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

2007-03-18 12:50:37 · 12 answers · asked by ChooChooTrainsAreFun 2 in Politics & Government Military

12 answers

We were lied to to get us into that conflict, same as the current war. The theory was that all the nations of the world would fall like dominoes. The lie was the Gulf of Tonkin "incident."

Some people think the 1.6 million murdered by the Khmer Rouge in the killing fields of Cambodia could have been saved if we had not pulled out of Vietnam. I don't know--we wasted two million gooks in Vietnam. How many more would we have had to slaughter to "save" the country?

If someone were to attack a close ally of the United States, like Canada, Australia, England, France, or Turkey, I would go off to fight them. I also supported our effort in Afghanistan, at first, when it seemed like we actually intended to succeed there, and when I thought our leadership was competent.

2007-03-18 13:58:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I forget how old I am and that everyone doesn't remember the things I do. My husband and brother were both sent over and put in their tour. At first, we thought it was a time to take a stand against communism and to protect the people who the French has abandoned. As time went on the casualty list was horrible. We are not talking a few a day like Iraq but dozens to hundreds a day and it didn't seem like it ever got us anywhere. There are a lot of theories as to why we didn't just take the land and hold it but we didn't and finally public opinion turned against the government stand. Young men started going to hide in Canada because they were so afraid they were going to be killed. There were very violent protest marches so finally we gave up and pulled out. What happened to the Vietnamese and Cambodians who were abandoned was made into a movie I think every American should see before we leave the poor people of Iraq to the same fate. It's called "The Killing Fields" and it's very factual. I hope you can find a copy and watch it.

2007-03-18 13:11:50 · answer #2 · answered by moonrose777 4 · 1 0

Because the motives were not pure. No declaration of war. Events of the Gulf of Tonkin is suspicious at best and worst possibly a staged event to lie to the American Public. People were profiting off of government contracting while American boys were dying. No defined objectives. No defined plan for victory just a ongoing money machine for KBR (Haliburton). Allies (South Vietnamese Officials) displayed corruption. Draft took away choice from young men as conscripts. Ect, ect ect.

2007-03-18 13:08:38 · answer #3 · answered by Laughing Man Copycat 5 · 1 0

Many were too blind to see that their actions hurt the veterans who did not make the decisions.

The war would not have been a problem if the government hadn't allowed the soldiers to do their jobs. For example. Planes are returning from a bombing run and see an airstrip with a Mig on it and have some bombs left. Command would not allow them to drop the bombs on the airstrip, they'd have to waste them on the jungle even if the Mig was taking off to intercept them. (True story)

2007-03-18 13:29:32 · answer #4 · answered by dirtywienerdog 1 · 0 0

I did not oppose the war. I joined the Marine Corp so I could go and fight in the war.

You must be talking about south americans.

If your not talking about south americans, then stop speaking for me you ill informed maggot.

2007-03-18 13:29:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

A lot of us were not opposed to the war itself. We were opposed to the fact that our leadership would not let us win it. By the way , it was the Democrats who started that one.

2007-03-18 13:01:24 · answer #6 · answered by jim h 6 · 0 0

The government of South Vietnam was an ugly, oppressive government, that most Vietnamese didn't want (we strengthened it by "recognizing" it, and funding it, and sending troops to support it).

Most Vietnamese wanted "Uncle Ho" and wanted to be unified, not split (which eventually happened, unfortunately, Ho Chi Men was dead by then).

It was wrong.

That's why I opposed it.

Other people had other reasons, but to me, that was the most important.

2007-03-18 16:44:54 · answer #7 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0 0

Many reasons, but the biggest reason the protests began is that it was 19 year-olds being drafted and sent to Viet Nam, but 19 year-olds could not vote. They did not lower the voting age until shortly before it was over.

Not to mention the fact that we got into it for bogus reasons. Our submarine was not attacked as they said. Also, the number of U.S. soldiers killed and maimed was horrendous.
56,000 killed.

2007-03-18 14:15:06 · answer #8 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 1 0

Because a lot of people were getting drafted and then they'd come home in body bags that they get to see every night on the evening news.

2007-03-18 13:07:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

They didn't at first, but then we started taking casualties. The Tet Offensive and the My Lai Massacre really turned opinion against the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

2007-03-18 12:58:57 · answer #10 · answered by Pseudo Obscure 6 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers