 
|
Stephen M
 |
because they can't admit defeat because they are the almighty USA and that would make the world all wrong if they lost.
Don't know if they get it taught at school but i didn't realise they lost until i was about 15 because i had seen loads of films about vietnam and they all give the impresssion of the heroic americans fighting the evil Vietnamese and always gave the impression that in the end they would be victorious |
|
dinodino
 |
There are stupid people everywhere, including the British Commonwealth and the UK. |
|
B.Kevorkian
 |
They marched against the War and thier country complied with thier demands and pulled out. How was that not a victory the American protestors and thier communist allies in Vietnam? |
|
tons'o'fun
|
maybe they have a different definition of victory to us |
|
BMC
|
America the indispensable
Yet in one way Mr Bush is unfairly maligned. Contrary to the Democratic version of history, America did not enjoy untrammelled influence abroad before he arrived. The country that won the cold war also endured several grievous reverses, notably Vietnam (where 58,000 Americans were killed—16 times the figure for Iraq). Iran has been defying America since Jimmy Carter's presidency, and North Korea for a generation before that. As for soft power, France has been complaining about Coca-Cola and Hollywood for nearly a century.
From this perspective of relative rather than absolute supremacy, a superpower's strength lies as much in what it can prevent from happening as in what it can achieve. Even today, America's “negative power” is considerable. Very little of any note can happen without at least its acquiescence. Iran and North Korea can defy the Great Satan, but only America can offer the recognition the proliferating regimes crave. In all sorts of areas—be it the fight against global warming or the quest for an Arab-Israeli peace—America is quite simply indispensable.
That is because America still has the most hard power. Its volunteer army is indeed stretched: it could not fight another small war of choice. But it can still muster 1.5m people under arms and a defence budget almost as big as the whole of the rest of the world's. And it could call on so much more: in relation to the country's size, its defence budget and army are quite small by historical standards. Better diplomacy would enhance its power. One irony of the “war on terror” is that Mr Bush's hyperventilation worked against him in terms of getting boots on the ground: neither his own countrymen nor his allies were sure enough that they were really under threat. (And why should they be? An American-led West spent four decades tussling with a nuclear-armed empire that stretched from Berlin to Vladivostok; al-Qaeda is still small beer.)
The surveys that show America's soft power to be less respected than it used to be also show the continuing universal appeal of its values—especially freedom and openness. Even the immigrants and foreign goods that so worry some Americans are tributes to that appeal (by contrast, the last empire to build a wall on its border, the Soviet one, was trying to keep its subjects in). Nor is it an accident that anti-Americanism has fed off those instances, such as Guantánamo Bay, where America has seemed most un-American. This is the multiplier effect that Mr Bush missed: win the battle for hearts and minds and you do not need as much hard power to get your way.
That lesson is worth bearing in mind when it comes to the challenge of China. China is likely to be more and more in America's face, whether buying American firms, winning Olympic gold or blasting missiles into space. Merely by growing, China is disrupting the politics of the Pacific. But that does not mean that it is automatically on track to overtake America. Its politics are fragile (see article) and America's lead is immense. Moreover, economics is not a zero-sum game: so far, a bigger China has helped to enrich America. An America that stays open to China—an America that sticks to American values—is much more likely to help fashion the China it wants.
If America were a stock, it would be a “buy”: an undervalued market leader, in need of new management. But that points to its last great strength. More than any rival, America corrects itself. Under pressure from voters, Mr Bush has already rediscovered some of the charms of multilateralism; he is talking about climate change; a Middle East peace initiative is possible. Next year's presidential election offers a chance for renewal. Such corrections are not automatic: something (a misadventure in Iran?) may yet compound the misery of Iraq in the same way Watergate followed Vietnam. But America recovered from the 1970s. It will bounce back stronger again. |
|
John B
 |
People think of Vietnam as a war in itself. It wasn't. Vietnam was but one battle in the cold war that we fought with the USSR and China for over four decades. Although my mindset has changed many times since my army days in Vietnam, one thing is now clear to me. Our taking a stand in Vietnam and Korea against Communist governments supported by the Soviet Union had a great deal to do with their ultimately deciding that THEY could not win the cold war.
I'm sure that people will argue with me till the cows come home on this one but had Korea and Vietnam fallen into Communism then a great deal of the pacific rim would have become of interest to the Soviet's goal of spreading Communism throughout the world wherever it could. It was dumb the way we fought the war and some could argue that we should have stood our ground somewhere else like Thailand, they likely would've been next, but hey, I think all in all things worked out pretty well for not only the US but the world.
By the way, I was in Vietnam again last year. Doesn't seem much like a Communist country to me. We may have gotten our butts handed to us militarily, but capitalism is kicking butt right back now.
Oh and for the one that thinks we have bases in South Vietnam? We don't. There is no South Vietnam. Only Vietnam united under what used to be the government of North Vietnam. Preventing the north from conquering the south? That much we did lose. |
|
lytnyngryder
|
Sir, for the Veterans that fought over there, winning or losing is not the issue. The issue for them, is that America pretty much deserted them. My cousin came home from Nam and people would flip him off, and spit at him. Myself, I joined the United States Air Force one month before the fall of Siagon. I was 18 years old, by four (4) months. I had no way of knowing that the war was truly over. The American forces were pulling out, but operations have a tendency to go wrong. Could you stand in front of an American GI, who fought in Vietnam, and tell him he lost the war. If you can do that, then you are a braver, if not more ignorant man, than I am. Please don't take this personally, but you did ask for an opinion. Peace!
The Ryder |
|
Hendo
|
I have recently studied at UCLan with several American students and not one of them had that belief. |
|
plhudson01
|
we were forced out of there so yeah I would say we lost |
|
AFDEE
|
The Americans still believe John Wayne won the second world war |
|
joyce s
|
we lost it but still have bases in South Viet Nam and they are not ruled by North Viet NAm; that was our objective for South not to be comminist or run by the North; We lost alot of good young men in that Police action the opium war, many more came back without limbs or totally messed up in the head, I have friends served there still have nightmares and messed up in the head from it. |
|
tttplttttt
|
Poor Jakey has his undies in a bunch. |
|
River Rat Vietnam
|
You have to realize that liberal democrats never, ever, take responsibility for what they do. They think we won because they stopped the funding and then blamed Nixon for the Pullout. Then, they spread the story that we actually won. Just as these same idiot liberal democrats will do with Iraq. They will finally cancel funding, pull our troops out, and then convince themselves and the liberal media that when the terrorists start attacking us here in the US that they could not possibly be responsible because they are not responsible for anything. It's amazing how so many people believe liberal democrats when nearly everything they say is a lie
For those who say that Vietnam was not a war, let me point out that a man who was killed in Nam still stinks just as bad after three days without burial as a man who was killed in WW1 or WW2. It many not be a damned war to you, but it sure was to those of us who fought it |
|
Eric R
|
The answer is... We lost the war here at home, not overseas. That is the only similartiy to Iraq. Our politicians and the weak hand of the left wing handicap our soldiers so badly that they cannot even fight a battle to win it. If a terrorist hides in a Mosque for safety... BOMB THE MOSQUE. If Hitler would have hid in a church do you think we would have not bombed the church during WWII?
Fact is, there is no Military Force on the Planet that could defeat our Armed Forces. We have superior weaponry, superior training, and superior morality. We lose battles because we refuse to let our military do what is necessary to win. |
|
Jennifer S
|
we know we did not win the vietnam war,you have your info wrong |
|
supressdesires
|
We never lost any major battles in the Nam and kicked the enemy's asses whenever we met on the battlefield. You think that the USA's losses were large don't you wonder what the enemy losses were?? They tried to conceal all their dead so that their numbers wouldn't reflect the truth. The war was lost politically by Johnson, McNamara, Nixon, and last but not the least Kissinger. |
|
Jean-Luc
|
Saw a survey the other day which said that 41% of Americans STILL believe Saddam was responsible for 9-11
Scary how ignorant they are. |
|
-RKO-
 |
Because some Americans just can't face the truth. |
|
theunknownstuntman
|
They lost 54,000 and the viet cong lost 3,000,000. doesn't matter to them that the vietnamese took control of the whole country they just see the numbers |
|
tynie98
|
ask any of the returning troops about the welcome they got when returning from vietnam They were called baby killers and worse.They certainly didn't win that war. There were too many being killed and being prisoners It was in the sixties after all time of the hippies going to canada to dodge the call up etc Look at the black wall and you will see just how many americans died in that war. Some still have not returned. |
|
T78
|
Well, America isn't the only country in this world that dose that some there are some in this world who do the same thing as the US so it's not just the US that say things like that.
Then again you also have to hear both sides of the story from those who saw it on TV and from those who lived it. |
|
John T
|
Why do people keep saying we lost it, despite all of the evidence, much of which is probably listed above? Guess not.
S. Viet Nam fell 2 years after we left. After we stopped funding our ally. After congress forced our troops to leave.
No battles were lost. Body counts were extraordinairely one sided in our favor. We held our ground for as long as the military desired to do so. It was the politicians and peaceniks that pulled us out. The military was given an extraordinairy task and still exceeded expectations. Thank a Viet Nam Vet today. You have treated them wrongly. |
|
cristales
 |
We did not win the war in Vietnam. We left because it was an unjust war and because the American people were against it.
If and when the military of our country looses its soldiers it does not matter if the war was declared by the rules or not.If our young people are dying it is a war. There are no winners in military conflicts accept for the military industrial complex that Pres. Eisenhower warned us about..remember? |
|
Collin D
 |
Technically, we didn't lose the Vietnam War, because there was no Vietnam War, it was a conflict. Or, even more technically, a "police action," which we lost, but could of won, but for stupid politicians... |
|
billy
|
IF THEY COULDN'T WIN THE WAR IN SOMALI THE TINIEST OF COUNTRIES, WHAT WAR CAN THEY EVER WIN? THEY JUST NEVER ADMIT DEFEAT JUST LIKE THEY DON'T LIKE REJECTION. |
|
Alison G
|
American's never lose anything! |
|
Anthony S
|
Depends how you view it. Was the object of the war to stop the spread of communism into South Vietnam? If so, our objective was reached. Though, to thoughs that the objective was to secure North Vietnam and unite the entire country, then, yes. We lost. |
|
Roscoe R
 |
Many VETS are" flag blinded" they never considered the fact that we want WAR
I am proud of theVietnamese for kicking the USA out
The USA lost hands down.....and they will lose this war as well |
|
|
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
