3 ms·

> While the US was not victorious in Vietnam, neither were they defeated by the Vietnamese/USSR. Wait, what? At the very end US Troops were evacuated from Sa

> While the US was not victorious in Vietnam, neither were they defeated by the Vietnamese/USSR. Wait, what? At the very end US Troops were evacuated from Saigon, and the city was taken over by the Viet Cong. That was the end of the Vietnam war. South Vietnam was reunified with North Vietnam. It's still a communist country. I'm very sorry, but exactly how is that not complete and total defeat, except under ridiculous exceptions like, "it wasn't really a war because: Congress"? What a disservice to everyone that fought. The war escalated to the point where LBJ could neither stop, nor continue without basically destroying his legacy (as well as humanitarian and social goals), so he just kept fighting.

dionidium 12y ago
You completely missed his point, which is that nobody was in a position to try the U.S. for war crimes after Vietnam. There are many kinds of defeat. To be charged with war crimes requires utter defeat, not merely an unfavorable end to the conflict.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > To be charged with war crimes requires utter defeat Officials from all factions in (for one example) the Bosnian civil war have been tried by the ICTY. So unless all sides suffered "utter defeat", that is demonstrably untrue. One could argue that prior to the establishment of modern tribunals starting with the ICTY (but also including the ICTR and ICC), that was the case. And there might be other reasons that the US, in particular, is difficult to hold accountable. But its pretty clear that it is no longer the case that "to be charged with war crimes requires utter defeat", or even mere defeat.
  - dionidium 12y ago
    You should read "utter defeat" to mean "subject to the decisions of others." Nothing more, really. You can charge anybody with anything. I'm talking about enforcement.
specialist 12y ago
The USA stopped fighting, they weren't defeated. Just because the Vietcong won doesn't mean the USA lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender
mhurron 12y ago
> exactly how is that not complete and total defeat The US just left. They left with egg on their face and not looking so superpowery but neither Vietnam or the USSR were in a position to do anything to the US. The US lost, but the US was not vanquished. Actually they basically went home and life just continued on. The Nuremburg Trials were possible because the Allies were in direct control of the territory of Nazi Germany and had removed it's government. Below someone brought up the various Yugoslav conflicts, but even then, they stopped and then started rounding up the former leaders because NATO basically made it happen. NATO did forceably end those wars.

dionidium 12y ago

You completely missed his point, which is that nobody was in a position to try the U.S. for war crimes after Vietnam. There are many kinds of defeat. To be charged with war crimes requires utter defeat, not merely an unfavorable end to the conflict.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> To be charged with war crimes requires utter defeat Officials from all factions in (for one example) the Bosnian civil war have been tried by the ICTY. So unless all sides suffered "utter defeat", that is demonstrably untrue. One could argue that prior to the establishment of modern tribunals starting with the ICTY (but also including the ICTR and ICC), that was the case. And there might be other reasons that the US, in particular, is difficult to hold accountable. But its pretty clear that it is no longer the case that "to be charged with war crimes requires utter defeat", or even mere defeat.
- dionidium 12y ago
  You should read "utter defeat" to mean "subject to the decisions of others." Nothing more, really. You can charge anybody with anything. I'm talking about enforcement.

specialist 12y ago

The USA stopped fighting, they weren't defeated. Just because the Vietcong won doesn't mean the USA lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender

mhurron 12y ago

> exactly how is that not complete and total defeat The US just left. They left with egg on their face and not looking so superpowery but neither Vietnam or the USSR were in a position to do anything to the US. The US lost, but the US was not vanquished. Actually they basically went home and life just continued on. The Nuremburg Trials were possible because the Allies were in direct control of the territory of Nazi Germany and had removed it's government. Below someone brought up the various Yugoslav conflicts, but even then, they stopped and then started rounding up the former leaders because NATO basically made it happen. NATO did forceably end those wars.