English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-09-28 10:27:55 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

14 answers

Easy - we should have just NOT gone over there, pretty much the same way we could have avoided the senseless Iraqi conflict.
We have NO business trying to either prop up corrupt regimes (as was the case in Vietnam) or trying to "export democracy" (as is the case - or at least it's now being given as a reason, owing to the fact that there were NO WMDs and NO "ties between Saddam and Al Qaida" - in Iraq.)
In Vietnam, the excuse was "the domino theory", that is, if Vietnam went "communist" all Southeast Asia would follow suit. Well, Vietnam DID go "communist" anyway, and - whoa - not only did we survive that, last time I looked most of Southeast Asia wasn't communist.
Here's a simple fact, one proved time and time again throughout history:
When you get involved militarily in a foreign country where 98 (or more) % of the population either dislikes or actively hates you, a country that has an unlimited supply of whackos willing and even eager to die for their "cause", there is simply NO way you are going to "win."
What happened in Vietnam is going to happen again in Iraq. Now that we're in there, getting out is going to be a long, drawn-out process that will cost thousands of lives. In the end, we'll "declare victory", wave good-bye to the puppet government we've installed and, when we leave, the Iraqis will keep on killing each other until one faction prevails.
And all the dead, all the maimed will have been for NOTHING (unless you count the profits the oil companies are pulling in.)

2006-09-28 10:44:20 · answer #1 · answered by johnslat 7 · 3 0

We could simply have not gone in, but we did have an agreement with South Vietnam, so it would be pretty harsh not to help them against the Vietcong. Likewise, we could have avoided the war in Korea, in which case Korea would be an all communist state today. In Vietnam we failed to win, but there were many mistakes made.

There were at least two periods during the Vietnam war when all sides were actually prepared to stop. It was a combination of stubborn behaviour of individuals and bad luck that there was never a peace agreement and the war continued for years after.

2006-09-28 17:34:44 · answer #2 · answered by Vage Centurian 3 · 0 1

Greetings!

While growing up I remember watching the evening news. (early fifties) As a young kid it scared me to hear about the "Korean Conflict". I don't think adults realize, understand or maybe care that young kids take in everything. Sadly, everything today, is scary. So it was also true then.
As I grew older, I would cower and become angry when I would here the Communist Nations refer to us as "American Capitalist Pigs", or "An Imperialistic Nation".
We could not avoid the Vietnam War, because we were and are Imperialistic. Sad but true.
Name all the countries we have troops stationed in and that alone should tell the tale.
We are a nation not poised for peace, but war.
We are a nation not poised for building but destruction.
Say what you will but the history is what it is.
So the US lost way to many lives as did the Vietnamese. And now the Vietnamese found homes in America, and Ford built a manufacturing plant in Viet Nam.

Regretfully;
Sadly missed, my friend Ken Locastre Buffalo, NY killed in action in Viet Nam

2006-09-28 17:42:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Well, I don't know if the Vietnam war could have been avoided, however, I do know that our involvement in it could have been totally avoided. The S. Vietnamese Govt was extremely corrupt yet we chose to let that Gov't continue to run things instead of helping those poor people install a clean Gov't. This led to the orth thinking that Ho chi minh was better than what they had. bad plan. so we ended up defending a totally corrupt gov't against a leader that was in essence, a reaction to that gov't.

2006-09-28 17:57:09 · answer #4 · answered by Foundryman 2 · 1 0

US leaders believed they could repeat their successes in Korea and the Phillipines in Indochina, Dien Bien Phu notwithstanding.

The US could have avoided the war by recognizing how totally different the military and political situation was than in much smaller or isolated countries in Asia. Compare Indochina to Burma, where the US did not become involved, and where fighting has been nonstop since the 1940's.

2006-09-29 16:15:26 · answer #5 · answered by edward d 1 · 0 0

By making a deal with the Communists for the Rubber Trees & the rubber corporation there.
All war is economic...

2006-09-29 01:33:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The first poster said it best; we could definitely not go in but we were bound by SEATO (South East Asian Treaty Org.), meaning that we were allied to South Vietnam.

2006-09-28 18:28:23 · answer #7 · answered by chrstnwrtr 7 · 0 0

Sounds like a homework question. Too complex to explain here.

2006-09-28 17:35:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Elected Barry Goldwater! (He was LBJ's opponent in 1964.) Barry wasn't hung up on proving his masculinity by kicking Commie butt.

2006-09-29 02:04:11 · answer #9 · answered by James@hbpl 5 · 0 0

Troops were originally sent in as a "peace action" which worked well for years.

As hostilities rose between North & South Viet Nam, we should have returned home.

As always it comes down to greed and disregard for human lives by OUR government! Big business wanted a foot hold Coke-a-cola was one of the big ones.

It was as simple as "just say no"

2006-09-28 18:40:54 · answer #10 · answered by please remove me from here 4 · 0 4

fedest.com, questions and answers