. People like Walter "Crankcase" who reported just after the Tet offensive ended in disaster for North VietNam that "It is now evident to this reporter that the war in VietNam is a stalemate."

I agree but what I'm never quite sure is why the US really got involved in the first place. Oh I know the official reasons why and I even know some of the less well-known reasons why but I'm still unable to reach a definitive conclusion.

Its all Jane Fondas fault, damn communist bit*h

Militarily, we won. It was because of negative reporting, (remember, this was the first war fought that television was there to bring it into your home every night) that fanned the flames of the protesters, causing the government to desert the people of South Vietnam. If we are not careful, the news organizations are going to create the same situation in Iraq.

Ron

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

I agree but what I'm never quite sure is why the US really got involved in the first place. Oh I know the official reasons why and I even know some of the less well-known reasons why but I'm still unable to reach a definitive conclusion.

Then, exactly are you asking if you are that informed? Do you really not understand or is it that you just don't agree? I'm afraid I can't help you reach a definitive conclusion, you'll just have to study the facts you have a little closer.

Why don't you question some of the UK Veterans who were there, especially the Aussies who distinguished themselves as being among the most committed and medaled as any other Country.

Originally Posted by rb1651

Militarily, we won. It was because of negative reporting, (remember, this was the first war fought that television was there to bring it into your home every night) that fanned the flames of the protesters, causing the government to desert the people of South Vietnam. If we are not careful, the news organizations are going to create the same situation in Iraq.

Ron

Already done and already being done. There's plenty of opinion going in both directions over the situation in Iraq, but haven't you noticed that more and more people are giving in to the media opinion that is being forcefed to them? Starting out, the voices against the war in Iraq were faint and few. Now the are the majority. All the while, the media throughout the world has pushed the opinion on everyone the everything about US involvement over in Iraq is wrong and bad, etc. A lot of people who once believed in what we are doing with or without WMD's have become disillusioned unbelievers. Why? Well, 2000+ casualties is a pretty stupid reason. That is an insanely low count of casualties considering the scale of the overall military engagement and duration that we've gone through so far. You don't go and do this sort of thing without expecting a lot more losses than that.

Originally Posted by Missileer

Then, exactly are you asking if you are that informed? Do you really not understand or is it that you just don't agree? I'm afraid I can't help you reach a definitive conclusion, you'll just have to study the facts you have a little closer.

I wouldn't say I was that informed, but I am reasonably well informed for the non-expert, which I certainly am on this subject.

When I say that I'm still not sure why it was fought, it's because I'm not entirely sure which aspects of what 'facts' to believe. Certainly the CIA appear to have been heavily involved well in advance of any actual US combat troops in the country. How involved depends on who you believe.

Michelin family anyone??