a. Technology did not distinguish friend from foe.
b. The US never exploited its technological advantages.
c. The Vietnamese peasants were more influenced by the terrorist attacks of the Vietcong than the incomprehensible machines of the Americans
d. Politicians and the media refused to let the military use its technology effec
2007-12-26 02:57:54 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
You should use a search engine rather than asking people to cheat for you. That way you will learn. It is also faster than typing all the alternatives.
2007-12-26 03:37:17 · answer #1 · answered by redunicorn 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
America had the technologies to totally destroy Vietnam.
We were under a "Don't fire until fired upon" order most of the time, since what we were doing there in the first place was to just train and support the south vn army. We were only allowed to protect ourselves. True, it was hard, nay, impossible to tell friend from foe until they started shooting at us, but the reason for being there was never to be in a war, and it was never called a war, because war was never declared. The fighting in VN was for economic, not military reasons. The recession of 1957 was hurting the USA, which had been on a war economy since 1945 with only a short time between ww2 and Korea. Vietnam was a way to gear up and help the economy recover. Much the same as the Korean non-war. Korea was a police action, we were in VN as advisers. Anyone who was there will tell you that both were wars, just not fought like wars. Our soldiers were there to make the rich richer, and it did.
2007-12-26 03:13:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
a is a true statement in any war.
b is false, the U.S. exploited a whole host of technological "advantages" from Napalm, to cluster bombs, to sensors, etc. ad nauseum.
c. is true and false - there were even more peasants in the north of Vietnam, and they were the ones who made up the People's Army Vietnam (PAVN) or NVA. Truly respected by the Americans (and their technology) who fought them.
d. is a convenient political excuse used by many to find fault with, and blame, for America's inability to stop Vietnam's revolution.
e as always, the people of Vietnam are always missing in these type of questions. One-sided History at its worst.
2007-12-26 10:11:12 · answer #3 · answered by WMD 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i agree with D and then some
media was big on this war, they usually dont get the whole story out, for instant, in the Tet offensive, they photographed the North Vietnamese storming an embassy with two U.S soldiers killed on the background, that is like saying U.S are losing and so and so but U.S actually defeated North Vietnamese within a few hour. Another instant was a picture of southern Vietnamese soldier (U.S ally) about to shoot a man dress in civilian cloth, the media interpeted as U.S are the terrorist there, the actual truth was, that man in civilan cloth is with North Vietnamese, he has just gone into a southern village and killed a few defenseless villagers and the Southern Vietnamese soldier caught him red handed.
here is another possilble reason, U.S are not familar to Vietnam, its a rough environment out there.(Just like English coming to North America to fight the colonists.
2007-12-26 03:51:24 · answer #4 · answered by Ming P 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
a,
caused a lot of resentment by the vietnamese to the americans. The americans had a saying "if its dead and its vietnamese, its vietcong" showing how much pressure the body count order had on the Average american soldier - the pressure to produce enemy corpses
2007-12-26 03:11:09 · answer #5 · answered by Archie 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
d. is pretty close to the mark. It takes momentum to move an idea through two major political parties and three government branches. That, and the United States government's real beef in Asia was they were looking for Commies. The U.S. government had to have Commies but they wouldn't admit to China's role in the conflict.
The media was more free back then than it is today, however, for some reason the media back then would often contrive with government to pump false information to the "enemy".
2007-12-26 03:06:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
The US did not fight to win, only to defend. Also the Vietnamese have been fighting for years against the French etc.
The US had never fought a guerilla war.
The US had no exit strategy. Sound familiar?
2007-12-26 03:08:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
c
2007-12-26 03:58:10 · answer #8 · answered by speechy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
D
2007-12-26 03:04:29 · answer #9 · answered by Yun 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋