Best Answer 10 POINTS!!!?

Question

do you really think that the United States should have gotten involved in the Vietnam War baack then????why???

Answer 1

Crazy...you have a good Q but may have a more mature response if you had put it under Military. You would have found quite a few Vietnam Vets and families who lost their young men to that Bad war. My husband is a Vet from that war and the young men absolutely have an answer to your question.

NO, I don't believe in my heart we should have sent a single young man to Vietnam....but we did and revisiting it now wont help a thing.

Now, I was too busy being young back then but I matured and learned like young folks will about this war we are in now. No war is right! If the politicians had let the generals run the Vietnam war we would have won and I truly believe the world would have been different. Vietnam was the downfall of the USA, to this day, because the average American didn't support it....and what's sad we didn't support our Troops. The reason China and N. Vietnam won was because of us, the American people who vilified our soldiers and called them baby killers. Lets not let that happen again. Please! Support the troops even if you don't' support this war in the Middle East.

God Bless our Troops
I'll just take my 2 points and be happy...TY

Answer 2

No, not particularly.... especially given the manner in which the USA has fought wars since WW2....

There has not been a clear cut victory since WW2 except for Granada.... maybe keeping the press in the dark had something to do with the total success of that operation.

We actually did have the Vietnam War won in 1968, but demonstrations and protesters in the USA gave North Vietnam's communist government new hope and eventually turned the outcome of the war in favor of the communists.... and caused the deaths of about 48,000 more US troops....

We should not fight if we are going to allow demonstrators and protesters to influence the way the war is fought.

A nation must have the will to win.... and be willing to do what is necessary to win.... there has to be a SPINE that stands strong.... a nation has to know what is right and what is wrong... and then do what it takes to correct it.....

the sickness of the left should not be allowed to defeat America when it is at war.....

and to really answer that question you asked, you have to look for the answer in the post WW2 era....

Vietnam did not want to be under the control of France again... France pillaged that country ruthlessly.... it was called the "pearl of the orient"..... Ho Chi Minh asked the US government to help his people keep the French out, he said he wanted to establish a democracy.... if I remember correctly, he was already studying communism... but may have thought it would not be neccessary to impose a filthy leftist government if the USA were to aid Vietnam's quest for independence.

The French didn't fight very long or hard against the Nazis, which is understandable in some ways, but they gave it all they had to retain their grip on Vietnam.

Give me all the negative ratings you want, I know the truth hurts the lefties.

Answer 3

No. As a '60's war protester (old hippie, ok?), I spent a lot of time arguing this with people in those days. Put quite simply - the VietNam War was a civil war between North and South VietNam and we had no business being there. A good analogy would be, what would we have done if, say, France, had sent troops over to the US during the American Civil War? Would they have had any right to be here? Of course not!! And our troops had no business being in VietNam. Unfortunately, the VietNam War was as much about CIA involvement as anything else - false information fed to the leaders in this country, suddenly, we had troops "advisors" on the ground. Actually, we had those "advisors" on the ground during the Eisenhower administration. Then, North VietNam attacked one of our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin and the war was taking off. And of course we got to hear all about the so-called "domino effect" - if VietNam goes communist, all of SE Asia goes communist. Didn't happen. Does a lot of this sound familiar when looked at the context of Iraq? A civil war....misleading information from the CIA (wmd's)...American troops dying for big business just like in VN...no end in sight. And despite predictions there MAY be a civil war in Iraq, its already happening and we have as much business there as we did in VietNam - None!!

Answer 4

Eisenhower was responsible for the Vietnam war. In 1956, he stopped the agreed upon elections (Geneva Accords 1954) in Vietnam that would have unified the country and picked a leader. Eisenhower didn't want a communist nation to come into being democratically, so many had to suffer and die. (See also - Chile 1973)

We never should have stepped into that manure pile.

Answer 5

Yes! There are those who believe that Vietnam was a mistake and that America lost this war. Imagine if we would of prevailed. Look at how good American has turned out even while supposedly losing a war. If we lost this battle... I would love to see what would be different had we won........ Think about it... Normandy invasion took 9000 lives the first day. Let's not forget who really made this country great. Those who are willing to risk things!!!!! PEACE

Answer 6

Yes, getting involved and sending advisers and troops was a reasonable response to a perceived threat of communism taking over all of SE Asia. Communism had spread to many countries following World War II.

When it became apparent that this was a pointless mission, and was more of a civil war than an ideological battle, the US should have left. Instead, the Johnson administration ramped up the troop commitment on a pretext (the Gulf of Tomkin incident. Over 60,000 American and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives were lost on account of this mistake and the President's refusal to admit it.

Answer 7

Yes it was an effort to stop the spread of communism. The French first asked for our help in 1956 but we didn't give them any, then when the French pulled out the government of South Vietnam asked of rour help and we gave it. But when we left and the Democratic controlled congress pulled all economic and military aid to the south and Cambodia the communists took over anyway and millios of people died. We went there originally to stop that from happening and the leftist liberals let it happen.

Answer 8

A big NO

The technical term for the reason we were in the Vietnam War is called containment. Containment is defined in layman's terms as the 'prevention of the spread of communism.'

I have never understood, if capitalism is so loved and grand, why we feared the spread of communism. What were we afraid of? My only guess is that we were afraid our capitalist corporations would not be able to control the global market if communism were the global economic structure.

Also if you examine our history since WW2 very closely, you will find that it was our tactics on this war against the spread of communism that created the anti-American terrorism you see today.

That would take me awhile to explain but let me suffice it to say that we used many of these groups... the Taliban in Afghanistan against communist Russia... Suddam against Iran who was being funded by Russia... Then when we were done and had basically conquered communism in the early to mid 80s, we washed our hands of those groups thereby breaking many promises.

Answer 9

I think they should have only been there for about 2 years, long enough to see that it was a Big Problem, and cut their losses.
'War' is when you go someplace, and kill people, and break things. The most famous war of our times was WWII, and that's exactly what happened, it lasted 6 years, and then it was over.
When the war WAS over, millions had died, and europe was in shambles. But, the war was OVER. Utterly horrifying, destructive, wasteful, useless, most wars are pointless and a waste of human life, but when peoples set themselves against each other, maybe it's inevitable...

Answer 10

I was there for the "Fall of Saigon" as an Airborne Ranger...First, America was the LAST to try to solve the conflict between the north & south...Second, Americans weren't given orders (or allowed) to fight to win as it wasn't a "war", it was only a "police action" then later a "conflict"...Third, it was a fight between the communist north backed by the late USSR & China against the south that wanted to be democratic...

Good motive, but a losing proposition as nobody else prevailed before us & it was really a civil war we had no business in...