Originally Posted by CDSmith

They got napalmed by the thousands. They had little to no equipment versus the US forces who by comparisson had vertually ALL the equipment -- planes, choppers, fighters, massive air transports. The US forces were a quarter the size yet held all the aces, and the casualty numbers reflected that.

The point is there was no "defeat" of the US forces, at least not in any real military sense.

No one's saying there wasn't a defeat of sorts, only trying to clarify it a little because as I said to you earlier, "we lost" in this case doesn't paint the whole picture. I'm not even sure why you chose to argue the point. There was a defeat, yes, but one born out of a withdrawal rather than a straight-up military defeat. The staggering losses on the VC side would indicate an incredibly one-sided fight in most people's books.




I can agree with that for the most part, although the political climate of the time of Vietnam was extremely volatile and played a significant role thus it really has to be considered when making such sweeping generalizations as "face it, we lost".




I can agree with that as well, but having stubborn opinions isn't something native only to the USA.

Me, I'm just making conversation.