How did USA lose so badly?

Right just give it to me STRAIGHT this time round because I am FED UP TO HERE with the lame ass excuses from seppos

you LITERALLY have just TEN SECONDS to explain to me how the """"""strongest""""""" military in the world lost to a bunch of rice farmers with old ass soviet weapons?

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS ONE HUH?

Just WHAT is it with USA losing to FARMERS?

>defeated by moose farmers
>defeated by rice farmers
>defeated by goat farmers

>inb4 emu war
>inb4 politics
>inb4 we won da battles

seriously no lame ass excuses this time round or i will report you for derailing my thread


SERIOUS DISCUSSION ONLY

Media reporting we were losing and causing the American people to want to have the troops returned home.

>fudge death toll
>take lots of gruesome photos
>lots of negative articles

>a few hundred
it was more like a few hundred thousand

Because they didn't try, LBJ had already given up on Vietnam by 1968 and most of it was a saving face campaign.

>Media reporting we were losing and causing the American people to want to have the troops returned home.
>>fudge death toll
>>take lots of gruesome photos
>>lots of negative articles


Fake news sorry.

in most wars the american liberals and liberal media actively help the enemy

>"changing "WHO WOULD WIN?" to "HOW DID THEY LOSE"
lad
all that did was ruin what made the image so funny

>implying the US was defeated by the vietcong
>not knowing the vietcong were wiped out in the tet offensive
>ignoring the reality that the US withdrew, then the NVA invaded the south and conquered them.

>They

You lost as well Australia.

>I want serious historical discussion
>on a board full of NEETs who communicate in epic maymays against le SJW leftist cucks xD

More than that when you consider basically every South Vietnamese man of fighting age was Viet Cong, and the rest of the population helped with supplying food, shelter, etc. to them. We weren't fighting another army, we were fighting an entire country.

You know they did not lose right?

ANZAC lost with us

The rules of war. When you can't murder everyone in your path because of "muh principles" anyone can beat you when they just meld into the general public and utilize guerilla warfare. War these days just ain't what it used to be.

>SERIOUS DISCUSSION ONLY
You are clearly not australian, get out.

Yeah, long gone are the days where you could shell an army camp with corrosive gas the run up to them and beat them to death with a rusty morning star

>sks
>outdated

This. You backed an entire nation and culture into a corner. Desperate men can be extremely dangerous. Shock and awe tactics failed to fully demoralize them, it just pissed them off.

Hey, another thread for this.

It was a war for a sake of war, there was no intention to win.
Same for Middle East.

...

The objective was to kill off a bunch of patriotic americans and test new military hardware, while at the same time funneling enormous amounts of money into the military industrial complex to stimulate economic growth.

It was a success in those regards.

0, kill the first guy who shows up and wait for the second guy and then mow him down

>how did they lose?
You lose if you don't win, and they were playing a game that inherently lacks a win condition. As long as the people keep resisting, you've not won yet, so unless you plan to exterminating them all, you're not winning.

Because America was never really interested in winning.

Which is tragic, considering how many the Communists ended up killing in Vietnam; atrocities like Mỹ Lai were bad, but they weren't part of a deliberate strategy of terror like the massacres at Huế or Đắk Sơn.

Pic related: Memorial to the massacre at Huế that miraculously disappeared once the war was over.

Oy vey

because they were fighting an ideology. the same goes with the wars in iraq and afghanistan

Oy vey indeed. It's what happens when your enemies just have nothing to lose from resisting you. That's the difference between the US subjugating Japan and Germany and trying to subjugate third world shitholes. In the third world they have nothing to lose but their pride.

>you LITERALLY have just TEN SECONDS to explain to me how the """"""strongest""""""" military in the world lost to a bunch of rice farmers with old ass soviet weapons?

we wren't trying to do anything but kill our own black soldiers and spend money, the mission was a total success

>serious discussion only
>1 post by this ID

Nigger do you know what asymmetrical warfare is? If we were on an open field, and we threw everything we had at the Viet Cong, and they threw everything they had at us, they'd be annihilated. They blended in with the civilian populace. Our rules of engagement were restrictive. They could hide, fight, then hide again quickly. How fucking hard is it for you idiots to understand this? Our military was, and still is built around fighting a much larger army.
By the way, when US troops ran into the NVA, we fucked them up.

Yeah, thats how the zulu beat the poms back in '79

This

Also, when they made the mistake of not following asymmetrical warfare with the Tết Offensive, the Viet Cong were basically finished.