We lost.

Losing the war politically is just as valid as suffering a military defeat (and more likely considering the countries involved were democratic). Vietnam went communist despite the Us's military supremecy. The US and allies lost.

That is true however, the goal wasnt achieved because of the U.S.

(back on the holocaust/ vietnam comparsion) its like if the jewish people did die off, Hitlers not gonna say "i killed the jewish people" because he wasnt. He failed when he tried it. Even though it was achived eventually, he failed when he tried, no if and's or butts. It did happen but it wasnt because of your efforts hitler.

A person cant claim success after he has failed.

Another comparsion is if i told people that i was going to build a rocketship in less than 2 months and about 3 weeks into it i realize that i cant do it and i call it quits. I lose.

Lost. But to be fair, when you're fighting a guerilla army then you can't really win.

It's more or less the same reason why we're losing in Afghanistan too.

The hitler analogy is kind of a bad one...the descendants of those Jews are largely also jewish...the descendants in Vietnam are no longer living in a complete communist state.  Add to that the fact that the US has continually applied political pressure to support democracy and capatalism all throughout the world (which vietnam is a part of =P) and I think it would be disengenous to claim that the US had nothing to do with it. 

It is certainly true that the US didn't singlehandedly end communism in Vietnam, but it has played a role.  You can debate how much of a role if you'd like, but its nothing like your hitler analogy.

As far as your last analogy, it holds a grain of truth in the sense that the war effort was long over before the situation changed, and in the sense that the war effort was intended to do the job you have a point.  But nobody ever said "if this plan doesn't work we are absolutely done....finished...failures". It's not a one-shot deal...if your first attempt fails you aren't forced to just accept it and never be able to try again.  And given how the overt attempt at changing the situation turned out, I think the concept of a subtle approach makes quite a bit of sense for a second attempt =P

That's a terrible analogy Garnett.

But there is no possible way to call it anything but a big steaming loss for the U.S. And not only was it a loss, but the intense bombing of Cambodia sent the people in to the arms of the Khmere rouge, who became one of the most brutal regimes in history. And even after their overthrow, half the damn country isn't safe for fear of treading on exploding ordinance. Laos too.

I guess when you withdraw and abandon your objectives you're effectively admitting defeat - so I'm going for Lost.

Yeah i know its bad, its the only thing that i could think of (me and him had just got done arguing about the greatest tank commander of WW2, he says Patton but Patton is a general. He has no idea what hes talking about).  He says its a draw, again its not a draw, our goal while we were in vietnam was to stop the spread of communism, we failed while we were there so we bailed out. We called it quits before the goal was accomplished. Our mission was unsuccesful.

@Stoff, Reasonable

Nice to know that other people agree with me.

Lost but I also think that America learned from this about getting into conflicts that are wise/prudent.

America lost, but comparing America to Hitler and the Vietnamese to the Jewish just simply isn't right.

In a war their are no winners. Only losers.

Btw I remembered we learned the UK also treated to put pressure on the dollar something that is related during the Suez war when USA treated to put pressure on the £.