The news media discovered that they could mold public view by how they reported the news (that is, the news they wanted you to see and in a manner of their choosing). They didn't like the war, thus their reporting became increasingly biased. What we have now in the media are heads that are decidedly biased, reporting the news in a manner that will further their political and social agendas (Right or Left).
The North Vietnamese suffered a huge military defeat during the Tet Offensive but scored a massive political victory. Much like we are seeing in Iraq.
2007-09-10 00:57:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
The Vietnam war was a guerrilla style of warfare, Also the Vietnamese were nationalists fighting for independance.
Ho Chi Minh said something about the Vietnamese being like the tiger and the US like the elephant. The tiger never stands directly in front of the elephant because it would be crushed, so it sneaks around and slowly claws at the elephants back until the elephant dies.
The US had political pressure along with elections and such. The Vietnamese could take as long as they wanted.
2007-09-09 23:59:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Lack of popular support at home, of course!
Every American serviceman killed or even wounded was still a victory to the North Vietnamese and their guerilla allies in the South. Even if it cost five, ten, twenty, fifty, a thousand of their own men to cause a single casualty.
It probably would have helped a great lot more if they gave the Vietnamese what they wanted, rather than just go after military victories. The British in Malaya sapped support from the Communist guerillas in the jungles by giving the local population independence, their own individual property and a larger hearts and minds program.
2007-09-09 23:28:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
curiously, people particularly do no longer examine historic past in its fullest quantity. u . s . grow to be winning the conflict, additionally fought very difficult against a persevering with opponent. although, politics decrease back in the states reason for a immediately withdrawl from the country. The troops did no longer lose the conflict, politics lost this conflict. It grow to be very winnable and grow to be in the waking, yet no one needed to place forward the attempt it took to end that undertaking. different than the troops that have been despatched there without them desirous to accomplish that. Oh yeah, the French have been there first and have been given demolished/slaughtered, which brought about u . s . to step in, and that grow to be an quite very very super reason we've been there. alongside with constructive rubber wood that are grown there. You ask why can we predict of we gained the conflict? tell me this, what number cases have you ever heard u . s . in a descussion then think of roughly Vietnam and their modern state in the international community. they're no longer something, and for a protracted time they are going to be no longer something. As for u . s ., we are able to stand good. So ask your self that exact same question lower back.
2016-12-13 04:58:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Another reason not mentioned is because of Robert McNamara, quite possibly the most incompetent Sec. Defense imaginable. He decided that the most important information about the battles was the "body count", thereby trying to quantify war, which is unquantifiable. The body count was intended to prove we are winning by causing casualties in excess of our own, but what he simply didn't understand about war is that it isn't as simple as being about body counts. Only simpletons think it is.
2007-09-10 01:41:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by open4one 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The military was winning but some our news media went out of their way to report negative news and our politicians used the war for their own benefits. The military won and the politicians sold us out much like what is happening in Iraq right now.
2007-09-10 00:49:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by hdean45 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
There are off course profound and intricate reasons for things to bear the way they did...First of all: North Vietnamese had Americans overwhelmingly outnumbered in the fields of battle; for one dead American soldier, they could afford 5 dead of their own..., second: They were fanatical fighters and
they strongly believed in their cause, while many American soldiers felt betrayed by their own country, which sent them to hell because they were not rich enough to buy themselves a ticket out of it...There's a whole bunch of political and tactical mistakes made by American politicians and ( or ) generals which led the Vietnam campaign...
2007-09-10 00:55:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by javornik1270 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
The Vietnamese had more resolve to be independent than we did to control Vietnam through a puppet government.
We had no business being there in the first place.
Also Vietnamese people have been fighting off foreign invaders for hundreds of years. From their perspective, we were no different from the Chinese, French, and the Japanese.
2007-09-09 23:46:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Lack of support on the home front. People did not want to get drafted so they went out and protested the war. After several years it wore both political parties down and they forced us out. The North saw this happening on TV and just waited us out.
2007-09-09 23:45:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by Chris 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
There are victories for both sides in most any war. Take the current situation in Iraq. According to our news channels, you don't hear about battles. But, I'll bet the insurgents that attack a supply convoy have a name for the battle. It all depends on who is writing the history book, my friend.
2007-09-09 23:32:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋