Did anybody in the 1970s say: "If we lose in Vietnam, the Communists will follow us to our shores"?

Question

I just ask because, in fact, that didn't happen, even though the US lost that war.
Nor was there any "domino effect".
South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia are all prosperous stable democracies.
True, Vietnam had to step in and stop the genocide in Cambodia that was started by the Vietnam war.
But today, even Vietnam is becoming an ally.

And all that happened, despite the US losing the first war in its history. Maybe war isn't everything it's cracked up to be?

So Sweetpea, your answer is "nobody said that in the 1970s"?

suthrnlyts I don't remember the Iraqis coming here and attacking us as terrorists either. Do you?

Answer 1

Some people did say that back in the 1970's. They also said that Vietnam would fall into ruin, be totally taken over and controlled by Communist China, etc. etc. etc. None of which happen. Today, Vietnam is doing okay. They sorted it out on their own, in their own way. Iraq should be allowed to do the same.

Answer 2

Russia prospered from N Vietnam's success, that was the fear. All of our cold war military actions were to prevent Russia from plundering some country to increase it's treasury as a result of its disastrous communist policies. In cold-war Russia's ideal world, they would have conquered the world and enforced communism everywhere. Yes, we lost Vietnam but we won other engagements and bankrupted the USSR in the long run.

The possibility of communism coming here was great, there were in fact strong communist supporters in the US but they never really took off and became a force. The domino effect was real too, again it did not take off.

Ultimately, you can't predict a US withdrawal from Iraq to just be "OK like Vietnam was". This is a different time, and a different enemy, you don't know what can happen if we withdraw. I prefer us to keep a hold on the direction things go in rather than leave it to random chance.

Answer 3

One fact that keeps eluding the american public is that the US military was victorius in Viet Nam. In every single major battle the US was victorius.
Once Hanoi harbor was minded and the Russian and Chinese stood aside the Viet Namese were willing to agree to the Paris talks.
A strategic design cannot be achieved on a fixed, arbitrary deadline; it must reflect conditions on the ground. But it also must not test the endurance of the American public to a point where the outcome can no longer be sustained by our political process. In Iraq, rapid, unilateral withdrawal would be disastrous. At the same time, a political solution remains imperative.
American disunity was a major element in dashing all hope. Watergate fatally weakened the Nixon administration through its own mistakes, and the 1974 midterm congressional elections brought to power the most unforgiving of Nixon's opponents, who cut off aid so the agreement couldn't work as planned. 2006 was familiar. The imperatives of domestic debate took precedence over geopolitical necessities.

That there was no domino effect is a myth. All of indochina fell to the communists and there was carnage of unimaginable proportions. North Korea, China, Russia, Cuba were all emboldened by the withdrawl as well. It set back the eventual fall of communism by more than a decade.
A political settlement has to be distilled from the partly conflicting, partly overlapping views of the Iraqi parties, Iraq's neighbors and other affected states, based on a conviction that the caldron of Iraq would otherwise overflow and engulf everybody. The essential prerequisite is staying power in the near term. President Bush owes it to his successor to make as much progress toward this goal as possible; not to hand the problem over but to reduce it to more manageable proportions. What we need most is a rebuilding of bipartisanship in both this presidency and in the next.

Answer 4

That was the general thrust of the argument about why we had to be in SE Asia.

It was called the Domino theory back then. The theory said if Vietnam went communist then so would all of southeast Asia and then Australia and the rest of the globe eventually ending with a communist invasion of the US.

And again it was the same fear-mongering right wing hacks who made that argument.

They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

Answer 5

Well, considering that that was the core ideal of the "Dominoe" concept, yes... people did think that. That is exactly why we went into Korea and Vietnam (and to a lesser extent Nicaragua and Cuba).

I agree that it was ridiculous to think that but given the fast spread of fascism in Europe in the 1930's I can also see why Democratic leaders were afraid to not take some action.. even war..

Answer 6

It is that fear by which they rule.
FOX """"NEWS""""" and thier ilk keep the weak minded in fear of Muslims taking over thier WALMART and making them wear Burkas, Hillary taking over and declaring a Communist Dictatorship and as many other silly ideas they can use to be sure we all depend on the Fuhrer to save us from.

The most frightening is that about half of the people who answered this question associate Iraq with the 9/11 attack.
There were no Iraqis in that attack and Osama was Sadaams enemy. But rality doesn't enter into the argument.

Answer 7

Big difference was that it was a war between countries, and not so much an ideological war. Muslims believe they are right, and they want to rule the world, or at least have the world under islamic rule. Vietnam never threatened war on our soil, and we never had to worry about terrorism from them as best as I could tell. They never wanted us all dead, but jihadist do. Big difference between a war of nations, and a war of ideologues.

Answer 8

Did Vietnam fly 2 planes into the World Trade Center? Two completely different arguments. We intervened in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism in another country. Terrorists attacking us with the first strike on our home land is hardly the same.

And who's saying the Iraqi's are going to come here and attack us? Are we forgetting that we LIKE the Iraqi's, which is why we are there? Not a single person has said that the Iraqi's will attack us, we said that the TERRORISTS will attack us. That's it. And don't get into the whole "Bush said we're in Iraq for this and this, yadda yadda yadda", because that's not the point right now. The point is that no one said the Iraqi's will attack us. We said the terrorists will...and yes, there is a BIG difference. We're not at war with a country, we're at war with exrtemist terrorists. Completely different.

Answer 9

You are correct. This is an argument that cashes in on the average dope's inability to think logically. Historically, it comes at just the right time to benefit the puppet masters of the American political scene.

Answer 10

The scare tactic (i.e. They'd follow us here ...) always work on a number of people, sadly on the majority of people in America.