AQ aiding Syrian rebels?

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Your enemy won, you lost. Everything else is just technical hairsplitting to avoid the statement: "they won, we lost".

Don't dance for joy when you say that.

The truth is that the Vietcong won like the Iranian communists won after the 79 revolution. They were used as cannon fodder then stabbed in the back. If you want to believe they "won the war" then that's your business but it doesn't make it accurate.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Don't dance for joy when you say that.

I don'T, I just precisely call the outcome by its name. Your side lost, the enemy's side won. Reasons leading to the result are not important. The final scoring is what decides it. Ideas, motivations, hopes, and the like - do not change the final standing. They won, America lost. They took the prize, America fled from the stage in disarray.

That is no triumphing by me. It's just the historical reality.

[Oberon]

History is generally written by the victors though, to be fair.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

History is generally written by the victors though, to be fair.

In case of Vietnam I think there can be no doubt about what the final standing was. I do not need neither Chinese nor Vietnamese PR officials to tell me that.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

In case of Vietnam I think there can be no doubt about what the final standing was. I do not need neither Chinese nor Vietnamese PR officials to tell me that.

Who cares what the final standing was? That's not the issue. The issue was whether the Viet Cong were the ones who won the war. They were not. That was the North Vietnamese Army backed by the Red Chinese. The VC were finished as a fighting and political force after Tet as was I expect the NVA's plan from the start.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

The issue was whether the Viet Cong were the ones who won the war. They were not. That was the North Vietnamese Army backed by the Red Chinese. The VC were finished as a fighting and political force after Tet as was I expect the NVA's plan from the start.

No, the original issue raised was that North Vietnam one and the United States lost. You chose to nitpick the names of the winners to suit your own agenda, and then tried to change the nature of the "issue".

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You chose to nitpick the names of the winners to suit your own agenda, and then tried to change the nature of the "issue".

Um, he did not as far as I can tell. This started from a specific comparison between AQ and the Viet Cong. I'm no expert on Vietnam war, but in this case it seems to me that August has a valid point. It makes sense to make a difference between a traditional army and a mostly guerilla force.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

In case of Vietnam I think there can be no doubt about what the final standing was. I do not need neither Chinese nor Vietnamese PR officials to tell me that.

Oh indeed, but there is still many in the US who believe that if operations such as Linebacker had continued, instead of being stopped every time the DRV wanted to talk (aka wanted a break to rebuild and rearm) then the war might have had a different outcome. Or if the US had actually gone into North Vietnam in force, perhaps through an amphibious assault to bypass the heavily fortified border.
What ifs and maybes, just as there are after every war, but certainly the goals that the US set out to achieve were not met as the ROV ceased to exist.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Oberon

History is generally written by the victors though, to be fair.

I don't know. Last I checked, history was written by historians, and as far as jobs go, those guys are definitely on the losing side.