2007-08-24 10:03:16 · 13 answers · asked by qianwd2004 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No, it was an unwinnable war
2007-08-24 10:09:20 · answer #1 · answered by Nemesis 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The American-Vietnam Conflict began in 1965 with the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and ended with the Paris Peace Talks in 1973 (8 Years).The War continued in Vietnam for 2 more years between the North and South until 1975 when South Vietnam Collapsed.
South Vietnam could have Defended itself if Financial Aid was not stopped By America.The Paris Peace Signing said America would send it's Soldiers back into Vietnam if the North violated it's terms (it did) and continue Air strikes on North Vietnam.America did nothing and abanded the Republic of South Vietnam.
If America continued the War it may still be going on today.
2007-08-24 10:20:26 · answer #2 · answered by enigma 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you look at the book through a military way, every time that LBJ authorized the bombings in North Vietnam, they would negotiate, Linebakcer 1 and 2 were working. But political pressure and bowing to public opinion and dope smoking hippies put enough pressure on the president to back off militarily which caused the things to collapse. Hmm, seems like the only similarty between Iraq and Vietnam is the liberals, dope smoking hippys, and foolish politicians trying to run a military job.
2007-08-24 10:14:08 · answer #3 · answered by GIOSTORMUSN 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I agree with some experts that at the time of pullout overall we were winning the offensive. The problem was the offensive was too costly for the American public so we started to pull out and the enemy went on the offensive to push us out quicker. So, I believe that we would have won the conflict but concede it would have cost more lives to get it done.
2007-08-24 10:19:07 · answer #4 · answered by MDJ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO! You cannot win against guerilla warfare.
NO! for Iraq too! You cannot win against terrorist warfare.
The mighty military age is over. It's all little bombs now and individuals who can create chaos.
A Commander-in - chief, is now totally out of date.
Big armies are also. Big Military is over!!!
2007-08-24 11:41:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No - and by looking at many of my friends that were in viet nam ... we WOULD HAVE WON - IF WE STAYED THE HELLLLLL OUT OF VIET NAM - PERIOD ... what did the effort accomplish -
Other than TO TEST NEW WEAPONS OF WAR????
Nothing.
Peace;
Aintmyfault
.
2007-08-24 10:28:58 · answer #6 · answered by aintmyfault 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. One place you don't want to be is fighting insurgents in their home country halfway around the world, particularly when you don't have a compelling reason for doing it.
2007-08-24 10:18:29 · answer #7 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think so, the north was losing steam. Everyone I know who WAS THERE thinks so too. If your only source is Hollywood movies, your opinion might be different.
2007-08-24 10:15:23 · answer #8 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nemesis is right, Viet Nam was an unwinnable war.
2007-08-24 10:10:29 · answer #9 · answered by gilliegrrrl 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. I just think it would've meant more people coming home in body bags.
2007-08-24 10:10:49 · answer #10 · answered by First Lady 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No ! Specially if they didn't improve their spelling
Hey, you above me, why was it unwinnable? Because you couldn't win ?
If it was un winnable, why did they go for it?
2007-08-24 10:10:32 · answer #11 · answered by Dr Watson (UK) 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋