Just because the USA came second best, it doesn't mean they are losers. They were at least better than Mexico or Bhutan or any other country that didn't participate.
You may say that they should be labeled as losers because they failed miserably to meet their stated goals despite having the strongest and best equipped military force in the world fighting a bunch of miserable peasants with no access to advanced technology, but hey, at least they were brave enough to venture into unknown jungles in Southeast Asia filled with enemies, isn't that a victory already? Don't you think they also deserve a trophy?
Besides have you stopped to think about what is the consequences of labeling people losers? They will eventually develop a low self esteem and an inferiority complex. If people start ridicule the USA as being unfit to win, they may never want to participate in wars again.
Despite popular opinion to the contrary, the US won nearly ever major battle in the war (except for the Tet offensive ... And only briefly). US casualties were around 55,000 soldiers (second deadliest war), while the Vietmanese lost somewhere around 2 million (between 30% and 50% civilians). The only reason we withdrew despite are victories was bad policy making, growing hatred for the war (mostly due to the draft), the fact that the US doesn't like any war that goes longer than 4 years.
It's too obvious! We won in every way possible! As you can tell in the picture for this post we have about 5 helicopters covering the entire land, and no enemies to be seen for miles! America has reached total domination! Even our people on the ground are alive!
And You're Welcome.
Yes, The reason why is because we utterly destroyed their army which wasn't even a real army. We killed ten times as many people as they did. We did it with our hands tied behind our back. Meaning we weren't even really trying. Even the historians who say we didn't win admit we easily destroyed their army. The reason we left is that there was no point anymore. The war wasn't being supported anymore and president Nixon wanted to leave. We also basically completed our goal even if it didn't show till later.
Eventually, North Vietnam just invaded South Vietnam anyway and the entire country became communist. America did not intervene that time. This suggests that Nixon simply gave up on the Vietnam war and offered them peace with very few terms of agreement which America could actually enforce. They simply couldn't win a guerrilla war.
Why do countries go to war? Simple, to enforce the said country’s position/opinions on another country or group.
The US’s position was that communism does not reflect US values and shall not spread.
With China on its boarder, North Vietnam became a staging point for communism to spread south and strengthen factions in Thailand, Malaysia and Philippines.
Yes, the US inflicted massive damage and loss of life on the Vietnamese. But, failed miserably to stop the spread of communism through Vietnam. In fact the change in policy to heavily fund pro-democratic governments in neighbouring countries actually proved to be the most effective solution.
If you are of a the belief that the US won, you are supporting the notion that the US committed genocide, which is a horrendous breach of the Geneva convention!!!
Again, why did we fight in that stupid war? Many veterans from the war opposed the war themselves. Who won? The Viet Cong bastards. They won and we failed to stop the communist aggressors from taking over the country. We didn't win, we failed. Our intention was to stop the Soviet and North Vietnamese Communists from bringing forth the fallible system of socialism.
We didn't save South Vietnam from communism, and we even had a role in Pol Pot's rise to power in Cambodia (though the NVA also had a part in that). If that isn't enough we ended up strengthening communism's presence in the region as the we basically gave them all the propaganda they would need.