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

2007-03-20 07:37:52 · 13 answers · asked by Jess babie boo 1 in Arts & Humanities History

13 answers

To stop the spread of Communism. Germany divided by East and West. Korea divided by North and South. China divided into two. US was afraid the fall off Vietnam to Commie would led to the spread of Communism into other Asian nations.

2007-03-20 08:17:20 · answer #1 · answered by sharpshooter 5 · 1 0

The Americans don't really have a foreign policy. They were, at the time, paranoid about communism. They'd had an internal cleansing in the 1950s when Senator Joseph McCarthy organised a crackdown to root out American communists. There was the division of Germany into East and West, with the East becoming part of the Russian protectorate. There was a division in Korea which was fought over by mainly Americans and Chinese (apologies to the Brits who were there!) and then along came Vietnam with another Chinese problem. It was just too much for the Americans so off they went to do battle which they thought (as usual) would be a ten-minute affair. Regrettably, for all those who died (60000 Americans and probably 2 million Vietnamese) and,indeed, those who suffered terribly over the years, the ten minutes turned into 12 years. Finally, the US made a tactical withdrawal, resulting in the unification of North & South Vietnam as communist country - the very ideal that America had been trying to prevent. It became important, I guess, because during the Nixon years - and later, the Johnson years - there were so many Americans against it that this outward display of internal hostility influenced domestic policy. Seems like Iraq is going the same way. Who says history doesn't repeat itself?!

2007-03-23 04:04:53 · answer #2 · answered by michael w 3 · 0 0

By llate 1961, the Viet Cong had won control of virtually half of South Vietnam with little local opposition. The United States was deeply committed to the support of the non-Communist government of South Vietnam and therefore became increasingly involved militarily, sending troops and then engaging in systematic bombing during the Vietnam War. The United States increased its military and economic aid to combat the Communist threat and at the same time put pressure on President Diem for democratic reforms.

2007-03-20 07:54:35 · answer #3 · answered by jhr4games 4 · 1 0

It was part of US communist paranoia. Having failed to secure 'democracy' in part of Korea (the North), when the French left Vietnam, the US claimed to have been invited to help Vietnam in the fight against the Vietcong (the Communist faction). This may well have been the case, but when the USSR said Afghanistan had invited them to help fight the Taliban in 1979, the US claimed this was patently not true.

The current fashion in paranoia is Islam. The success rate is about the same. North Korea is still Communist, there was an embarrassing retreat from Vietnam, troops are still in Afghanistan and Iraq is a bloody mess.

Some people never learn.

2007-03-20 10:18:48 · answer #4 · answered by cymry3jones 7 · 1 0

Because the US was petrified of Communism taking hold over the undeveloped world, which could be moulded into a very effective invading force in the future.

You would think it would know by now when to quit when fighting a lost cause ie: Iraq

2007-03-20 08:42:17 · answer #5 · answered by dogterhoo 2 · 0 0

Never understood that. Vietnam has no oil, so why the war? Could it just have been to keep the Chinese out do you think?

2007-03-20 07:46:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because we royally screwed up. It's important to learn from one's mistakes. Therefore, foreign policy was altered to protect us from entering into conflict so readily and to protect our own vested interests rather than simply going off and helping another country/entity with no real benefit to our own citizens.

2007-03-20 07:42:55 · answer #7 · answered by dwilmoth822 3 · 0 0

I think it was a flexing of the muscles at the time.

It showed would be aggressors that The U.S of A were not afraid to put words into action.

2007-03-20 07:45:57 · answer #8 · answered by titus 3 · 0 0

aside form the moral stand aspect of united states moving into the shoes of France, an Imperial potential & after the Geneva convention, as a follow-up of Truman doctrine, the problem the international over replaced into in a state of flux in the chilly conflict era. in spite of everything Korean conflict, Vietnam conflict were all portion of chilly conflict inspite of the actuality that that replaced into constrained to Europe on my own. This conflict of words - like the tectonic plates rubbing adverse to one yet another yet transferring alongside - both large powers & their cohorts were evolving their strikes & ideas continually. that's futile to handle each flare-up (like the Earthquakes in case of tectonic plates) as a distinct one at the same time as they don't look remoted. it would not lead us everywhere. Vietnam conflict replaced into the most important of all such flares-up. Kennedy's coverage replaced into suited on the prompt given the point of classification of the chance & its dimensions. each American president's target replaced into to right away clinch a decisive victory. They were impatient, forgetting the imponderables on the floor that the troops on my own may know (as they unravelled). This replaced into the Achilles heel. It replaced into no longer some thing you recommend out on a chart (all generals did precisely that), implement & spoil out with it. that's not a "job" yet a "problem" that Kennedy & others confronted. no longer in undemanding words the U. S. military replaced into automobile-inaccurate yet they inaccurate their president. maximum import ingredient, "patience" (A 'ought to' in Asia) replaced into lacking or lacking. the a lot less that it replaced into the more beneficial body-bags landed on American beaches. In such situations to ask for a "clean coverage" is stupidity itself. If a coverage is necessary that's that this : to win the conflict. next question : How? For this there's a plethora of reviews without consensus & consequent cacophony with the click including to it, taking section in its ever-corrosive position in decision making. In united states each body (Walter Cronkite & all) is an authority! compared the low-profile Nixon (He challenged Kennedy in the election & lost) acted decisevely, albeit by ability of enlarging it to engulf Cambodia. Being American (given the yankee proclivity) he might want to in undemanding words be incorrect, yet decisive. yet at very last he replaced into the single which cleared the route for bringing back the lads homestead. He must have realised at very last, that united states replaced into scuffling with a higher conflict than WW II.

2016-12-02 07:25:07 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

it enabled them to make more money from selling guns and ammunition same reason for all wars the acquisition of wealth

2007-03-20 13:07:12 · answer #10 · answered by loislane 2 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers