We weren't defeated, we just left

>We weren't defeated, we just left

Do americans actually think this? or is it some sort of twisted logic fueled on denial?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_of_the_Vietnam_War_involving_the_United_States
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Most people just say "we won every battle but lost the war" or something like that.
Ultimately people just want to keep "muh never lost a war" alive by arguing that since America itself wasn't defeated we didn't lose, which is kind of stupid.
Also, las malvinas son ingleses.

>what were the Paris Peace Accords

The north Vietnamese reneged on the agreement, and the US refused to enforce it because the American public simply didn't give a fuck anymore.

>We didn't lose because we gave up.

This is exactly what OP is talking about.

Don’t really care anymore. We’re BFFs now.

Useless nationalism if you ask me.

We have the same thing about the northern territories, we still think that California, New Mexico, etc., were "ours". Basically no mexican lived there, if there were owners they would be the ameridians who lived in these parts thousands of years ago.

But yet, we insist that the "USA STOLE OUR LAND!!!"

Everyone knows we lost. They just don't won't to admit to it publicly especially with foreigners. It was a dumb war to begin with. You can't win a guerrilla/insurgency situation like that without outright genocide.

>We weren't defeated, we just left

Do argentinians actually think this? or is it some sort of twisted logic fueled on denial?

Yet your govt thought iraq would be any different?

>gave up
>realized the war being fought was pointless and the domino effect was a lie

If you want to make fun of the states then criticize our entrance into the war rather than our exit

We’re still basically in Iraq m8

that depends who you ask

Iraq wasn't mean wasn't mean to be a guerilla though. I mean, a lot of people cheered when Saddam was deposed and even helped to topple his statue, it's just that it all went to shit after insurgent groups started to appear now that there was no iron fist over them

There really wasn't a plan for Iraq. They invaded so they could make money off of it for the most part.

Only retarded Southerners think that. Everyone else knows we lost.

Iraq was much more of a success
We toppled the existing regime with few casualties and established elections. The sandniggers simply weren't ready for all that freedom.

Also if the Iraqis really did have WMDs we would have disarmed them of those as well - of course this would end up being one of the great lies of the campaign.

>a lot of people cheered when Saddam was deposed

Yeah, idiots

>Damn all these other nations around us have all these insurgencies and terrorist groups but we don't. Lets depose our leader now.

Gee, who could have ever seen this coming.

aw man. you established elections? you created a power vacuum that in turn let ISIS take hold. which cascaded into a refugee crises into Europe.

thanks america. Vietnam was more of a success then Iraq, there were less problems for the rest of the world dealing with small numbers of boat people then millions of sand people rushing to Europe.

>Iraq was much more of a success
Was it, though?

You just got rid of some long life shit tier stalin loving dictator, and what then?

You simply failed to stablish order. And blamed it on the people.

ISIS is on their last legs right now. They’re getting their asses handed to them.

>Iraq was much more of a success

This is bait, right?

Of course, you crushed their regular army something which was expected from the confrontation of the only military super power of the world against a 3rd world nation that was under economic sanctions for 20 years.

But considering that the objective was to reduce terrorism and bring stability to the region, it's the most astronomical failure of a military mission in recent history. And only increased your public debt by 1 or 2 trillion...

was that before or after they've already killed and displaced hundreds of thousands of people? you guys caused all this shit by destabilizing the region and now europe has deal with all the horseshit while you guys sit across a giant moat with 'NO MUSLIMS ALLOWED' signs tacked on your foreheads. thanks a lot america. like i said, at least Vietnam didn't cause such a fucking shitstorm to everyone else in the world. it was your problem and you dealt with it. it

>Do americans actually think this?
Americans don't think about the Vietnam war at all. Everyone stopped giving a fuck about it 20 years ago.

>and now europe has deal with all the horseshit while you guys sit across a giant moat with 'NO MUSLIMS ALLOWED' signs tacked on your foreheads

Wow, it's almost like there's an ocean in between or a thousand mile trek to Sweden and Germany and THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THOSE IMMIGRANTS.

we should pivot even harder to Asia since Europe is full of whiny spoilt pricks (except for the UK)

>it ain't me

>Do americans actually think this?
if they're really right wing they might. most people recognize that the us was defeated.

>you guys caused all this shit by destabilizing the region and now europe has deal with all the horseshit
it's easy to detect underageb& who haven't studied an ounce of the history regarding the middle east when euros colonized them in the late 19th - early 20th century

Are you stupid? What ocean is there that divides Europe from the Middle East?

That's not the fucking point you retard, you created they problem and now Europe has to deal with it. Europe should've just packed them all up and dropped millions of them on your borders and ask you to deal with it then. You can waste your time and money picking apart the shit you created.

Right let's compare shit that happened a hundred years ago to shit that just happened a year ago. Just fucking admit it. You guys started a war on a lie and destabilized an entire region which sparked the refugee crisis. History is unkind to interventionalists. Because we can see what happened, not what you saved it from.

>History is unkind to interventionalists

Are you stupid? most of the migrants recently have been coming across from Libya.

Perhaps you should look at a map once in your life.

If they didn't think they'd be allowed to stay in Europe, THEY WOULDN'T ATTEMPT SUCH A LONG AND COSTLY TRIP. But merkel invited them in so they came

>>le meme is not an argument.

We won Vietnam

Do tell me, what ocean do you speak of?

Do you not fucking get it? It doesn't matter how they react, the problem is that they have to react to some bullshit you created. Stop trying to deflect the blame.

Only short term history is unkind to interventionalists. Long term history glorifies them.

Ah thats a nice opinion you have there. Kind of like mine only the opposite.

>History is unkind to interventionalists
lmao

>lol no

You never had a good reason to invade irak to begin with, except propaganda

and what's that place nowadays, you just made it worst than ever

it was our land u stupid fuck, who cares if there were people or not, it was our land you fucking idiot.

Wow, such a hard reaction it would be to simply say "don't come here"

Europe's problems are 100% of their own making. Life sucks when you're stupid.

Why the fuck do you care so much about the yuros? Fuck em. They’re spoiled 1st world children. France pulled the same shit in Libya, which was arguably an even more despicable motive.

I fully admit the Iraq War was a mistake, but not because of any problems it caused Europe. I feel bad for the people who had their lives destroyed. Europe can suck a cock.

Again, they shouldn't have to deal with a problem you guys created. This is like blaming a guy for not going to the hospital after you've shot him.

Grow the fuck up.

You are so hilariously naive it almost hurts.

Europeans are the ones who have been destabilizing the middle east for centuries, and they never had this problem before. Golly gee I sure do wonder what changed..?

>>Europeans are the ones who have been destabilizing the middle east for centuries, and they never had this problem before. Golly gee I sure do wonder what changed..?

you want to talk about that shit then go to the thread where people are talking about it. stay on topic and stop trying to deflect and change the subject. fucking children.

and they don't. they could just tell these subhumans to get fucked and not allow them in, but they choose to do this to themselves for some reason.

>>being this incapable of critical thought

that's not the point cletus, the point is why do they have to deal with this problem if you guys caused it? i'm not arguing their response, i'm arguing whose responsible.

lol what a weak deflection. However, it's not surprising at all that you couldn't figure out how to respond. You're not very good at this whole debate thing.

again no one is forcing them to take in these people, most of whom are probably economic migrants to begin with. this is not the first time europe has dealt with mena immigrants either. besides the coalition of the willing was made up of many different european countries as well.

They were funny though, crisis in middle east cause by them as well

>crisis in middle east cause by them as well

it was caused by britain and france

Why is Australia so low? Wtf

and the vietnam conflict was started by france

Bullshit, there were Mexicans living in Los Angeles in Zorro

If mexicans hate us so much you'd think they would just fucking stay in mexico

We literally didn't lose you retarded mong. We signed a ceasefire and the North broke it and invaded after we left. How the fuck is that "losing"?

The future is in Asia, not Europe.

they think they hit HMS invincible with a missile

>most of the migrants recently have been coming across from Libya.
HMMM I wonder what events took place in Libya that the United States was involved in HMMMMMMM

HMM I dunno, maybe the action that FRANCE started and dragged everybody into because Hollande wanted to show he had a big dick?

>America bows to France
that's even more embarrassing than iraq desu

>win the war
>OH BUT IT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE [reason that fits my standards of what the war was]
How are you any different from the people who behave as described in the OP?
Same shit, except you want the U.S.to look bad. Pretty pathetic desu

Can’t lose a war you never declared.

The US won every major battle in the war. I don't see what's controversial about it. Surely you can't really think that a bunch of rice niggers could defeat any major Western military.

>Long term history glorifies them
ah yes, soviet intervention in the spanish civil war is praised to the heavens

hmm wait you mean the UK bowed to France

that's even more embarrassing as you had little to gain and they still cucked you

we bowed to you desu
we are indeed an embarrassment.

>americans think killed millions of vietnamese

all these battles have skirmish tier casualties
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_of_the_Vietnam_War_involving_the_United_States

Yeah well that's not exactly news is it?

That's just the order of things since WW2, but hey that's your own governments fault

>Surely you can't really think that a bunch of rice niggers could defeat any major Western military.

Well, they did. What's surprising even more was the success of Vietnam People's Air Force.

they didn't. see

>england didn't lose the wars of scottish independence, they just retreated from scotland, recognized scottish independence, and signed a peace treaty thereby abandoning their aim of conquering scotland.

>United States War Crimes
>My Lai Massacre
THAT'S JUST WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE

As another user already said we did win. By 1972 the North was willing to negotiate after having multiple offensives and being bombed to sit by B52s in Operation Linebacker. After a breakdown in negotiating and more stalled attacks by the North we bombed them again in Operation Linebacker II during December 1972. When the North signed the Paris Peace Accords they basically agreed to all US demands and the US could have gotten even more concessions if t wanted to. With the peace arranged US troops began to withdraw and hand full control to the South as well as handing over enormous quantities of military hardware.

The North reneged on the treaty 2 years later in the spring of 1975 and by that point there were basically zero US troops in Vietnam. It was the North versus the South's well equipped yet corrupt and utterly incompetent military. Congressional Democrats forbade any form of military equipment or supplies being supplied to the South and forbid any resumption to the bombing. The South lost on its own.

But by that point it did not matter as the diplomatic situation changed immensely from 1965 to 1975. The spread of communism to the rest of Southeast Asia was blunted but also China was beginning its 180 in relations to the west.

Its like saying the Soviets won the afghan war
Peace Accords was routinely violated by both sides and known to everyone to be a sham. The Vietnamese negotiator had the decency not to take the nobel peace prize.

Real life isn't CoD. Wars are not won by your KD ratio. The Soviets won 99% of the battles in the Afghanistan war, did they win the Afghanistan war?

>Congressional Democrats forbade any form of military equipment or supplies being supplied to the South and forbid any resumption to the bombing
hmmm... this implies it was something that somebody wanted to do...
really makes you think

Napoleon wasn't defeated, he just left to saint Helena

we won. get over it. Sup Forums is so obsessed its actually sad

>Its like saying the Soviets won the afghan war
We weren't defeated, we just left

I never claimed we accomplished our goal in Vietnam (won the war), I meant we clearly were militarily superior to them. They didn't humiliate us is what I mean.

>Most advanced army on earth vs peasants with ww2 weapon>KD 2/1
>they didn't humiliate us i swer

Holy Jesus, your the most uneducated person I've seen in a while

I guess you Americans will never learn. Off you go, isolated from the rest of the world in your appalling arrogance and ignorance. Keep shooting each other or get shot by your children mishandling the weapons you stupid idiots leave around the house. That's the end you deserve. Stupid obese wankers. Go to another country at the other end of the world that 95% americans wouldn't be able to place on a map, and just commit war crimes on a massive scale for no clear reason. sending 3 million people (not counting laos and cambodia that got their share of bombs too), and 50000 young americans to die for no clear reason. Yet you read the posts and no one just says: "fuck what has to american politics done to these people and our people". it should be mandatory to see that museum. It's painful but necessary.

not about to read a single word of this assblasted autismo post lad. sorry

Kek at some Americans here are so delusion about that war. No wonder they such a puppet for their cunt keep going just like in Iraq, Libia, Syria and more. Here I just dump answer from quora because there is no one in discuss with them.

>US aggressions in the North only served to strengthen that resolve - when you drop bombs on people heads, it doesn’t take much to convince them that what you actually want is to wipe them out, giving them only two choices: roll over and die, or fight back. Statements such as "bomb them back to the stone age" certainly helped to reinforce that notion. That’s why they were willing to sacrifice to the last man and woman to win the war, no matter the cost.

>For the US, there’s no such purpose other than a vague sense of patriotism and “preserving our way of life”, whatever that means, despite the fact that Vietnam has never once committed a single act of aggression on US soil, before, during or after the war. Drafting men to die for such a vague and meaningless notion tend to eventually gets harder, especially when the war appeared to drag on without a clear end in sight.

>When Ho Chi Minh said "You can kill 10 of my men for every one I kill of yours, yet even at those odds, you will lose and I will win,” it wasn’t an empty threat. For a nation to survive, if 10 men die, 10 more men will replace them. But to do something so vague and pointless, even one man’s life is too expensive a price to pay.

Yes I'm sure they teach you in your 3rd world schools how you beat back the big bad imperial Americans when the only reason the North made any gains was because they broke a fucking peace treaty

howling

F A L K L A N D S
A
L
K
L
A
N
D
S

>NV basically agreed to all US demands
Haha is that why they teach in American schools? Nixon and Kissinger caved to Tho's demands because they'd get strung up by the American public if they didn't. Withdrawing from the South? Everyone knew the SV army would crumple like a paper bag under the NV military. That and recognizing the permanence of the North, was a disaster. The only thing the North conceded was recognizing the South right to free elections, which was a rigged joke anyway because Thieu went on to win 94%.

The Accords were violated routinely by both sides. Skirmishes, military buildup on the border, hell even America didn't go through with its promise to replace Vietnamese military equipment.

>muh peace treaty, it not fair bo fucking hu.
Here in case a stupid like you never give a read to book about how much your cunt play with the 'treaty and rule'. Oh and I though you cunt never declare war with Vietnam? How about a Gulf of Tonkin false flag?
>The Geneva Accords of 1954
>By July 20, the contentious meeting had agreed that:

>Vietnam would be divided in half along the 17th Parallel (in the thin "neck" of the country).
The Vietminh would control the northern section, the State of Vietnam would control the south.
>General elections would occur in both north and south on July 20, 1956, to decide which Vietnam would govern the whole country.
The agreement meant the Vietminh, who occupied significant territory south of the 17th Parallel, would have to withdraw to the north. Nevertheless, they believed that the 1956 elections would give them control of all Vietnam.

>A REAL AGREEMENT?
>Any use of the term "agreement" with respect to the Geneva Accords must be done loosely. The U.S. and the State of Vietnam never signed it; they simply acknowledged that an agreement had been made between other nations. The U.S. doubted that, without United Nations supervision, any election in Vietnam would be democratic. From the outset, it had not the intention of letting Ngo Dinh Diem, president in the south, call the elections.

>The Geneva Accords got France out of Vietnam, certainly. However they did nothing to prevent an escalation of discord between free and communist spheres, and they only hastened American involvement in the country.

this has to be most retarded thing ive read
how is that NOT losing?
you spent tons of resources on the side that lost in the end, ceasefires are just that, a temporary ceasefire, not a peace treaty.
you just thought you could do a second korea and let it turn into an eternal stalemate
then you pussied out when nv went on the offensive again
you lost

You were spending hundreds of billions of dollars to beat a third world military still using bolt action rifles, yes.
It was pretty humiliating. You spend hundreds of billions on war, a trillion more on veteran benefits. 58k died, 100k + wounded. And you failed your war objectives.

Daily reminder: The U.S. and the State of Vietnam never signed it any of the Geneva Accords of 1954. The plan the whole thing all long without the election for Vietnam.

Nah. The US basically surrendered with the peace treaty. Everyone knew it was a sham, Tho had the decency to not accept the nobel prize.

Because we never lost? There weren't even US troops in the country when Saigon fell. If anything the war was a stalemate for the US.

What are you talking about you dumb mong? I think you might have the wrong treaty in mind.

>3rd world education

>The North Vietnamese won the war, arguably, on the back of peasants. During French rule and the subsequent Japanese occupation, Vietnamese peasants were the people who suffered the most: the vast majority of whom were forced to sell their land holdings and became landless through a cruel combination of heavy taxation, corruption and famine; many were even forced to sell their own children, or themselves into indentured servitude contracts to work at French rubber plantations to survive, which were not that much different from slavery: many were killed trying to escape. The Japanese-made famine of 1945 claimed a further 2 million lives.

>It wasn’t a coincidence that one of the earliest works of the famed NVA military general Vo Nguyen Giap was actually a treatise on peasants.

>That’s why one of the first steps of North Vietnamese government after winning the First Indochina War was land reform. It was a disastrous process riddled with mistakes and incompetence at all levels, but at its core it was an honest attempt to solve the peasant problems. And it worked - for the peasants at least.

>That’s why the peasants enthusiastically supported the war effort: the North Vietnam Regular Army was a peasant army, supported by a logistic system comprised entirely of peasants, feed by an army of farmers ready to do whatever it takes.

No it didn't you dumb mong. If the treaty was a US surrender then the North would have been given full control of the South.

That's the whole point you stupid tard. You can't expect Vietnam to follow the rules in your war game where you are, big shot set all the rules that favorite to you.

>you can't expect a country like vietnam to abide by a signed treaty

yes we know that now

Yes?

winning 95% of all battles and withdrawing for political reasons...

Total military win, diplomatic loss. completely undeniable to anyone who knows anything