They fact that they can't understand the morality of tet massacre,is reality coming back on them.It is what "useful idiots" fear,and are not good at predicting or defending against.This is why we stress loyalty so much.
@Johndoe2point0 Sun Tzu would have liked the strategy of the North Vietnamese. Sun Tzu did not even know what capitalism, democracy and communism was...
He did not know how many millions of people would die because two retarded nations were fighting because of some stupid ideology worse then modern terrorism.
@VictumRoManius 2 retarded Nations ? you are from Norway, you need to go back to school, really lets start at Elementary level Dude, plz don't put muds on your people faces !
i just cant bealive that me and my boys with just a damn high school education had better war strategies then the US goverment in vietnam. we were just simple street criminals,in a gang. that used sun tzu war tactics,with out us even knowing nothing about the art of war. or who was sun tzu. 3 years ago when i discovered the book it was clear to me why we were succesful plenty of times in battles. take these damn gang leaders out of prisons and throw they ass in iraq. dumb american generals.
Wrong...Giap had NO INFLUENCE UPON THE AMERICAN ANTI - (VIETNAM) WAR MOVEMENT! it is true that images following the catastrophic losses & casualties of the TET offensive deeply moved most young Americans against the war which it seems tended to play into the hands of the North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese insurgence, but more importantly the ardor and resiliency of the guerilla plans North, the lack of a comprehensive military plan by the US & war crimes of the US played against US victory.
@death8dealer cracks me the fuck up in these comments. A third world country wins a war against the United States of America using Sun Tzu strategy and he says they failed the 'winning the war' test because they lost too may lives against state-of-the-art bombers, guns, communication, jets, and armor. Seriously NVA, try not to die so hard when you're covered in napalm, breathing in Agent Orange, and being shot at by artillery. I mean *fuck*, how hard can it be?
@downloadgoblin Stalin's statement on how easily human beings fail to fathom tragedy and death on a colossal scale, in no way, hurts or helps your opinion that the U.S. public lost the war. It's a cool quote, but logically disconnected from your conclusion.
Your blaming of the U.S. public on losing the war is also irrelevant. Neglecting public morale during war is about as wise as blaming bullets or medical supplies for losing the war because they didn't perpetuate themselves.
Topics: HOW TO HAVE NO FEAR AND NO SADNESS IN THE BATTLE ZONE AND PREVENT GOING HOME INSANE, Terrorism, War, Military Administration, Law, Politics, Science, Debated Issues, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
SPREAD THIS BOOK AND CONQUER THE SPREADING EVIL BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE - FOR FREEDOM AND PEACE.
Why do they credit the Hippies victory for Giap? do the US Army have a choice? where were you at that period if not trendy high on drugs? with low morale, increase risk and cost, and a sharp change in attitude coming from the LEADERSHIP...the US withdraw.
No dude, the US won hand up in this war. They sacrifice the battle of 'Nam to won the cold war. It is merely a proxy battle to Yankees and an independence war for uncle Ho and NVA. The true loser is the Vietnamese people of North and South, whose have suffered genocide in Cambodia, 50 years of degrading of lives, millions lost of life, tons of foreign debts, a psychological defeat & conditioning that delay further human achievement and moral decadent.
War tactics and strategies changes with technology. Satellites, lasers, stealth technology, and technology unseen until all out war soon you could have just a platoon to take out a nation at will !!
Everyone always has to blame the hippies for losing the war when in reality, Westmoreland disregarded irregular combat in favor of high technology and firepower. Also it has to do with the fact that the US Army has no Pinoys to do their dirty work this time around.
we lost in Vietnam only because of a Army of hippies and this time we won't lose in the middle east because the hippies right now are a dying group of people
@death8dealer u r truely an idiot and the world would be a better place if you didnt think..... it doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that the united states can only win large scale face to face wars..... we will lose in the middle east because the american people cant support a guerilla war
@dlMrINSPECTORlb Dumbass guerilla warfare can only work in different condition in this case we will win in the middle east because it's not America vs terrorist it's more 90 percent of the world is against them plus the only thing guerrilla warfare will do is keep them in the war against the US but it will not allow them a clear victory it will only allow them to annoy the shit out the people giving them one more reason to kill them again and again and again
@death8dealer apparently you are not getting the idea of the art of war. guerilla warfare is the best warfare. look at the NVA they used guerilla warfare and won against a world superpower
oh yes 2 million NVA dead to 40 thousand dead americans what a win, What a way to win the war for NVA. Would you trade 2 million people just to beat one super power for a small strip of land only the size of california? before u answer this think real hard till you figure out how dumb you are? i'm not saying that guerilla warfare isn't good i'm saying did they really win the war? and really in this case anyone would give up it's pointless to keep shooting a dead body and thats what the NVA was
@death8dealer It is a large lost but they did force us out of Vietnam and reunited the country. So that small strip of land just beated us back to our country. In a short answer yes they won the war.
@CommanderatWar they did not force us out of vietnam the people of america did that and yes they bacisly won the war but is this the most effective way to win wars? lose 2 million people per war? name one battle that NVA really won bullets for bullets not that much we won 96 percent of all the battles military operations
@0RespectMyAuthority0 have u ever even red the book art of war? because if u did you would have understand that wars should be won with the fewest loses on both sides and at least u know battles don't win wars i fully understand America lost but was the death of 2 million people a effective way to win the war for NVA? do u not under stand that for every one America lost NVA lost 50 men? or do u just see a win is a win because if u do then your pretty dam dumb
@death8dealer if you include suicide by american vets then america lost more men: not to mention all the poor men who suffer to this day mentally because of what they saw in the jungles. and yes i have read the art of war
@0RespectMyAuthority0 there no way america lost over 2million people to metally state and or suicide and if u did read the art of way are giving me these dumb answers? if the US didn't even sent over 2 million people so why in the world are u telling me that America lost more people then the NVA? even if every america solider that was sent over was KIA or did suicide NVA still would have more loses
So it come to show that you can't pit troops used to fighting man-to-man against troops who train in all forms of combat! Only the Filipino Battalion Combat Teams could have been more than a match against the Cong; just as they were when fighting against the Sincoms. Alas, that damned Marcos wouldn't let us prove ourselves to fight such a worthy foe. My uncle Jose, by would have made Colonel.
@Pikazilla No they didn'. For one think US soldiers stopped fighting, the search and destroy became search and avoid. Secondly even if the war continued for another 20 years the US wouldn't have won, even the pentagons own military analyst understood this and reported on that fact. Third the war was completely pointless and had no long term strategic interests. So why fight and win a war that is only killing young americans and millions of asias.
My teacher told me the Tet offensive actually gave the advantage to the US, because VCs were hard to find in SVN. VC's were not a formal army, so finding each member is like playing needle in a haystack.
i think people who read this book, are usually focusing too much on others because they are jealous. i think they are not very smart people who are unable to improve themselves at their jobs. this book is not very concise, it teaches you more on street smart than military so you might as well join a gang.
@yoyuepz Let's see... bands of troops fighting for causes for national reasons.. and gangs fight for themselves.. yeah. I'm pretty sure gangs are for pussies. And how the hell is Sun Tzu's strategy according to gangs? It's like comparing cavemen to German Spetnaz. Who's the pussy now, pussy? You want your own rice? Thug it yourself. Don't call your friends. -.-
the Chinese are feeding the US economy and pegging the RMB with the USD when they unplug it makes the RMB higher then the USD. Therefore the USD will be junk and they buy all the US asset for peanuts. Now you say the gang of four are really a pussy? This is the new modern warfare and its all based on sun tzu strategy. And I think you mean spetsnaz which is soviet not german, the soviets use sun tzu strategy.
This was such a fascinating war to study in college. I took a class called "Vietnam: America's Lost War" - and one of the things we discussed was the loss of military objectives, loss of idealistic and dogmatic objectives as well as losing the war vis a vis a withdrawal. Fascinating topic.
@InvalidAuthorization Excuse me, how did the US lose the war by withdrawing? Are you suggesting that not only was it winnable but that it should have been carried out longer and with more death and destruction and what would be the point of that?
Vietnam is a peaceful country now and a trading partner with us, so what was the point in the first place. I sounds like it was just a game that we lost coming from your perspective.
@Assaultwarfare in the art of war, it's translated as "The Way (Tao)". moral influence is a good translation. so in other words, if the leader of a country whose family is in the oil business wants to attack another country that's rich in oil so he can improve his family business, he would not have the proper moral influence for doing so.....
Lol. Shun Tzu didnt even know the Vietnam war would happen. how the hell is he going to predict anything. Does the Narrator freaking think that Shun Tzu was alive in 20th century??? lol...
americans tink that becuz they have the big army they will win iraq but iraq is taking there troop attention a well place attack from any cotry whit the resource to attack will have a big chance of wining
i weep for Sun Tzu.... So the people didn't want to live under a leadership that massacred 5000 people, instead the people want to live under a leadership that completely destroyed and massacred almost their entire country, such that til this day the poisons from the US bombs are still damaging Vienamese young children.... what grand moral influence... I love the history channel sometimes....
@TheServantCharles lol. pointless propaganda? don't be so sure. you seem to be spewing quite a lot. i thought maybe you had a decent head on your shoulders, but now you seem to be a book smart fool: you're not interested in the sharing of knowledge and ideas; you're only interested in getting one up on everyone and proving how much better you are. you asked me for specific examples to back my claims; i provided; you lost. boo hoo. go cry a river you little bitch.
@TheServantCharles i didn't say that. of course they were in poor in moral standing for massacring innocent people, but then so has america been in numerous wars and conflicts. yet here we are.
no, i think that the fact that n. vietnam had to spread their forces so thin in order to attack multiple (many-a-multiple) simultaneous targets is a more feasible reason for tet's failure than moral standing.
The concept of intelligence, in this classical period, is that of a strategical mechanism which would be capable to resolve problems and conflicts, and, at the same time, be able to define a system to model causes and consequences about the behavior of nature; standards of morals and philosophies, and as well as for the management of economies and corporations.
The changes, we are going through at this present moment of deep alteration of paradigms in our civilization, is an effort to redefine how things can be rearranged to define a new set of values to measure and assemble a new order of things around us
During this classical period of our history, we have considered intelligence as just as a marginal element in the constitution of systems which were always perceived as an instrument of manipulation of reality, and intelligence as unilateral processes of advance, domain, to have control over the nature, transforming things into elements of a rigid and mechanical order.
Strategies, in this age of masses, mean, before anything else, an intense searching to appropriate this controversial and divergent concept of intelligence, and the evaluation of the role of technology in this process has never been so clear, in our current struggle to reconceptualize order and values around us
n. vietnam was not victorious during the tet offensive because they did not have good moral standing (the Way). INCORRECT. this documentary just lost points for trying to push off bullshit. it's due to another key principle of sun tzu's thinking: in order to carry out the tet offensive, n. vietnam had to split 80,000 troops up into very small units to attack MANY larger, fortified positions. the element of surprise was only going to get them so far. it was nothing about morality.
According to Bernard B. Fall, the First Indochina War (1945-1954) came by the French denial of Annamese patriotism and the Second Indochina War (Vietnam War 1955-1975) by US anti-communism obssession. The whole thing is patriotism of the "Viet" (rooted in Cantonese "Yue") for millaneries against the Chinese, Mongol and all invaders, while invading and colonizing neighboring kingdoms of Champa and Cambodgia. Just make a tour in Anthropology, Archeology, History and Political Science.
It's easy to blame the hippies. But think about it. It's always the politicians who decide when a war starts and when it ends. Soldiers don't decide when they go to war, and they don't decide when they stop fighting. So if you think that the Vietnam War ended too soon, you should blame the politicians. But if you blame them for ending it too soon, you should also blame them for starting that damn war in the first place.
@Troublesome2008 First off, War starts when you will but the circumstances are not teh same for ending. Anyways I guess we can blame the French for bringing the US into it but bottom line, final straw was the loss of popularity of the war. Therefore the hippies were ultimatley responsible, but I will recognize there is truth in what you say.
I don't understand your first sentence but i agree with the second. The French were foolish for wanting their old colonies back after WW2. But we also shouldn't forget that Ho Chi Minh asked The USA for help against the French. When The USA refused, Vietnam asked The USSR for help, and that's when The USA started to get worried.
@Troublesome2008 Cause they were communists, everyone needs to realize taht though Communism is good in theory no one will ever pull it off correctly cause of human greed and ambition. And what I meant was that you can start war whever but it won't end when you want it too.
And here I thought that the primary style of fighting during Sun Tzu's era was strict battle lines using the the dagger-axe and not acrobatic bouncy-bouncy with swords.
i am glad i have never had to fight a chinese army...watching them doing backflips, twirling swords and posturing with kung fu moves, is very tiring...why can't they behave like normal americans ?
@catnip513 ..i think you are mistaken..all movies depicting chinese in any combat situations are replete with acrobats and menacing kung fu gestures and strange looking cutlery, just check out jackie chan and jet li movies........this must be part of sun tzu's idea of confusing the enemy
Relax, I'm a chinese myself. All those movies are just to show off all those kung fu and fighting styles. Sure, jet li and jackie chan are good kung fu fighters but most Chinese aren't kung fu fighters back then. If you were to look at Battle BC made by history channel also, the soldiers in the programme also do all kind of fighting moves themselves.
According to Sun Tzu, why did the Japanese lose Iwo Jima? The americans did not
have the element of suprise, but the japanese were dug in and hidden. The japanese were on the death ground since they were stuck on an island with no hope for retreat or ever leaving the island alive.
@Rockguitarhero462 japanese fought a attrition battle with no access to supplies they had death ground but no clear path to victory.notice on the nxt clip sun tzus force was on death ground but it was a ploy to strike at the opponents jugualar.
LOL BUT SEE VIETNAM IS A PIECE OF SHIT AND WE STILL ARE A SUPER POWER SO TECHNICALLY WE DID WIN , much less killing off 30% of their military age population..i'd say we won alright..
@yammer123 Unfortunately, winning battles doesn't win you the war. In war, it's always got the meaning of an end game. But in Vietnam, what end game do U.S. have at first?
@ltmikepowell think about it though, lol vietnam is a shit hole while we still have our way of life, they didnt win shit but gain a communist gov't that ruined their country. IF WE WOULDNT HAVE HAD PUSSY ASS LIBERALS IN OUR COUNTRY AND KILLED EVERY LAST WOMAN AND CHILD WE WOULD HAVE WON PLAIN AND SIMPLE , THATS WHY THE ROMANS CONQUERED SO WELL, THEY HAD NO PUSSY ASS LIBERALS TELLING THEM ABOUT MORALS
I was talking about war and not about whether Christianity is growing today or not.
BTW, there are still a lot of covert organizations from America and Korea involved in converting poor Vietnamese. And then there is population growth....
There are no numbers supporting your claim and I refer to unbiased Wikipedia not your "Biased Bloodthirsty God's Church"
But you have to measure the political cost. It's one thing to kill a bunch of rude, swaggering soldiers. Its another thing to kill a bunch of women who, being clerics, do their best to be liked by the locals. Vietnamese who didn't care Christianity might nonetheless have been horrified to see these congenial women being slaughtered like pigs.
Well Vietnam will be one of the worlds greatest countries in feuture when economics is not the measurement of culture. 1st world, third world is based on economics not education. Education in Vietnam is more superior to other places on earth. so from small days I will get to be smarter,
hey I was born in Sri Lanka and I can see how mr Praba got his rebels to hit us. SLA were trained by the British to wear uniforms and divide in to squads and battilions in order, the rebels had followed Sun Tzu and showed disorganized and disordered face yet deceptively ordered..
My Lei! The US went around popping people in the skull too, some of the perps got punished, some didn't. Vietnam was a frakked up war for so many reasons. Seeds of the Vietnam conflict go all the way back to 1920, lot of frakked up people with a lot of frakked up ideas involved. Master Sun doesn't say anything about conscription, guess I'll have to pull out the book and check.
the yanks got OWNED in vietnam...'nuff said ooo they're in deep shit too in iraq and afghanistan at these days... the war effectively has drained the YANKS resources..war of attrition is bad for the occupiers...
Have you been paying any attention to the videos at all? America did not lose because it got "owned", but because it had no true attachment to the area at all (which is why they chose Vietnam to challenge communism in the first place). America won the battles, but lost the war because it lacked dedication. Jaap(sp?) was able to capitalize on this, morale formed the crux of his strategy. It did cost the Vietnamese in terms of casualties. They lost in the conventional sense, but won politically.
yeah ....Carl von Clausewitz once said the war is a different form of politic (i hope i quote it right)...so if you want peace be ready for WARRR... same thing happens in iraq and afghanistan...when USA lost numerous resources (cash,personel,military equiptments etc..)
when are wars use the poor to fight wars for corporate interests, you can never win, its sad how many boys and girls die to promote american imperialism,
dude u dont know what ur talking about, USA has learned many mistakes during vietnam war, we lost mainly cuz of unpopularity the war became in the states and now its different, media is censored of gruesome scenes of american soldiers dying in iraq and afghanistan and fighting tactics that are use by guerillas instead of maintaining the way usa fights wars and many more
good old free democratic yankeenistan's corporate medias...owned by ZIONIST BANKERS with mission to distract yankeenistan population from 'sensitive' business..and a very success result indeed...even with some gruesome facts pop up to the surface about war in iraq/afghan the zombie americans turn blind eye about it...sigh...nothing change...the ZIONIST kosher kol nidre nazi rules everything from white house, wallstreet to pentagon
then why have u still not won after 9 years against wat are just pesaents with outdated weapons? it just doesnt add up. im not slurring here, im just making a point.
@merLin123a You seem to fail to understand at what gurrelia warfare is it is a type of warfare in which it involves close quarter combat the enemy army is hiding and fighting small battles rather than fight a big battle against an enemy they know is stronger than them they also make sure they look like regular citizens but on a mission and these small forces appearing as citizens can cause chaos.
its all about safety. If a coordinate attack failed (Cai troop arrive early before Wu), then Chu army can crush Cai easily and march back to Cai country. Its a risk that nobody (unprofessional commander) would want to take.
And they won their nation. How do you think they could have ever done that against a superpower like the US without tremendous casualties? You win a war when you complete your goals, not when you kill more enemies than you lose.
@anmndr Without tremendous casualties? - They lost 3 million freakin soldiers. The Vietnamese leader claimed he was willing to lose 10 of his troops for every 1 of the US???? So in essence he won that war not by killing more of his enemy than they did of him but by having the man power to sustain his army numbers even though they were being obliterated. In any other country the US tactics would of worked perfectly - 3 million Vietnamese dead - That's nearly the entire population of my country!
Where did Sun Tzu said about 'maintain the will of the people' in the book?
sidlakboy 1 month ago
They fact that they can't understand the morality of tet massacre,is reality coming back on them.It is what "useful idiots" fear,and are not good at predicting or defending against.This is why we stress loyalty so much.
Johndoe2point0 2 months ago
Comment removed
Johndoe2point0 2 months ago
Comment removed
Johndoe2point0 2 months ago
you can hear sun tzu applauding.Cheering on the commies according to the history channel.I'll mark that.
Johndoe2point0 2 months ago
@Johndoe2point0 Sun Tzu would have liked the strategy of the North Vietnamese. Sun Tzu did not even know what capitalism, democracy and communism was...
He did not know how many millions of people would die because two retarded nations were fighting because of some stupid ideology worse then modern terrorism.
VictumRoManius 1 month ago
@VictumRoManius 2 retarded Nations ? you are from Norway, you need to go back to school, really lets start at Elementary level Dude, plz don't put muds on your people faces !
Nucci604 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
20 years ago, an american program would have never said "America lost the vietnam war". Funny how time can change how honest we are with history.
blastofo 3 months ago
i just cant bealive that me and my boys with just a damn high school education had better war strategies then the US goverment in vietnam. we were just simple street criminals,in a gang. that used sun tzu war tactics,with out us even knowing nothing about the art of war. or who was sun tzu. 3 years ago when i discovered the book it was clear to me why we were succesful plenty of times in battles. take these damn gang leaders out of prisons and throw they ass in iraq. dumb american generals.
211bkmob 3 months ago
Wrong...Giap had NO INFLUENCE UPON THE AMERICAN ANTI - (VIETNAM) WAR MOVEMENT! it is true that images following the catastrophic losses & casualties of the TET offensive deeply moved most young Americans against the war which it seems tended to play into the hands of the North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese insurgence, but more importantly the ardor and resiliency of the guerilla plans North, the lack of a comprehensive military plan by the US & war crimes of the US played against US victory.
NgaiOlaudah 4 months ago
I personally Thought that Sun Tzu Art Of War Is For Peace. Uniting The World and Then Peace...LoL
Tigerg9851 4 months ago
i'm funny
501alistair 4 months ago
They are focusing too much one the Vietnam-war. Tell us about the book!
spiderwickfreak 4 months ago 17
Silly user, Americans don't read.
Jameswaterslive 1 month ago
@spiderwickfreak This is the book and its teachings in effect. If you want to learn about the book. Then buy the fucking book and read it.
SKRobbedoes 3 weeks ago
@death8dealer cracks me the fuck up in these comments. A third world country wins a war against the United States of America using Sun Tzu strategy and he says they failed the 'winning the war' test because they lost too may lives against state-of-the-art bombers, guns, communication, jets, and armor. Seriously NVA, try not to die so hard when you're covered in napalm, breathing in Agent Orange, and being shot at by artillery. I mean *fuck*, how hard can it be?
GambitFox79 4 months ago 4
@GambitFox79 "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
-Josef Stalin
The same thing applies to the Vietnamese. The US military won tactical victories across the board. The US public lost the war.
downloadgoblin 4 hours ago
@downloadgoblin Stalin's statement on how easily human beings fail to fathom tragedy and death on a colossal scale, in no way, hurts or helps your opinion that the U.S. public lost the war. It's a cool quote, but logically disconnected from your conclusion.
Your blaming of the U.S. public on losing the war is also irrelevant. Neglecting public morale during war is about as wise as blaming bullets or medical supplies for losing the war because they didn't perpetuate themselves.
GambitFox79 3 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: HOW TO HAVE NO FEAR AND NO SADNESS IN THE BATTLE ZONE AND PREVENT GOING HOME INSANE, Terrorism, War, Military Administration, Law, Politics, Science, Debated Issues, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
SPREAD THIS BOOK AND CONQUER THE SPREADING EVIL BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE - FOR FREEDOM AND PEACE.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
whoa this changed my whole perspective about the 'Nam war
rotwfighter 5 months ago
Why do they credit the Hippies victory for Giap? do the US Army have a choice? where were you at that period if not trendy high on drugs? with low morale, increase risk and cost, and a sharp change in attitude coming from the LEADERSHIP...the US withdraw.
UnitedPebbles 5 months ago
Vietnam independence is forever at risk.
UnitedPebbles 5 months ago
No dude, the US won hand up in this war. They sacrifice the battle of 'Nam to won the cold war. It is merely a proxy battle to Yankees and an independence war for uncle Ho and NVA. The true loser is the Vietnamese people of North and South, whose have suffered genocide in Cambodia, 50 years of degrading of lives, millions lost of life, tons of foreign debts, a psychological defeat & conditioning that delay further human achievement and moral decadent.
UnitedPebbles 5 months ago
We lost the "moral influence" because of our media's skewing of the reports. Why did our media not show the dead bodies left by the NVA?
johnknoefler 6 months ago
sun tzu strategy are so important in WAR with out it no way battles and wars well lose
motofreak95 6 months ago
I think D-Day was more of a direct attack.
Carnuss 6 months ago
@Carnuss I like to think it was an "Ant Theory". Send more ants then they have bullets.
TheWhoaDude 6 months ago
War tactics and strategies changes with technology. Satellites, lasers, stealth technology, and technology unseen until all out war soon you could have just a platoon to take out a nation at will !!
SuperGuamUSA 6 months ago
Everyone always has to blame the hippies for losing the war when in reality, Westmoreland disregarded irregular combat in favor of high technology and firepower. Also it has to do with the fact that the US Army has no Pinoys to do their dirty work this time around.
CosmoShidan 6 months ago
@CosmoShidan pinoy?
maicel008 6 months ago
@maicel008 It's short for Filipino.
CosmoShidan 6 months ago
we lost in Vietnam only because of a Army of hippies and this time we won't lose in the middle east because the hippies right now are a dying group of people
death8dealer 7 months ago
@death8dealer u r truely an idiot and the world would be a better place if you didnt think..... it doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that the united states can only win large scale face to face wars..... we will lose in the middle east because the american people cant support a guerilla war
dlMrINSPECTORlb 6 months ago
@dlMrINSPECTORlb Dumbass guerilla warfare can only work in different condition in this case we will win in the middle east because it's not America vs terrorist it's more 90 percent of the world is against them plus the only thing guerrilla warfare will do is keep them in the war against the US but it will not allow them a clear victory it will only allow them to annoy the shit out the people giving them one more reason to kill them again and again and again
death8dealer 5 months ago
@death8dealer apparently you are not getting the idea of the art of war. guerilla warfare is the best warfare. look at the NVA they used guerilla warfare and won against a world superpower
CommanderatWar 5 months ago
oh yes 2 million NVA dead to 40 thousand dead americans what a win, What a way to win the war for NVA. Would you trade 2 million people just to beat one super power for a small strip of land only the size of california? before u answer this think real hard till you figure out how dumb you are? i'm not saying that guerilla warfare isn't good i'm saying did they really win the war? and really in this case anyone would give up it's pointless to keep shooting a dead body and thats what the NVA was
death8dealer 5 months ago
@death8dealer It is a large lost but they did force us out of Vietnam and reunited the country. So that small strip of land just beated us back to our country. In a short answer yes they won the war.
CommanderatWar 5 months ago
@CommanderatWar they did not force us out of vietnam the people of america did that and yes they bacisly won the war but is this the most effective way to win wars? lose 2 million people per war? name one battle that NVA really won bullets for bullets not that much we won 96 percent of all the battles military operations
death8dealer 5 months ago
@death8dealer haha yeah right keep telling yourself that.
0RespectMyAuthority0 5 months ago
@0RespectMyAuthority0 ok then you name a major battle that NVA won and don't name the home front
death8dealer 5 months ago
@death8dealer it doesn't matter. battles don't win wars. america lost. end of story..bullet for bullet counts for NOTHING. have you learnt nothing ?
0RespectMyAuthority0 5 months ago
@0RespectMyAuthority0 have u ever even red the book art of war? because if u did you would have understand that wars should be won with the fewest loses on both sides and at least u know battles don't win wars i fully understand America lost but was the death of 2 million people a effective way to win the war for NVA? do u not under stand that for every one America lost NVA lost 50 men? or do u just see a win is a win because if u do then your pretty dam dumb
death8dealer 5 months ago
@death8dealer if you include suicide by american vets then america lost more men: not to mention all the poor men who suffer to this day mentally because of what they saw in the jungles. and yes i have read the art of war
0RespectMyAuthority0 5 months ago
@0RespectMyAuthority0 there no way america lost over 2million people to metally state and or suicide and if u did read the art of way are giving me these dumb answers? if the US didn't even sent over 2 million people so why in the world are u telling me that America lost more people then the NVA? even if every america solider that was sent over was KIA or did suicide NVA still would have more loses
death8dealer 5 months ago
FUCKEN HIPPIES no one likes them, take a bath.
AvengerDC 7 months ago
So it come to show that you can't pit troops used to fighting man-to-man against troops who train in all forms of combat! Only the Filipino Battalion Combat Teams could have been more than a match against the Cong; just as they were when fighting against the Sincoms. Alas, that damned Marcos wouldn't let us prove ourselves to fight such a worthy foe. My uncle Jose, by would have made Colonel.
CosmoShidan 7 months ago
hippies defeated the USA!
Pikazilla 7 months ago
@Pikazilla No they didn'. For one think US soldiers stopped fighting, the search and destroy became search and avoid. Secondly even if the war continued for another 20 years the US wouldn't have won, even the pentagons own military analyst understood this and reported on that fact. Third the war was completely pointless and had no long term strategic interests. So why fight and win a war that is only killing young americans and millions of asias.
Are you stupid are something?
thesparitan 7 months ago
4 people lose in life
BrotherJacksonShikle 8 months ago
we give lives to take money......humans -_-
djkapalof 8 months ago
My teacher told me the Tet offensive actually gave the advantage to the US, because VCs were hard to find in SVN. VC's were not a formal army, so finding each member is like playing needle in a haystack.
TheStrawberryLolicon 8 months ago
@TheStrawberryLolicon I'll take the history channel information over "My teacher" information.
wethepeoplesayyo18 8 months ago
@wethepeoplesayyo18 what strawbeery says is right though, even wikipedia says it.
1379gerardo 8 months ago
americka todo okay iraq cause for nothing in should be toward fight afganistan and iran. Think big coro do damnage on inosent peeple masaker.
JohnBigmon 9 months ago
i think people who read this book, are usually focusing too much on others because they are jealous. i think they are not very smart people who are unable to improve themselves at their jobs. this book is not very concise, it teaches you more on street smart than military so you might as well join a gang.
imafuckinglunatic 9 months ago
@imafuckinglunatic perhaps you shouldn't think so much.
defiantwon33 9 months ago
@imafuckinglunatic
wanna be in my gang my gang wanna be in my gang? :P
yoyuepz 7 months ago
@yoyuepz Gangs are for pussies.
AnhThien5o4 6 months ago
@AnhThien5o4 was gang of 4 a pussy? Yet Mao did use Sun tze strategy......... whos the pussy now?
yoyuepz 6 months ago
@yoyuepz Let's see... bands of troops fighting for causes for national reasons.. and gangs fight for themselves.. yeah. I'm pretty sure gangs are for pussies. And how the hell is Sun Tzu's strategy according to gangs? It's like comparing cavemen to German Spetnaz. Who's the pussy now, pussy? You want your own rice? Thug it yourself. Don't call your friends. -.-
AnhThien5o4 6 months ago
@AnhThien5o4
the Chinese are feeding the US economy and pegging the RMB with the USD when they unplug it makes the RMB higher then the USD. Therefore the USD will be junk and they buy all the US asset for peanuts. Now you say the gang of four are really a pussy? This is the new modern warfare and its all based on sun tzu strategy. And I think you mean spetsnaz which is soviet not german, the soviets use sun tzu strategy.
yoyuepz 6 months ago
This was such a fascinating war to study in college. I took a class called "Vietnam: America's Lost War" - and one of the things we discussed was the loss of military objectives, loss of idealistic and dogmatic objectives as well as losing the war vis a vis a withdrawal. Fascinating topic.
InvalidAuthorization 9 months ago
@InvalidAuthorization Excuse me, how did the US lose the war by withdrawing? Are you suggesting that not only was it winnable but that it should have been carried out longer and with more death and destruction and what would be the point of that?
Vietnam is a peaceful country now and a trading partner with us, so what was the point in the first place. I sounds like it was just a game that we lost coming from your perspective.
thesparitan 7 months ago
what is Moral Influence?
Assaultwarfare 9 months ago
@Assaultwarfare in the art of war, it's translated as "The Way (Tao)". moral influence is a good translation. so in other words, if the leader of a country whose family is in the oil business wants to attack another country that's rich in oil so he can improve his family business, he would not have the proper moral influence for doing so.....
defiantwon33 9 months ago
unless of course, miraculously, a militant group who can be traced back to that country decide they'd like to attack your country.
false flag operations have been used throughout history since before the art of war. why are people incapable of accepting them in our present?
defiantwon33 9 months ago
"They lost in the conventional sense, but won politically."
lol, a good number of wars are driven by politics
you win the politics, you have a good chance to win the war. you loss it, you most likely loss the war
the vietcong know America is strong in military, but weak in politics, but they go for the weak spot
the guy is right, war is a mean to an end, and the end is almost governed by politics, not military
newtestube 9 months ago
we did an amazing bit of deception in DDay, we had a high level triple agent convince Hitler that the real attack was a fake one
hairypolack 9 months ago
Lol. Shun Tzu didnt even know the Vietnam war would happen. how the hell is he going to predict anything. Does the Narrator freaking think that Shun Tzu was alive in 20th century??? lol...
all4music86 9 months ago
00:15 xD
Hirohitoxx 9 months ago
americans tink that becuz they have the big army they will win iraq but iraq is taking there troop attention a well place attack from any cotry whit the resource to attack will have a big chance of wining
CoolKillerClan 10 months ago
i weep for Sun Tzu.... So the people didn't want to live under a leadership that massacred 5000 people, instead the people want to live under a leadership that completely destroyed and massacred almost their entire country, such that til this day the poisons from the US bombs are still damaging Vienamese young children.... what grand moral influence... I love the history channel sometimes....
HNCS2006 10 months ago
天时 人和 地利
taitoufeiguo 10 months ago
and then here you go, professor:
-My Lai Massacre
-Massacre at No Gun Ri
defiantwon33 11 months ago
@TheServantCharles you asked for a citation and i provided. correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think a 'collegiate professor' would answer in kind.
defiantwon33 11 months ago
@TheServantCharles pretentiously?
defiantwon33 11 months ago
@TheServantCharles lol. pointless propaganda? don't be so sure. you seem to be spewing quite a lot. i thought maybe you had a decent head on your shoulders, but now you seem to be a book smart fool: you're not interested in the sharing of knowledge and ideas; you're only interested in getting one up on everyone and proving how much better you are. you asked me for specific examples to back my claims; i provided; you lost. boo hoo. go cry a river you little bitch.
defiantwon33 11 months ago
@TheServantCharles did you read it, or just reword the title of the article?
defiantwon33 11 months ago
google 'Letter on Korean War Massacre Reveals Plan to Shoot Refugees'.
defiantwon33 11 months ago
@TheServantCharles i didn't say that. of course they were in poor in moral standing for massacring innocent people, but then so has america been in numerous wars and conflicts. yet here we are.
no, i think that the fact that n. vietnam had to spread their forces so thin in order to attack multiple (many-a-multiple) simultaneous targets is a more feasible reason for tet's failure than moral standing.
defiantwon33 11 months ago
The concept of intelligence, in this classical period, is that of a strategical mechanism which would be capable to resolve problems and conflicts, and, at the same time, be able to define a system to model causes and consequences about the behavior of nature; standards of morals and philosophies, and as well as for the management of economies and corporations.
profRicardoRodrigues 11 months ago
The changes, we are going through at this present moment of deep alteration of paradigms in our civilization, is an effort to redefine how things can be rearranged to define a new set of values to measure and assemble a new order of things around us
profRicardoRodrigues 11 months ago
During this classical period of our history, we have considered intelligence as just as a marginal element in the constitution of systems which were always perceived as an instrument of manipulation of reality, and intelligence as unilateral processes of advance, domain, to have control over the nature, transforming things into elements of a rigid and mechanical order.
profRicardoRodrigues 11 months ago
Strategies, in this age of masses, mean, before anything else, an intense searching to appropriate this controversial and divergent concept of intelligence, and the evaluation of the role of technology in this process has never been so clear, in our current struggle to reconceptualize order and values around us
profRicardoRodrigues 11 months ago
n. vietnam was not victorious during the tet offensive because they did not have good moral standing (the Way). INCORRECT. this documentary just lost points for trying to push off bullshit. it's due to another key principle of sun tzu's thinking: in order to carry out the tet offensive, n. vietnam had to split 80,000 troops up into very small units to attack MANY larger, fortified positions. the element of surprise was only going to get them so far. it was nothing about morality.
defiantwon33 11 months ago
Comment removed
defiantwon33 11 months ago
According to Bernard B. Fall, the First Indochina War (1945-1954) came by the French denial of Annamese patriotism and the Second Indochina War (Vietnam War 1955-1975) by US anti-communism obssession. The whole thing is patriotism of the "Viet" (rooted in Cantonese "Yue") for millaneries against the Chinese, Mongol and all invaders, while invading and colonizing neighboring kingdoms of Champa and Cambodgia. Just make a tour in Anthropology, Archeology, History and Political Science.
slomoschon2000 1 year ago
fuck america and every amerkunt in it
saladin105 1 year ago
@saladin105 Get off our American website then because Americans invented YouTube!
AwarenessCosmic 1 year ago
@AwarenessCosmic ignorant.
defiantwon33 11 months ago
Damn hippies cost us Nam, that's why I hate hippies
AngelSilasTV 1 year ago
@AngelSilasTV
It's easy to blame the hippies. But think about it. It's always the politicians who decide when a war starts and when it ends. Soldiers don't decide when they go to war, and they don't decide when they stop fighting. So if you think that the Vietnam War ended too soon, you should blame the politicians. But if you blame them for ending it too soon, you should also blame them for starting that damn war in the first place.
Troublesome2008 1 year ago
@Troublesome2008 First off, War starts when you will but the circumstances are not teh same for ending. Anyways I guess we can blame the French for bringing the US into it but bottom line, final straw was the loss of popularity of the war. Therefore the hippies were ultimatley responsible, but I will recognize there is truth in what you say.
AngelSilasTV 1 year ago
@AngelSilasTV
I don't understand your first sentence but i agree with the second. The French were foolish for wanting their old colonies back after WW2. But we also shouldn't forget that Ho Chi Minh asked The USA for help against the French. When The USA refused, Vietnam asked The USSR for help, and that's when The USA started to get worried.
Troublesome2008 1 year ago
@Troublesome2008 Cause they were communists, everyone needs to realize taht though Communism is good in theory no one will ever pull it off correctly cause of human greed and ambition. And what I meant was that you can start war whever but it won't end when you want it too.
AngelSilasTV 1 year ago
And here I thought that the primary style of fighting during Sun Tzu's era was strict battle lines using the the dagger-axe and not acrobatic bouncy-bouncy with swords.
Inkompetent 1 year ago
i am glad i have never had to fight a chinese army...watching them doing backflips, twirling swords and posturing with kung fu moves, is very tiring...why can't they behave like normal americans ?
jethro035181 1 year ago
@jethro035181
Relax, it's only a documentary. No army back then would do such moves, it's all pure brutal fighting.
catnip513 1 year ago
@catnip513 ..i think you are mistaken..all movies depicting chinese in any combat situations are replete with acrobats and menacing kung fu gestures and strange looking cutlery, just check out jackie chan and jet li movies........this must be part of sun tzu's idea of confusing the enemy
jethro035181 1 year ago
@jethro035181
Relax, I'm a chinese myself. All those movies are just to show off all those kung fu and fighting styles. Sure, jet li and jackie chan are good kung fu fighters but most Chinese aren't kung fu fighters back then. If you were to look at Battle BC made by history channel also, the soldiers in the programme also do all kind of fighting moves themselves.
catnip513 1 year ago
According to Sun Tzu, why did the Japanese lose Iwo Jima? The americans did not
have the element of suprise, but the japanese were dug in and hidden. The japanese were on the death ground since they were stuck on an island with no hope for retreat or ever leaving the island alive.
Rockguitarhero462 1 year ago
@Rockguitarhero462
Well, what Sun Tzu means that the army that is on death ground will be willing to fight till the end, guess he said it wrongly.
catnip513 1 year ago
@Rockguitarhero462 japanese fought a attrition battle with no access to supplies they had death ground but no clear path to victory.notice on the nxt clip sun tzus force was on death ground but it was a ploy to strike at the opponents jugualar.
MrChowbaby69 1 year ago
@MrChowbaby69 good point
Rockguitarhero462 1 year ago
5:42 That's a bit of a sore loser-ish thing to say, I think.
xxSilverPhinxx 1 year ago
Afghanistan, Vietnam number 2.
Dumb ass Americunts.
nimrooo 1 year ago
Its really funny how once the North conquered an actual postion the U.S crushed them
germanicaus 1 year ago
@germanicaus lol American military strength is the greatest in the world
de4th1snt3nough 1 year ago
Goddamn dirty Hippies!
tehredmage 1 year ago
@tehredmage And try to even praise Apple then. Apple, was created by hippies you must know.
ltmikepowell 1 year ago
@ltmikepowell I HATE HIPPIES
FireMast23 1 year ago
@FireMast23 Do I like Hippies? No. Do I hate Hippies? No either.
I won't vent my hatred on something which I not even understand a little.
ltmikepowell 1 year ago
LOL BUT SEE VIETNAM IS A PIECE OF SHIT AND WE STILL ARE A SUPER POWER SO TECHNICALLY WE DID WIN , much less killing off 30% of their military age population..i'd say we won alright..
yammer123 1 year ago
@yammer123 Unfortunately, winning battles doesn't win you the war. In war, it's always got the meaning of an end game. But in Vietnam, what end game do U.S. have at first?
ltmikepowell 1 year ago
@ltmikepowell think about it though, lol vietnam is a shit hole while we still have our way of life, they didnt win shit but gain a communist gov't that ruined their country. IF WE WOULDNT HAVE HAD PUSSY ASS LIBERALS IN OUR COUNTRY AND KILLED EVERY LAST WOMAN AND CHILD WE WOULD HAVE WON PLAIN AND SIMPLE , THATS WHY THE ROMANS CONQUERED SO WELL, THEY HAD NO PUSSY ASS LIBERALS TELLING THEM ABOUT MORALS
yammer123 1 year ago
@yammer123 Romans do conquered. But in the end, they self-destructed.
U.S. indeed, won every battles against the Vietnamese. But sadly they won the battles but in the end, lost the war and their dignity.
ltmikepowell 1 year ago
@yammer123 : yeah, a superpower, but CHINA own USA now ehehehhe
BlackarrowTangofox 1 year ago
the North Vietnamese won the war politically not militarily just like how we will lose the so called "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan
MrMatthias2379 1 year ago
@MrMatthias2379 In battle, it's military that matters. But in war overall, political will can be decisive.
ltmikepowell 1 year ago
if a sword can kill 3 men then u can kill 300 men with knife
proudmanm1224 1 year ago
Haha! Jiap really had them on. I can only imagine how he knew the American people so much.
NiqueJB 1 year ago
the viet did not defeat US
US defeat US
100000000years 1 year ago
07:19 Chinese soldiers danced in the air after getting slashed!
LordBifford 1 year ago
whats the music called at 6:10???
lifes40123 1 year ago
I don't think killing nuns was a mistake. Christianity was on American's rolls and they might as well have been spies.
amitp2 1 year ago
@amitp2 And thats why there are so many christians in Vietnam today and its rapidly growing.. ah yes i see your point.
yoyuepz 1 year ago
I was talking about war and not about whether Christianity is growing today or not.
BTW, there are still a lot of covert organizations from America and Korea involved in converting poor Vietnamese. And then there is population growth....
There are no numbers supporting your claim and I refer to unbiased Wikipedia not your "Biased Bloodthirsty God's Church"
amitp2 1 year ago
@yoyuepz
I read it on Wikipedia, and people do say wiki is biased as it cannot be used for academic.
You can slater as much as you want about christians,
but unlike islam they go in peace!
yoyuepz 1 year ago
Wikipedia is much less biased than most of the sources.
And uou are correct about Islam
and I am not muslim
And your christianity is just a little less fanatic & crazy ....Thats all
amitp2 1 year ago
But you have to measure the political cost. It's one thing to kill a bunch of rude, swaggering soldiers. Its another thing to kill a bunch of women who, being clerics, do their best to be liked by the locals. Vietnamese who didn't care Christianity might nonetheless have been horrified to see these congenial women being slaughtered like pigs.
LordBifford 1 year ago
by the way I got my self education by reading American books.
goodluckpeace44 1 year ago
Hello
I love Vietnamese people. Next time I am born(since I am buddhist and believe in rebirth) I will be a Vetnamese..
goodluckpeace44 1 year ago
for what? why the hell would u wanna live and be a vietnamese?
lifes40123 1 year ago
Well Vietnam will be one of the worlds greatest countries in feuture when economics is not the measurement of culture. 1st world, third world is based on economics not education. Education in Vietnam is more superior to other places on earth. so from small days I will get to be smarter,
goodluckpeace44 1 year ago
hey I was born in Sri Lanka and I can see how mr Praba got his rebels to hit us. SLA were trained by the British to wear uniforms and divide in to squads and battilions in order, the rebels had followed Sun Tzu and showed disorganized and disordered face yet deceptively ordered..
goodluckpeace44 1 year ago
My Lei! The US went around popping people in the skull too, some of the perps got punished, some didn't. Vietnam was a frakked up war for so many reasons. Seeds of the Vietnam conflict go all the way back to 1920, lot of frakked up people with a lot of frakked up ideas involved. Master Sun doesn't say anything about conscription, guess I'll have to pull out the book and check.
xKCBEx 1 year ago
The guy doing the execution at 03:07 is Johnny Yang of EMC monkeys! Awesome dude and great martial artist!
ninpokid 1 year ago
my sentiments exactly
almostnuclearwar 1 year ago
the yanks got OWNED in vietnam...'nuff said ooo they're in deep shit too in iraq and afghanistan at these days... the war effectively has drained the YANKS resources..war of attrition is bad for the occupiers...
IndoAtheist 2 years ago
Have you been paying any attention to the videos at all? America did not lose because it got "owned", but because it had no true attachment to the area at all (which is why they chose Vietnam to challenge communism in the first place). America won the battles, but lost the war because it lacked dedication. Jaap(sp?) was able to capitalize on this, morale formed the crux of his strategy. It did cost the Vietnamese in terms of casualties. They lost in the conventional sense, but won politically.
damasta00138 2 years ago 4
yeah ....Carl von Clausewitz once said the war is a different form of politic (i hope i quote it right)...so if you want peace be ready for WARRR... same thing happens in iraq and afghanistan...when USA lost numerous resources (cash,personel,military equiptments etc..)
IndoAtheist 2 years ago
@IndoAtheist he said that war was an extension of politics by other, more violent means
Smashingnin 2 years ago
when are wars use the poor to fight wars for corporate interests, you can never win, its sad how many boys and girls die to promote american imperialism,
jpbarney1 2 years ago
no they did get owned though lol
angler1029 2 years ago
@damasta00138 its spelled Giap
Smashingnin 2 years ago
@damasta00138 I think the general's name is spelled "Giap"
InvalidAuthorization 9 months ago
dude u dont know what ur talking about, USA has learned many mistakes during vietnam war, we lost mainly cuz of unpopularity the war became in the states and now its different, media is censored of gruesome scenes of american soldiers dying in iraq and afghanistan and fighting tactics that are use by guerillas instead of maintaining the way usa fights wars and many more
sweetasflip 2 years ago
good old free democratic yankeenistan's corporate medias...owned by ZIONIST BANKERS with mission to distract yankeenistan population from 'sensitive' business..and a very success result indeed...even with some gruesome facts pop up to the surface about war in iraq/afghan the zombie americans turn blind eye about it...sigh...nothing change...the ZIONIST kosher kol nidre nazi rules everything from white house, wallstreet to pentagon
IndoAtheist 2 years ago
then why have u still not won after 9 years against wat are just pesaents with outdated weapons? it just doesnt add up. im not slurring here, im just making a point.
merLin123a 1 year ago 8
@merLin123a You seem to fail to understand at what gurrelia warfare is it is a type of warfare in which it involves close quarter combat the enemy army is hiding and fighting small battles rather than fight a big battle against an enemy they know is stronger than them they also make sure they look like regular citizens but on a mission and these small forces appearing as citizens can cause chaos.
1Historygenius 10 months ago
@1Historygenius
I think you don't understand that victory to the military-industrial complex (you know,the one Eisenhower warned about) victory is perpetual war.
guysmyly 10 months ago
@guysmyly there are different types of warfare that does not mean everyone follows perpetual warfare.
1Historygenius 10 months ago
@merLin123a I know its an old comment but I just want to tell you that you're absolutly right.
paperclipguy2 9 months ago
war makes money my friend.
yoyuepz 1 year ago 6
i totally agree with this shit comrade...
IndoAtheist 1 year ago
it makes money for a very few...mostly it wastes money (and lives) for the rest..
bravenewpress 1 year ago
If it was me, I'd kill all the Vietnamese leaders at the meeting, and leave the bastards leaderless.
jabames 2 years ago
sooo..your a redneck coward?
icecold99 2 years ago
if u did that u would get assasinated
T1000579 1 year ago
Sometimes the people act very ignorant... and of course they are. Most don't know what war is.
Pigeonzbomb12 2 years ago 4
Why didn't the Duke of Cai attack when the enemy exposed its rear whilst they were advancing to Sun Tzu?
PhilipineMan 2 years ago 2
its all about safety. If a coordinate attack failed (Cai troop arrive early before Wu), then Chu army can crush Cai easily and march back to Cai country. Its a risk that nobody (unprofessional commander) would want to take.
Takahashi1945 2 years ago
It was weak from Chu's attack. Plus, you can see how small the state is. It's not very strong.
Pigeonzbomb12 2 years ago
although i am a foreign chinese,i always have a self-warning:don't make chinese a toy or viets an easy toy......-__O
lumianic 2 years ago 2
03:45 mmmm
noodles112123 2 years ago
Nice... Sun Tzu does it all with style and sheer elegance.
soccom8341576 2 years ago 27
This has been flagged as spam show
we did no loose vietnam! we F&#% owned them!
They lost about 1.5 million and we only lost 50,000. that is 30 times more!!!!
theend1011 2 years ago
And they won their nation. How do you think they could have ever done that against a superpower like the US without tremendous casualties? You win a war when you complete your goals, not when you kill more enemies than you lose.
anmndr 2 years ago 31
@anmndr Exactly lol, same thing with Somalia
amasuEnd 1 year ago
@anmndr right!!! one good example for that is the german army in both world wars.
LemmiWinks1909 1 year ago
@anmndr Without tremendous casualties? - They lost 3 million freakin soldiers. The Vietnamese leader claimed he was willing to lose 10 of his troops for every 1 of the US???? So in essence he won that war not by killing more of his enemy than they did of him but by having the man power to sustain his army numbers even though they were being obliterated. In any other country the US tactics would of worked perfectly - 3 million Vietnamese dead - That's nearly the entire population of my country!
baldoyleballer 1 year ago
@anmndr lol, north vietnamese lost over 1 million people
13elsyd13 11 months ago
The South Vietnamese lost the war to the north Vietnamese.
eeEErRaY 2 years ago
obviously....
de4th1snt3nough 2 years ago
yea thats so true we never lost anything IN vietnam
de4th1snt3nough 2 years ago