Printable View
Actually the US lost around 58,000 and I have heard anything from 660,000 to over 1 million for the North Vietnamese.Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
Get your facts straight bud, America lost around 40,000 soldiers.. the Vietnamese lost over 1 million.
X
Please try to at least inform yourself about the basics of a subject before making a post.Quote:
Originally posted by TheVader
Since when did America win the Vietnam war?? After hundreds of thousands of US soldiers had been killed, the army was pulled back, remember...
Oh, and when you're comparing victories to the amount of kills I think you've made the worst choice possible with Vietnam...
On the low side estimates for every 1 US solider that died they killed 12. On the high side it could have been 1 to 20. As stated above the US lost 58,000 while the estimates for the North Vietnamese have ranged from 660,000 to over 1 million soldiers lost.
X
Yay! The more darned foreigners you kill in their own country the better!
One million vietnamese! 100,000 Iraqi's!
Great result! Good going guys! I agree with Arc, this is a superb outcome. The families of the 100,000 dead Iraqi's are going to love the fact that we came in to liberate them! Yay!!!!!
Saddam is responsible for the deaths of well over 1 million people. I suppose in your world that is more preferable to leave him in power? You got some big time oil deals with him too? :DQuote:
Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Yay! The more darned foreigners you kill in their own country the better!
One million vietnamese! 100,000 Iraqi's!
Great result! Good going guys! I agree with Arc, this is a superb outcome. The families of the 100,000 dead Iraqi's are going to love the fact that we came in to liberate them! Yay!!!!!
X
Silly me. Two wrongs do make a right!Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Saddam is responsible for the deaths of well over 1 million people. I suppose in your world that is more preferable to leave him in power? You got some big time oil deals with him too? :D
X
Thanks guys for sorting that out for me.
Ok so its wrong removing a brutal dictator that has killed over 1 million people...got it.Quote:
Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Silly me. Two wrongs do make a right!
Thanks guys for sorting that out for me.
X
You guys are right about the numbers. More Vietnamese than Americans died. But remember that every single American there was a soldier; that can in no way be said of all Vietnamese that died. Don't forget that complete villages were destroyed because the men might be VietCong soldiers. Even more civilians were killed by the massive napalm bombings.
But apart from the amount of casualties, how can it be said that the US won the Vietnam war? Because of the many body bags coming back to the US, the negative publicity, and the high costs, the US army withdrawed from Vietnam; the border between North and South Vietnam was exactly the same after the war as it had been before.
Perhaps it's just me, but I can't find any US victory here...
erm.. are you thinking of korea by chance? North Vietnamese troops overran South Vietnam after the US pulled out.Quote:
Originally posted by TheVader
.... the border between North and South Vietnam was exactly the same after the war as it had been before....
Perhaps it's just me, but I can't find any US victory in here...
You said it yourself. :) After the US had pulled out. So during the time the US army was involved, the border didn't change.
And if you look at the complete picture with North Vietnam overtaking the South, the war is even more a total loss for the US... :rolleyes:
WOW!...nothing like bringing up 30 year old arguments.
Besides what does the Vietnam war have anything to do with what is going on now?????
The only comparision between the Vietnam war and the Iraq war...is just that....their wars...other then that they really have nothing in common.
I never said anything to the contrary. Actually there wasn't any North/South border while the US was there. US troops were all over Vietnam. The US pulled out and the remnants of the North Vietnamese army took control of the government. I was just pointing out that you are full of sheit. Don't put words in my mouth.Quote:
Originally posted by TheVader
[B]You said it yourself. :) After the US had pulled out. So during the time the US army was involved, the border didn't change.
In the first place I posted this because I couldn't stand seeing MerrionComputing casually mentioning the US 'victory' over Vietnam... which is the biggest nonsense I've heard in this thread so far.Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
WOW!...nothing like bringing up 30 year old arguments.
Besides what does the Vietnam war have anything to do with what is going on now?????
The only comparision between the Vietnam war and the Iraq war...is just that....their wars...other then that they really have nothing in common.
In the second place there are definately comparisons between the Vietnam and the Iraq war... they were both unreasonable crusades of the US against something vague as 'communism' or 'terrorism'. Both wars are part of a larger conflict which has, in fact, nothing to do with the countries at all.
I'm not putting any words into your mouth. You literally said that "North Vietnamese troops overran South Vietnam after the US pulled out." So, indeed, after the US withdrawed the border was altered; not anytime before. Oh, and just for your information: a country's border is not defined by the amount of US soldiers around it...Quote:
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
I never said anything to the contrary. Actually there wasn't any North/South border while the US was there. US troops were all over Vietnam. The US pulled out and the remnants of the North Vietnamese army took control of the government. I was just pointing out that you are full of sheit. Don't put words in my mouth.
wrong...The US was in vietnam in the early 60's (mostly special forces) as advisors...The vietnamese were fighting the war themselves. It only became a full blown american war in the mid 60's because of the lack of ability of the vietnamese to effectively defend themselves.
Unreasonable crusades?? Your calling defending a country which could not defend itself an unreasonable crusade? That is the role of the US and large, powerful countries to defend those that can't defend themselves.
Vague? not a chance. Communism and Terrorism are clearly defined in their beliefs and actions.
The Iraq war is clearly a part of the larger war on terrorism...or have you been under a rock and not heard they destroyed a terrorist training camp in northern iraq that had known ties to Saddam and his regime? Or that Saddam paid money to the families of terrorists?
if you feel safe living in a world where people like saddam have WMD's and promote and aid terroistic groups, that's your perogative...But most of us don't. Nor will we sit idly by and wait for another attack to take place.
Actually it wasn't really a border. What was left of the old Northern army killed what was left of the southern army. Not really a border issue per say.Quote:
Originally posted by TheVader
I'm not putting any words into your mouth. You literally said that "North Vietnamese troops overran South Vietnam after the US pulled out." So, indeed, after the US withdrawed the border was altered; not anytime before.
Tell that to the South Koreans or the Former West Germans or 1950's through 1980's europeans. Or kuwaitQuote:
Oh, and just for your information: a country's border is not defined by the amount of US soldiers around it... [/B]
Do you actually believe what you're saying now?? "It is the role of the US to defend countries that can't defend themselves..." Wow, I'd almost think that there are numerous nice people in America who are willing to help you if you've been a good boy...Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
wrong...The US was in vietnam in the early 60's (mostly special forces) as advisors...The vietnamese were fighting the war themselves. It only became a full blown american war in the mid 60's because of the lack of ability of the vietnamese to effectively defend themselves.
Unreasonable crusades?? Your calling defending a country which could not defend itself an unreasonable crusade? That is the role of the US and large, powerful countries to defend those that can't defend themselves.
You know as well as I do that the US didn't give a **** about either North or South Vietnam. The only reason they were intervening is because they were afraid that Vietnam would become a communistic state.
And yes, I do call the McCarthy-hunt for communists and the 'containment-policy' an unreasonable crusade against communism. At least I can't think of any valid reasons for it...
Of course both communism and terrorism have their own beliefs; what I mean with 'vague' is the fact that they're not so clearly defined to the common people. It's very easy to shape them yourself and thus create an 'enemy of the state'. It was done in the sixties with the communism, now it's done with the terrorism.
Please speak for yourself... personally I think the US is a larger threat to the World peace than Iraq... or should I say Syria? or North Korea? or Afghanistan? You name it...Quote:
if you feel safe living in a world where people like saddam have WMD's and promote and aid terroistic groups, that's your perogative...But most of us don't. Nor will we sit idly by and wait for another attack to take place. [/B]
If the US didn’t fight the war on Communism it would be very likely you wouldn’t be able to even express your opinions here or anywhere else and if you did you would likely find yourself in a Gulag somewhere or worse floating face down in a river with a bullet in the back of your head.Quote:
And yes, I do call the McCarthy-hunt for communists and the 'containment-policy' an unreasonable crusade against communism. At least I can't think of any valid reasons for it...
I guess you never heard of freedom as a valid reason for fighting against Communism. Just another self-righteous individual who is taking his own freedom for granted. But I for one am glad that even people like you can express their views no matter how wrong or misguided they may be. Because I want everyone in the world to know what its like to be free to express themselves.
Next time you are looking for reasons take a look at your own freedom in your own country. Then look at those in communist controlled countries and then maybe you will understand just how important being free really is.
X
You are immediately assuming that I'd be part of the Soviet-Union be now; why, the only reason why Stalin assaulted countries in Easern-Europe was to create a buffer-zone against the capitalism. He had no intention of controlling the world... though the 'World Revolution' was part of the communistic ideology, the stalinism didn't desire this.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
If the US didn’t fight the war on Communism it would be very likely you wouldn’t be able to even express your opinions here or anywhere else and if you did you would likely find yourself in a Gulag somewhere or worse floating face down in a river with a bullet in the back of your head.
Who are you to decide what freedom is or what my or anyone else's life should look like? The US always think that if they create a Western-type democracy 'from scratch' and just punch in enough fast-food restaurants, a country will perfectly function as a pro-American state.Quote:
I guess you never heard of freedom as a valid reason for fighting against Communism. Just another self-righteous individual who is taking his own freedom for granted. But I for one am glad that even people like you can express their views no matter how wrong or misguided they may be. Because I want everyone in the world to know what its like to be free to express themselves.
Well, let me help you out of your dream: it won't. You simply can't expect a people that has lived for generations in a theocentric country where there is a limited freedom and where, for example, men are permitted by law to marry four different women, to simply turn into a Western democracy.
The US should for once respect a country's sovereignity and culture.
Boy.......what a ***!Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
So that's something to be proud of is it ?
That your vastly technologically superior army can massacre and rain destruction down from above on an inferior military force.
Three cheers for the americans and such a courageous victory.
Whoever told you that is a complete fooking moron and you need to tell them to stfu and read about the history of NATO and post war europe. You are a very naive poorly educated individual if you think that was all that Stalin was doing. Stalin made his intentions for soviet occupation in europe very clear.Quote:
Originally posted by TheVader
You are immediately assuming that I'd be part of the Soviet-Union be now; why, the only reason why Stalin assaulted countries in Easern-Europe was to create a buffer-zone against the capitalism. He had no intention of controlling the world... though the 'World Revolution' was part of the communistic ideology, the stalinism didn't desire this.
The occupying of countries was part of the Cold War. Both the Soviet-Union and the USA tried to spread respectively the communism and the capitalism over the world. The reason for this was to constantly balance the power. Stalin used Eastern Europe as a buffer-zone against the capitalism. That way he could protect the Soviet-Union against the capitalism.Quote:
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Whoever told you that is a complete fooking moron and you need to tell them to stfu and read about the history of NATO and post war europe. You are a very naive poorly educated individual if you think that was all that Stalin was doing. Stalin made his intentions for soviet occupation in europe very clear.
In other words: the only reason why Stalin occupied some countries was protection, not domination; it was a result of the Cold War, not of the ideology. The USA's policy was no different. The financial help for Western Europe, the 'liberating' of Vietnam and Korea, was all part of the same development.
I did feel safe, because Saddam didn't have WMDs and didn't aid terrorist groups. And I don't feel safe with George Bush having WMDs and playing the biggest terrorist.Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
if you feel safe living in a world where people like saddam have WMD's and promote and aid terroistic groups, that's your perogative...But most of us don't. Nor will we sit idly by and wait for another attack to take place.
If you care to dispute those statements, take a moment to read my other thread Liar Liar which has two URLs, the BBC one clearly refuting both claims by US government that Iraq had WMDs and was helping terrorist groups, notably Al Qaeda.
.
You are asking too much. There ain't no culture in the US and there ain't no soverignty inside it :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by TheVader
The US should for once respect a country's sovereignity and culture.
.
I read in newspapers and books that during the Vietnam war, the American citizens finally protested against the war which didn't seem to stop consuming young American men, and finally the government had to pull out the troops. That one war certainly didn't end in the US' favour. Why the economy was so down many of the war veterans had to live as beggars, with "I am a Vietnam war veteran" written on a board beside them.
I have read figures of about 3000-odd Iraqi soldiers and about 1300-odd Iraqi civilians being killed in the war (add to that a 20-odd figure for post-war killing of civilians: Mosul etc.) And going by the reports of the war, it's simply unbelievable that 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died. I doubt if these many numbers even faced the US military. The main battlefields were only Nassiria, Umm Qasr, Basra and Baghdad. In Baghdad too, the actual resistance was quite less because probably most of the Iraqi militia merged with the civilians and did not battle it out. Tikrit fell without any resistance at all.
It seems the figure of Iraqi casualties is another effort to portray a huge victory, which it's not.
.
+ 250 odd Australians and the Pro-North Vietnamese in South Vietnam. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Actually the US lost around 58,000 and I have heard anything from 660,000 to over 1 million for the North Vietnamese.
X