Did Liberals "save" any Soldiers lives in Vietnam with their protesting of the war?

Question

Are the Liberal protester's saving American Soldier's lives now who fight in Iraq?
What has a Liberal protester accomplished in the name of "saving" lives of Soldiers with their protesting, besides bringing down a Soldiers morale, in any war?
If there is an accomplishment, I'd love to hear it!

Thanks

alphabet; you can blame LBJ for that. JFK didn't commit troops to Vietnam, LBJ did. JFK advised sending advisors, but never went to war....possible reason for his assassination??????

Answer 1

While most of those chlamydia carriers probably meant well (study epidemiology of the '60s and '70s if you have doubts), their efforts were specifically mentioned by the North Vietnamese Politburo as being one the communist's most potent weapons.

Answer 2

War is clearly a necessary component of capitalist growth. 20th century wars have been imperialist wars, mostly of choice. And the choices are constrained by the nature of surplus value, i.e., profit. Capitalists seldom invest in war without capital gain in mind. The military industrial complex and its corporate takeover of the State must always make a profit. War does that. In the never-ending search for surplus value, capitalist enterprise manufactures new markets that require new things, and war is a huge market. Commodification continues until the ability to manufacture most goods is exported, i.e., outsourced to the cheapest labor pool. What are the unemployed and under-employed working class of then supposed to do? The capitalist has the answer: manufacture wars that require billions, and even trillions of dollars to execute and hire through an economic draft the cannon fodder to execute it. What does it matter to the capitalist how much devastation and collateral damage is created? The twentieth century offers many examples of how insignificant the working class is to the ruling elite.

Answer 3

Myth: The domino theory was proved false.

The domino theory was accurate. The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the U.S. commitment to Vietnam. The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America's commitment in Vietnam. Without that commitment, Communism would have swept all the way to the Malacca Straits that is south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that won the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media. The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism.
Democracy Catching On - In the wake of the Cold War, democracies are flourishing, with 179 of the world's 192 sovereign states (93%) now electing their legislators, according to the Geneva-based Inter-Parliamentary Union. In the last decade, 69 nations have held multi-party elections for the first time in their histories. Three of the five newest democracies are former Soviet republics: Belarus (where elections were first held in November 1995), Armenia (July 1995) and Kyrgyzstan (February 1995). And two are in Africa: Tanzania (October 1995) and Guinea (June 1995).

The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides' forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification.

The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives.

There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam.

Answer 4

JFK sent 16,000 troops to Vietnam. LBJ escalated that number to 528,000 by Dec 31, 1968.

Answer 5

Liberal protests saved no lives in Vietnam. The war was going to end when Richard Nixon wanted it to end: Just in time to get himself re-elected.

This shows Nixon was a more decent man than George W. Bush: Once he was re-elected, Nixon knew that the war was a waste, and knew he didn't need it anymore, so he ended it. Bush won't end the war because he needs it. If he wins it -- assuming he could, which he can't -- he won't be able to use the war to impung Democrats' patriotism anymore. And his defense-industry and oil-industry buddies won't be making a fortune on it anymore. Or, should I say, making a killing on it. He doesn't want to WIN the war, he only wants to HAVE the war.

Bush will keep the Iraq War going until he leaves the White House on January 20, 2009. It will then continue until the next President wants it to end. The Republican candidates want it to continue until we win. The Democratic candidates know it is already lost, and Bush is the one who lost it, and will find a way to end it that the American people can live with.

Answer 6

Accomplished nothing but giving aid and comfort to the enemy ! The enemy used the protest as propoganda showing their soldiers the protest marches , telling them "See , you are supported by American citizens" !

Answer 7

some of the answers you have got are amazingly arrogant. I cant believe that any one could say that we are in this war to line the pockets of our President and then turn around and say it will end the war if they scream in protest of our soldiers.

Answer 8

to "Lilliput" who is supposedly living well in the future. You cannot disguise your love of Gulliver!!!! who was most definitely waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay in the past hehehehehehee

But seriously, of course protests make a difference. I think the problem with protests of today is that they are essentially weak. i'm not saying that it is time to bring back flame throwers or something but the amount of force has to be equal to seriousness of the cause. i've been to anti-war marches where you'll meet the same guys a hundred times. i first thought dedication but now i'm not so sure. it seems that you'll see the same people not because hey believe in the cause but more that they are hangers on, just like seeing people in Shoreditch that went there for a daytrip...

Answer 9

Well France tried to control the region and failed because the people of France no longer supported the huge casualties and cost without receiving some benefit in return .

Do some reading about the history and then tell me why The Marshall plan divided Vietnam to begin with .

Why France sent troops into the region in the first place .

Then you might understand why a Catholic President was willing to put advisors on the ground .

It was as much about Christianizing Vietnam as it was about resources and cheap labor .

Answer 10

Save any? Are you nuts? They caused the death of many US soldiers. By protesting and forcing the US to fight with one arm tied behind its back, they directly caused the death of numerous soldiers.

Answer 11

NO, if the generals ran the war and not the politicians we would have not lost as many lives. You cannot win a defensive war and that's what Nam was. We should have leveled the North and less would have died. Peace