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

2007-02-08 06:59:24 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

9 answers

A Police Action but not a war. Is she right? 'Cause I know that's the *popular* version of what went on there. And a lot of people like to believe that. I wish I could, but I was *there*. I wasn't here on Yahoo Answers hoping I was right, thinking about it.

I was up to my knees in rice paddies, with guns that didn't work! Going in there, looking for Charlie, slugging it out with him; While liberals like you were back here partying, putting headbands on, doing drugs, and listening to the freaking Beatle albums! Oh! Oh! Oh!

2007-02-08 11:38:18 · answer #1 · answered by SnowWebster2 5 · 1 0

If it had been a war. It would have been over in a matter of months even weeks. We would have never pull out until victory. Police action was the best answer. The Us were not able to use all the weapons like they did in Japan. We would have blown that small country out of the water, but we had no business there in the first place. A police action that should have never happen. Too many lives taken.

2014-08-23 01:06:22 · answer #2 · answered by charles a 1 · 0 0

Ian ... Excellent question. The reasons why it was not a declared war are numerous. However, consider this: The so-called Cold War was in progress, we directly supported the South Vietnamese and the Soviets and Chinese supported the North Vietnamese. With a formal declaraction of war, this would have represented an escalation that could have drawn the U.S., China, and the USSR closer to war between one another ... and no one wanted that, of course.

2007-02-08 17:13:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

According the the U.S. constitution, only the congress can declare war. To date, congress has declared war 5 times;War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish American War, World War I, and World War II.
I would _guess_ that 'Nam was a "police action" so as to provide funding for the thousands of "policemen" that the U.S. sent there under presidents Kennedy through Nixon.

2007-02-08 15:14:19 · answer #4 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 0 0

It was not really "declared" a war even though Congress gave the President permission to conduct war operations under the Gulf Of Tonkin resolution passed in 1964.

2007-02-08 15:02:41 · answer #5 · answered by gman992 3 · 0 0

No actual declaration of war was made against North Vietnam.

2007-02-08 15:02:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The President has the authority to mobilize military units. ONLY CONGRESS has the authority to DECLARE WAR. The last time they did that was December 8, 1941, after the Japanese attacked the Pearl Harbor Naval Station in Hawaii.

2007-02-08 15:08:17 · answer #7 · answered by Richard H 7 · 1 0

the above answers are right, the reasoning is that a declaration of war gives the president too much power, and the opposition party will never allow it with out a threat to their own elected positions, a declaration of war gives a president an indefinite term in office ad a blank check to conduct the war

2007-02-08 16:07:30 · answer #8 · answered by eyesinthedrk 6 · 0 1

It can only be a war when war is declared. We did not declare war against Vietnam.

2007-02-08 15:03:47 · answer #9 · answered by geegee 6 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers