Who really won the vietnam war?  who do you think would win now, u.s, or vietnam?
827667
Vietnam won the Vietnam war because of the Communist country support.they will still win because the communist will still support them during the war
433051
I agree with most of the results. I'm a bit iffy on the UK and Russia battle.\n\nUK has better weapons (non-nuclear), meanwhile Russia has a higher population. I think in the long run, Russia might take that battle.\n\n\n.... and I disagree with above response. It's proven that US can't defeat Vietnam. Open a history book.
241201
The U.S.A. went to Vietnam for almost the same reasons that it went into Iraq and Afghanistan, it is fighting an "evil ideology". Millions of Vietnamese died fighting for uniting their country under communism. In Iraq and Afghanistan, millions are not fighting the U.S.A. because U.S.A. is bringing democracy to those countries, to let the people decide. However, in Vietnam the U.S.A. did not allow their to be elections in South Vietnam, out of fear that communism might be voted into power. But I think the lesson is learned, that instead of denying democracy, they can allow it, and this will allow the people to give up fighting and decide their future. But we have to see if the U.S.A. will fully allow and accept the elections and democratization to flourish, or if the U.S.A. would simply set-up another puppet-regime through rigged elections.
986782
Nobody wins.\n\nThe last time we "won" we had to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in both Germany and Japan. If our self-styled leadership wants to go big, and basically exterminate one of the Muslim factions in Iraq, we could slow things down for a short while, and bring our kids home.\n\nThen we could send the chairborne rangers (see above) over and let them flap their gums at the Iraqis. Nothing like tough talk from a bunch of wimpy kids to set things straight, you bet!
400712
I've never actually heard, or read about, any Americans claiming they've never lost a war. However, if 'Vietnam, Korea, etc. were "police actions"' as someone here claims, what the heck DO they call a 'war'?? At least they can't pretend Iraq wasn't a 'war' - it was called one repeatedly, although I'm still not prepared to accept that "America" (or her allies) won, it looked to me more like a successful invasion which has caused civil unrest!! Not quite the same thing as a 'war'!\n\nAnd why does America (or her government) think it's acceptable to compensate all those 'nice' soldiers for the damage caused to them by Agent Orange - but that it's okay NOT to compensate the Vietnamese, who are still suffering to this day, and who were mass-murdered by a bunch of Americans?!???? America DELIBERATELY poisoned Vietnam! Those were civilians!! Even if America DID have the right to poison the land (which it DIDN'T!!!) they should STILL give HUGE amounts of compensation to the Vietnamese who are SUFFERING!!
42076
Basically, it was a failure (like today's war in Iraq) and many American soldiers' lives were lost.\n\nThe Vietnam War or Second Indochina War 1 was a conflict between the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRVN, or North Vietnam), allied with the National Liberation Front (NLF, or "Viet Cong") against the Republic of Vietnam (RVN, or South Vietnam), and its allies — notably the United States military in support of the South, with US combat troops involved from shortly after the Korean War until the official withdrawal in 1975.\n\nAfter France's attempted recolonization of Indochina was defeated in 1954 by the Viet Minh at the battle of Điện Biên Phủ, an agreement to temporarily partition the country in two with a de-militarized zone (DMZ) was reached at the Geneva Conference (1954). The "Vietnam War" ostensibly began as a civil war between feuding governments. Being Western-oriented and far less popular than Hồ Chí Minh's northern rebellion, the South Vietnam government fought largely to maintain its governing status within the partitioned entity, rather than to "unify the country" as was the goal of the North. Fighting began in 1957 and with U.S. and Soviet-Chinese involvement would steadily escalate and spill over into the neighboring Indochinese countries of Cambodia and Laos.\n\nThe Geneva partition was not a natural division of Vietnam and was not intended to create two separate countries. But the South government, with the support of the United States, blocked the Geneva scheduled elections for reunification. In the context of the Cold War, and with the recent Korean War as a precedent, the U.S. had feared that a reunified Vietnam would elect a Communist government under the popular Hồ Chí Minh. South Vietnam and its Western allies portrayed the conflict as based in a principled opposition to communism —to deter the expansion of Soviet-based control throughout Southeast Asia, and to set the tone for any likely future superpower conflicts. The North Vietnamese government and its Southern dissident allies (NLF) viewed the war as a struggle to reunite the country and to repel a foreign aggressor —a virtual continuation of the earlier war for independence against the French.\n\nAfter fifteen years of protracted fighting and massive civilian and military casualties, major direct U.S. involvement ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. Fighting between Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) forces against the dominant combined People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) and NLF forces would soon bring an end to the RVN and the war. With the Northern victory, the country was unified as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) with a communist-controlled government based in the new capital Hanoi.\n\nThis is just a brief summary. For more information on the Vietnam War, go to:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
918289
I think that the war in Iraq is a war that cannot be won just like the war on terror, sure we can do things to help the cause but the actual war/wars are not going to be won. I just cant believe how many people still think that we can win this war. I don't know if it is worse than Vietnam, we lost over 50,000 people there but the long term ramifications of this war cannot be measured.
537800
Yes, I would say for the US Vietnam was. For the world I would say Japan had it pretty rough when we droped two nukes on two huge citys.
1010338
John F. Kennedy. Had he finished his term he probably would have been re elected to another term. I also feel that Vietnam would not have escalated to the proportions that it did. I also feel that there would have been more advances in terms of Civil Rights. Kennedy also seemed more in touch with the American people than any other President.
1036873
For the US, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; the Civil War, western expansion, World War II; we came out the number one country in the world from that, and Vietnam caused us to lose our innocence about such things.  For many Vietnam was the glass through which all subsequent issues are viewed.  Also, the Civil Rights movement of the 60's.  AND the great industrial progress:  telephone, autos, planes, etc.
465670
Agree on the tactics that the US implemented in THe Viet war >no\n\nAgree on the overtaking of SAigon by VietCOng> No\n\nAgree on North Vietnam breaking the Geneva conventions > The VietCong Did and yes\n\nIm not sure. Your question is too open ended, try narrowing down the range for people to give more efficient answers
698986
There are several examples in history of the superpower losing a war everyone thought they would just walk through.  Vietnam is one of these.  The VC knew that if they could just hold out long enough, the US would just go away due to exhaustion.  The same is true in Iraq; the populace knows we as a citizenry will start to DEMAND the troops come home because we are tired of the losses.\n\nAnother example is our own revolution against Britain.  Washington knew if he could keep the army together the Brits would eventually get tired of throwing away men they needed on European fronts and go away.  That's pretty much what happened.  It didn't hurt that we had French support, but the end was inevitable for Britain -- and us.  It is impossible to fight a population of insurgents without doing too much damage to those who support us in the region.  See also: Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nWhy do people think we can win?  They don't study political science and history -- I do.
764860
I can understand where you see the parallels. In America, we have become accustomed to quick, easy, almost bloodless victories. We love to turn on the evening news and watch another bridge get blown to pieces. I understand that you aren't talking about the amount of US casualties one or two above mentioned. I would have to say right now no, it's not another Vietnam.... Ask me again in a year.
700936
He did not say US victory was no longer possible, he said US MILITARY victory was no longer possible... that is because we already achieved a military victory. If the US military was still fighting a uniformed, identifiable, credible military, they would prevail. Yet, a uniformed and state sponsored military that represents a nation (the US) must fight the most unbelievable and despicable cowards that ever crawled the earth. They are disgusting as they use human shields; babies and women to fight their unjustified battles. The sooner they are eradicated the better. Kissinger should remember this from his responsibility in Vietnam. Do not glorify his comments.
532836
We think we won the war not because we won it alone (although I would say the USSR has a much bigger claim on being a deciding factor than the UK) because you were losing alone, and we stepped in and helped turn the tide.  You were holding your own and preventing an invasion on the UK, but losing ground in the Pacific and couldn’t hold out forever in the UK proper, either.  The US stepped in, and was the help you needed to win on the Western European front.  The USSR has a stronger claim as well because it fought a vicious war with levels of self-sacrifice that the UK never even close to matched (although this isn’t to attack the UK – it is a good thing for the people there that they weren’t invaded and didn’t have any Stalingrads or Leningrad sieges), which is why they get more credit as well.  The US also feels like it deserves a thank you because it wasn’t invaded by the Nazis and of its geographic location meant that it probably could have held out indefinitely – unlike the UK, it had a choice about entering the war, but did so anyway, at a great cost in lives and money.  In the Pacific, the US provided more troops and infrastructure than did the UK (again, not because the UK was lazy or somehow worse at fighting, but because they had less men, less money and less production capacity as well as more pressing threats to the UK itself, and were stretched as far as it could be), and afterwards returned much of the area it freed to the UK.  We also were responsbile for the reconstruction and reformation of Japan.  The British helped there, true, but they had to work on reconstructing their own lands (much of which was funded by the US’s Marshall Plan), so the again the bulk of the effort was the US’s.  So we see it as we earned a decent share of the credit there too.\n\nIf anything, i woudl argue that the USSR deserves mroe credit - for positical reasons their contributions were downplayed by the West during the Cold War. I wouldn't give Canada too much credit fo rhelping form day one - their contributions were worthy, but they had no choice in helping; the Kig of England was their head of state. If England was bombed, they had to get involved.  The US only had to get invovled if to help the other states (it could have left Hawaii and the other Pacific holdings as the Japanese thought it would and continued peacefully as the continental US plus Alaska for a long time).\n\nPS Why are you so angry about htis?  Did you fight in WWII and feel you aren't getting your fair share of the redit?  are you generally bitter that yours is not the wealthiest adn msot powerful country?  If you are Canadian - be grateful for this.  You spend minimal amounts on your military because you know that the US woul dnever allow Canada to be invaded.  You then spend your money on social programs such as national health and inexpensive univeristy education.
897625
Well, after Vietnam one would have thought the American government learnt its lesson.  But I guess not.  In Vietnam, the Americans were so thoroughly whipped that it taught them a lesson for about 15 years and they didn't do any bullying.  I guess they got arrogant again and needed another lesson.\n\nThey are now trying go get out of Iraq.  The indomitable human spirit always wins  :)
213033
The key difference is that there was no moral justification for our invasion of Vietnam.  We betrayed ourselves and not unlike Iraq entered into a war of choice based on false evidence. \nIn WWII, there actually was a REAL enemy who declared war on the United States from Asia and Europe .\nWW II was winnable, Vietnam was not. Both were costly, only one war was the US right to be involved in.  It was not Vietnam.