Why can't the americans admit that they lost the war?

>>53267249
why can't australians admit they lost the emu war

>>53267249
>tfw australia lost that war too

File: 178337382827282727.png (740KB, 745x1665px) Image search: [Google]

740KB, 745x1665px

Heh

>>53267249
We usually do, it's only the retards that say that we didn't lose

>>53267351
But tbqh i am wondering how did you lost there, almost all of your war campaigns were succesful

>>53267389
We won every single engagement in the war, or if not we won everything that mattered. We were actually in peace talks with Ho Chi Minh in the middle of the war and were starting to pull some things out. During this time, Congress flipped to Democrat and they decided not to uphold our part of the protection of South Vietnam, and when the public saw that the North was attacking again, we just kinda lost faith in the war.

File: 10 biggest fans.png (27KB, 309x590px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 309x590px

>>53267249
We won their hearts

>>53267500
What did you do to piss off Egypt?

>>53267540
A better question is what is Greece's problem?

>>53267609
They probably blame you for their denbts

>>53267469
So, if americans were supporting US troops in vietnam, do you think you could've won the war?

>>53267655
The difference would have been noticable but I don't know if it would have been enough to change the outcome

Why cant America admit they lost half of Europe to the Russians and only liberated France and Belgium?

>>53267706

We did liberate all of Europe, just one half didn't happen until the 1990s : ^ ).

>>53267655
Define win. As in, the entire country is under South Vietnamese control? Or we force a cease fire which guarantees South Viet independance?

>>53267500
Quite a nice list of James Rustles.

>>53267500
That's weird considering more Italians think American are fools

>>53267769
Entire country under south vietnamese control

>>53267854
I doubt it. We could easily have forced a cease fire. We couldn't move too far into North Vietnam because we were afraid that the Chinese would step in which is the only reason we didn't skullfuck them into oblivion within the first two years. We couldn't take out their manufacturing or civilian base which is why we were bombing and napalming the jungle like retards 90% of the time

>>53267854
LBJ and McNamara early on set the goal that they were only going to defend the VNCH and not invade the north.

File: Autism_Speaks.jpg (12KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 400x400px

>>53267822
>You speak for all Italians
K

>>53267944
>We couldn't move too far into North Vietnam because we were afraid that the Chinese would step in which is the only reason we didn't skullfuck them into oblivion within the first two years

It was absolutely stupid, but the memory of the Korean War was still fresh and nobody wanted a repeat of that. I personally don't think China would have intervened in this conflict not least because they were engulfed in the Cultural Revolution.

>>53267989
It was still a valid concern though. I think that it was the right decision, even if it was the reason the war dragged on for that long.

>>53267944
>we didn't skullfuck them into oblivion within the first two years
Altough you bombed the shit out of cambodia

>>53267655
Probably a stalemate at best. To be frank, I don't believe that any Western military can permanently pacify a sufficiently motivated and equipped insurgency abroad without very harsh methods that would be beyond the pale for most citizens. Things like putting citizens in concentration camps (the Boer War kind, not the Nazi kind), search and seizure without warrant, and the ability to censor news that would reflect negatively on the occupational authorities. Look at how we crushed the Philippine insurrection in 1900 versus how they failed to do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan with different methods.

Nobody remembers that this was a proxy conflict with Moscow and they armed Hanoi with the latest weapons. Don't believe the underage Yuropoors who claim we lost to farmers with broken glass bottles and boards with nails in them.

>>53267540
They massively supported Mubarak (it's not a well known fact, but Egypt is the country that received the most foreign aid from the USA in the last decades), which is not a good way to get popular amongst the Egyptian population.

Plus they massively support Israel.

>>53268183
The US used better shit in the war

>>53268041
Mostly the jungle, though. We sent special forces to the rural villages to root them out. Honestly the biggest moral failure of that war, aside from the tests the CIA did

>>53268049
We pacified the Japanese. They definitely possessed the will to mount an insurgency. Although, that was probably because almost every level of government for ten years WAS the military.

The occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq were and are also failures because the Democrats and some Republicans didn't want to uphold their ends of the security agreements. The wars were actually winding down at the end of the Bush and the beginning of the Obama Administration

>>53267761
Actually, that was us.

>>53267540
we wuz kangs problem

>>53268183
Not really, the Soviets really only provided them with SAM and radar systems, along with subsidiesif I remember correctly. They got most of the other stuff from the PRC

>>53268213
Didn't we also support the Muslim Brotherhood guy, or is Mubarak that guy? I didn't pay much attention to Egypt during the Arab Spring

Vo Nguyen Giap said in his memoirs that North Vietnam was a few months from collapse in early 1973 and the PPAs basically saved their bacon.

>>53268226
Japan was different though. They were a bombed out wreck and we'd agreed to let the emperor remain as a figurehead. Throw in occupation censorship and economic rebuilding, and no organized insurgency ever formed. I think the Soviets would have exploited it to start some shit if they had hindsight.

>>53268183
From what I've read North Vietnam were pretty consistently disappointed by a lack of USSR support

>>53267249

because we didn't

why can't mexicans admit that oaxcans are raping their daughters right now?

>>53268274
They also had MiG-21s which were a current-generation fighter at the time.

>>53268049
They did pacify the insurgency. The Viet Cong were broken by the time the Americans left.

The NVA won the war conventionally after that.

>>53268334
True. Maybe we could have done the same with North Vietnam if we had actually invaded. We would have yet another highly successful democracy in Southeast Asia
>>53268411
Yeah, I forgot about that, sorry

>>53268365
This was only true pre-1965 because Khrushchev dgaf about anything in Asia other than China. Afterwards, Brezhnev and Kosygin thought it was their duty to a fellow socialist country to assist them in any way possible.

>>53268411
And T-54 tanks however these were not deployed in the war until after 1970.

>>53268459
Thats actually bretty interesting. Thanks, anon

>>53268452
>We would have yet another highly successful democracy in Southeast Asia
Haha wow

>>53268536
After the requisite dictatorship, of course

>>53268049
It's conceptually easy, actually. Quarantine is the single most important objective when dealing with an insurgency, and it's what Kennedy failed to uphold after Eisenhower's commitment to keeping the Communists outside of Laos.
Really, the entire war was contingent on Kennedy's incompetency.

>>53267944
>We could easily have forced a cease fire.
We did. Wtf do you think the Paris peace accords were?

Problem was the north broke them two years after we had left.

>>53268520
They were used so sparingly that they didn't really matter in the grand scheme of the war. I think there was that one major battle at An Loc and then they just sort of faded away

File: images (2).jpg (7KB, 214x316px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 214x316px

>>53268572
After losing the war you tried to send democracy in vietnam vía cambodians

>>53268754
I didn't know that. Do you know what the operation was called so I can look it up?

I don't understand what this has to do with what I said though. I was talking about us making Vietnam an American friendly market if we had won.

>>53268926
>I didn't know that. Do you know what the operation was called so I can look it up?
Suffering butthurt, you supported the khmer rouge vía china and UN
>I don't understand what this has to do with what I said though. I was talking about us making Vietnam an American friendly market if we had won.
I think you could've whored vietnam, just like you did it in south american countries

>>53268327
>>53268422
>>53268656

The guys speak the truth. NVA and Viet Congs didn't win the war against the US, they won against South Vietnam.

>>53269176
The US army left, because they were a dissaster

File: Wait-Seriously.jpg (254KB, 1365x2048px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1365x2048px

>>53269251
>leave because were a disaster
>What were the Peace Talks asked by the North Vietnamese

Have the Americans ever won a war?
>inb4 civil war lol

>>53269251
The war wasn't a disaster, the public lost support for the war. We didn't pull out because we were losing.

>>53269357
Bankrolling the Allies was a start. We also almost singlehandedly won the war in the Pacific

>>53269480
>war in the Pacific
literally nobody cares

>>53267249
Whoever won, I lost.

>>53267704
>I don't know if it would have been enough to change the outcome

Ho Cho Minh and his military were terrified of the rolling thunder campaigns that were being intensified. It's what actually forced them into piece talks because Americas military was going into total war mode.

If the American people had supported the war it would have ended in victory

File: CanTho-floating-market-Mekong-delta-Vietnam.jpg (363KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 900x600px

>>53269505
That's true, probably.

I've heard Vietnam is doing well nowadays. You guys even left your commie ways regarding economy.

Also, Mekong is a really cool name for a river

>>53267322
read somewhere that the gooks feared the fuck outta the aus special forces units

>>53269503
Says the country that couldn't hold out longer than nip manlets

>>53269653
savage

>>53269428
>the public lost support for the war.
War started in 1955, you were already a superpower, i mean you could've defeated a bunch of commie farmers like in 5 years, but you didn't, and massive protests started in the 70's

File: import from china in billion usd.jpg (70KB, 1280x646px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1280x646px

>>53269594
Vietnam economy is dependent on China more and more recently. Unless the government do something, Mao gonna dominate our country without war.

>>53267351
>it's only the retards that say that we didn't lose

So only about 60% of Americans, basically?

>>53269954
We could have, yeah. That's if we had actually mounted an invasion of the north though. We couldn't/didn't because we were afraid that the PRC would come in on the North's side. We couldn't get to their support base which allowed them to continue to wage war.

>>53270069
No, the retards are just more vocal so you hear their opinions more.

>>53269954
>1955
You meant 1965, right? 1955 was one year after the frenchies left Indochina.

>>53270039
China always wanted to conquer Vietnam, didn't they? Now they're using the economic way, as it seems.

>>53270089
>PRC
You mean the soviets

>>53270123
>the retards are just more vocal so you hear their opinions more

I've noticed that about America... It's like your interpretation of free speech is 'every retard gets to have his say'. It actually seems to be encouraged.

In Europe, people are mostly encouraged to shut up if they're retarded. I prefer that to be quite honest.

>>53270148
Soviets were less likely to send men than the Chinese were. The USSR was primarily a supplier of military aid

>>53270144
Even if you are right, a great superpower like the US it's supposed to defeat a bunch of commie farmers in 1 year

>>53270144
Yea the star on our flag will soon appear on Chinese flag (or it already). Pretty thrilling tbhwy

>>53270167
Barring reality TV, we don't really encourage it. Retards like to shout their opinions to the heavens every chance they get. Americans just do this more than Europeans. Our concepts of free speech are different though, but that's mostly due to the difference between English law and the Mainland European view of free speech

>>53270217
Anti-aircraft missiles were enough

>>53270275
Not when you don't invade their country and main supporter. As other anons have said, had the USA invaded North Vietnam, war would be over soon.

>>53270427
>had the USA invaded North Vietnam, war would be over soon.
They tried in many ways and they failed :^)

>>53270415
For the amount of bombers, fighters, and helicopters we had invested in the war? No.

>>53267469
>On the cusp of winning a war
>Pull out

Amazing

>>53270527
Not the military's fault that the American public was and is full of weak willed fuckheads

>>53270527
Blame the American election cycle. Just saw the exact same thing happen in Iraq. Pacified the place, changed Presidents, pulled out and withdrew material support, place falls to shit.

File: Men_bearing_signs_to_support_U.S._troops_in_Vietnam.jpg (257KB, 1203x1799px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1203x1799px

>>53267249
>but we lost because americans didn't support the troops!

>>53270795
>Shows something from when the war was popular
Are you even trying.

>>53270917
After the gulf of tonkin i incident, americans were supporting your troops

>>53271053
Supporting troops is different from supporting the cause.

>>53270394
>Our concepts of free speech are different though, but that's mostly due to the difference between English law and the Mainland European view of free speech

The US concept of free speech and the UK common law definition of free speech grew apart significantly though..

>>53271180
Yeah, but the differences between American and European ideas of free speech started with the English. After the Revolutionary War, we grew apart from the British

>>53270167
This is why you'll never be great again.

>>53271088
You were supposed to win a war against thirdwolrders when nobody was giving a fuck

>>53271803
It's a bit more complicated than a conventional war.

>>53270486
They never tried to.

Why can't the soviet union admit that they lost the winter war? :^)