Are America's participations righteous in both The Vietnam War and the korean War?

Answer 1

War is never righteous. In each cause the United States has ever participated in, self interest is first and foremost

Answer 2

It's impossible to say, as history is usually written by the victors - even I sometimes doubt my own country was one of the good guys in World War 2.

On paper, the Americans look like their participation was justified, even if it had more to do with the rivalry with communism than the plight of the Korean people. One Korean country goes hostile and decides to invade its neighbor to impose its political system, even though post-war talks called for elections and peaceful unification.

In Vietnam, it wasn't so clear. While it looked similar to the Korean War for starters, one must keep in mind that the United States literally staged a North Vietnamese attack on their Navy as a pretext for military action. That's not a conspiracy theory, it really did happen.

While I feel the Korean War was justified given massive international support, you really can't afford to go around intervening in every hostile action of the world.

Answer 3

Arguably you could say that America was fighting Communism in both these wars. The idea was to destroy them before they could invade or attack us. History also shows us had we prosecuted the wars more vigorously it would have worked. The same argument holds true today Militant Islam is taking over much of the world today it's only a matter of time before they attack us again on American soil. So do we have the right to destroy them under the pretense of defending America I say yes absolutely. Having a good defense is having a good offense.
Stephen

Answer 4

Yes.

Korea was a direct response to an invasion, similar to Iraq invading Kuwait.

VietNam was much more complicated. It was a Civil War between North and South after the UN divided the country. US intervention came to boil after many years and 4 Presidents, starting with Pres.Truman. See the timeline linked below.

Answer 5

No!!!! in both cases.

In Vietnam the US violated every aspect of the 1954 Geneva Agreements.
The agreements stated that the 17th parallel was never to be
taken as a Territorial or international boundary, but to be a TEMPORARY military demarcation line with the Viet Minh to move north and the French to move south. There were supposed to be nation-wide elections to be held no later than July 1956. Neither side was to rearm and neither side was to have advisers enter their area.
The US sent CIA operatives into the North to blow up basic infrastructure in the north even before the agreements were signed in 1954.
They used an scare campaign within the Catholic community that the Viet Minh would persecute Catholics, therefore creating a mass movement of people from the North to the South.
The US installed a right-wing Catholic anti-communist and pro-American dictator in the south. Diem was Catholic despite the majority of the population (85%) being Buddhist.
The US sent advisers, both Military and civilian, into the South to assist the Diem dictator.
The US created a seperate country in the south despite the call for National elections.
The US refused to allow elections to take place in the south saying, "If elections were to take place, Ho Chi Minh would win over 90% of the vote". ( quote from John Foster Dullas, the US Secretary of State).

Korea is another problem.

The situation in Korea arose from the Potstam Agreement between Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill and Chiang Kai Shek. At the end of WW-2 Russia was to take control of the northern region of Japanese-controlled Korea whilst the US was to take control of the southern Japanese controlled section with the TEMPORARY military demarcation line to be the 37th parallel. National Elections were to take place in 1958.

The US refused to allow elections in their area of Korea and suppressed all dissent from people who called for the elections.
The US installed a dictator in the south and created a seperate country of their southern controlled region in violation of the UN charter.
They sent in arms and advisers to train up the police and military in the south.

There is SPECULATION about who invaded who. It is generally said that the North invaded the south, but there is documentation that it was actually the opposite; with the South attacking the North. Two Australian military personnel, a Navy Lt. Commander and a Major, both attached to the UN border assessment team, along with a British diplomat toured both sides of the border in the days leading up to the start of the war. Their report to the UN, which was suppressed by the US at the time of the UN vote on Korea, stated that there was not build-up or movement of troops in the North, but that there was a massive build-up and movement of troops in the south.

One major hurdle though, two of the South's senior Generals (corps commanders) were in Seoul at the time of the war starting and not with their troops, as you would expect if they were invading another country.

THAT is why I say there is SPECULATION.

Answer 6

I think so, but that is just my opinion. Liberal (Classic Meaning of Liberal) is a far superior form of government than a communist one. Fighting for that Liberal culture is always a noble cause. People are better off in a Liberal state than in a communist state, or an islamic state.

Answer 7

Yes.

Answer 8

We do like we have allways done since after WWII. If some country is doing something we dont like we go there to try to force them to change there ways.