Did we win in Viet Nam?

"Marc Reeve" wrote:
Brett wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote:
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

"Brett" wrote in message
...

(big snip)

So, comparable with Nam then?

No, the Soviets never came to any agreement with the actual
"troops"
fighting them in Afghanistan. So while it might be considered an
orderly withdrawal it was a withdrawal made under enemy fire.
North
Vietnam was bombed into accepting a peace agreement and the US
withdrawal wasn't under fire and North Vietnam returned the US
POW's
they admitted or we knew they had.

If you cared to reword this I might be able to make sense of it. As
it
stands I cannot.

He's trying to make something out of the Russians pulling out under
fire
and he seems to be under the impression that while Kissinger was
negotiating with the NVs in Paris in '73, none of our guys were
shooting
at any of their guys

Where do you get the idea that I believe "none of our guys were shooting
at any of their guys" when my comment was "North Vietnam bombed into
accepting"

and vice versa. At any rate, agreement was reached in January '73 and
by the end of March, all US combat troops were out of there.
Personally, withdrawal is withdrawal, whether as a result of enemy
fire
or negotiations.....it still signifies defeat.

Based upon that comment the US must have lost the War of 1812 -
negotiations between the parties concerned did afterall end that War.

There's definitely a case for arguing that we did lose the War of 1812.

Perhaps, but the argument is stronger for the position that nobody won the
War, and the only real losers were the Indian tribes who had allied
themselves with the British.

We failed to conquer Canada (yes, we invaded Canada, thinking that the
Brits wouldn't notice, being pre-occupied with Napoleon.). Had a few
victories at sea and on the Great Lakes, nothing decisive. Land battles
were distinctly mixed with only the Battle of New Orleans (fought after
the Treaty of Ghent ended the war) being a decisive American victory.
And the Brits only stopped impressing seamen from our ships because they
defeated the French and drew down the Royal Navy.

Oh, and of course, the Brits burned Washington (but that may have been
retaliation for us burning the capital of colonial Canada, York
(Ontario), in 1813.

Brett wrote:
"Marc Reeve" wrote:
Brett wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Where do you get the idea that I believe "none of our guys were
shooting at any of their guys" when my comment was "North Vietnam
bombed into accepting"

and vice versa. At any rate, agreement was reached in January '73
and by the end of March, all US combat troops were out of there.
Personally, withdrawal is withdrawal, whether as a result of enemy
fire or negotiations.....it still signifies defeat.

Based upon that comment the US must have lost the War of 1812 -
negotiations between the parties concerned did afterall end that War.

There's definitely a case for arguing that we did lose the War of 1812.

Perhaps, but the argument is stronger for the position that nobody won the
War, and the only real losers were the Indian tribes who had allied
themselves with the British.

True enough. The natives had a knack for picking the wrong side - siding
with the French during the French and Indian War, and then with the
Brits during the Revolution and the War of 1812.
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m