Why did we send troops into Vietnam?

Answer 1

The US sent troops into Southern Vietnam to support a Catholic Military dictator that the US installed, first as Prime Minister then as President in Southern Vietnam in violation of the 1954 Geneva Agreements. They also created the country of the "Republic of Vietnam" in violation of the 1954 agreements along with not allowing free "National" elections in the 'South', also in violation of the agreements.

The first troops were sent into Vietnam, by President Roosevelt, in support of the Viet Minh in 1944 in the fight against the Japanese.
The second lot of troops were sent into Vietnam by President Harry Truman in 1948 in support of the French in the fight against the Viet Minh.
The third lot were sent into Vietnam by President Eisenhower in 1954 in violation of the 1954 Geneva Agreements.
This was expanded by JFK in 1961 with an increase in 'advisors' and "Green Berets".
This was further increased by LBJ in 1965 with first the introduction of US Marines then more army, naval and airforce support.

Answer 2

The US had a troop presence in Vietnam since the early 1940s.

Initially it was OSS and some haphazard units fighting the Japanese occupation.

After WWII the US government felt the need to bribe the French into joining a mutual defense pact called NATO (who the hell knows why the think they needed the French for any sort of defense...), the price for that was to 'step aside' and let France reassert herself upon Vietnam.

France went back in, got her *** kicked and ran away. No surprise there. They were gone by the mid-1950s.

The US put in 'advisor' troops (MAG-V) to help the formerly French parts of Vietnam resist the attacks of the communist parts of Vietnam (supported by red China and the USSR).

In the mid-1960s there were a number of incidents, blowing up American troop barracks, et al, that cause LBJ to escalate the war. He added a number of divisions and converted the 'advisor' group to an 'assistance' role (MAC-V). This us usually what people call 'the start of the Vietnam war'. (They also usually 'end' the Vietnam war with the end of the draft, when said people could no longer be forced to serve.)

Really, we sent troops into Vietnam to stop communism and stop the USSR from dominating the world.

It is the same reason we had troops in Korea, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and a dozen other places.

It is also the same reason the USSR had troops in Cuba, Korea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and a dozen other places.

Vietnam was a battle in the larger Cold War.

It was a major military victory, but a political disaster, for the US military. And it was a public relations coup for the communists.

But in the end, the USSR is on the ash heap of history -- and the US military put her there -- that is why troops were in Vietnam.

Answer 3

This is a rather lengthy question, but I will try and shorten the time line for you.
January 27, 1965 - Johnson aides, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, send a memo to the President stating that America's limited military involvement in Vietnam is not succeeding, and that the U.S. has reached a 'fork in the road' in Vietnam and must either soon escalate or withdraw.
Viet Cong guerrillas attack the U.S. military compound at Pleiku in the Central Highlands, killing eight Americans, wounding 126 and destroying ten aircraft.
"I've had enough of this," President Johnson tells his National Security advisors. He then approves Operation Flaming Dart, the bombing of a North Vietnamese army camp near Dong Hoi by U.S. Navy jets from the carrier Ranger.

Johnson makes no speeches or public statements concerning his decision. Opinion polls taken in the U.S. shortly after the bombing indicate a 70 percent approval rating for the President and an 80 percent approval of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. Johnson now agrees to a long-standing recommendation from his advisors for a sustained bombing campaign against North Vietnam.
February 18, 1965 - Another military coup in Saigon results in General Khanh finally ousted from power and a new military/civilian government installed, led by Dr. Phan Huy Quat.

February 22, 1965 - General Westmoreland requests two battalions of U.S. Marines to protect the American air base at Da Nang from 6000 Viet Cong massed in the vicinity. The President approves his request, despite the "grave reservations" of Ambassador Taylor in Vietnam who warns that America may be about to repeat the same mistakes made by the French in sending ever-increasing numbers of soldiers into the Asian forests and jungles of a "hostile foreign country" where friend and foe are indistinguishable.
March 29, 1965 - Viet Cong terrorists bomb the U.S. embassy in Saigon.

And so the story begins. Sort of like it is now days, everybody was for it in the begining and now the people are starting to loose interest and the public opinion is once again turning the other way.

Who says history doesn't repeat itself.

Here is a link to read the whole story.
http://www.vietnamwar.com/timeline65-68.htm
http://www.vietnamwar.com/timeline69-75.htm

Answer 4

For the same reason that we are sending troops to Iraq: a lie.

Viet Nam was a minor blip on the world political scene until something called "The Gulf of Tonkin Incident", which has been openly admitted by our own government to have been staged or, in other words, faked. In the Gulf of Tonkin incident, supposedly, 3 Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked an American Navy ship without cause. That was used as the reason to escalate the US involvement and put the military industrial complex into 'mega-profit' mode. That is why over 58,000 men and women were killed - because peace is not as profitable as war.

Iraq didn't have any WMD's. The Taliban in Afghanistan was blocking a pipeline deal and had tilled-under the largest opium poppy fields in the world, requiring farmers to instead grow - gasp - food!

Al Qaida was formed, trained, and funded in the late 1970's by the CIA when the Afghanis were fighting the Soviets. Their leader was an operative known as "Tim Osmen", better known as Osama bin Laden. Don't just write me off, take a few seconds of your net surfing time and look it up! Try to prove me wrong! You can't because this is all rock-solid, verified by the players, information. Hell, it's not even classified! It's in the public domain if you will get off your butt and look it up!

It's just scarier to people to think that they have been lied to and believed it than to just click a 'thumbs down' button because the don't like what they see without bothering to invesitgate anything for themselves.

Answer 5

What are you speaking approximately there have been some Canadians and Australian troops there besides frequently in help place that's you who look the fool some years decrease back an Australian claimed they ran for the duration of individuals torturing and killing villagers we ran his archives and he in no way left base in Vietnam in no way out on patrol he refused to communicate the vets despatched to set the checklist perfect nor could the media print a retraction He too grew to become right into a liar

Answer 6

Because Viet Nam was our ally, and the threat of global communism was too great to just sit by and let it happen.

Essentially, the same reasons we sent troops to Europe in WWI and WWII...

This time though, the press, public opinion, and LBJ wouldn't let us win.

Interesting comments below..not mine..but thought I'd share them...particularly the one by the North Vietnamese General.

We won every military engagement of the Vietnam War yet Walter Cronkite and the American media conspired with the enemy to do what the North Vietnamese could not do on the battlefield.

General Võ Nguyên Giáp, who was the commander of the North Vietnamese army, has published his memoirs. He has confirmed what most Americans either knew or suspected. The war in southeast Asia was not lost in Vietnam.

It was lost here at home.

The American media, enabling and functioning as symbiots for the John Kerry anti-war gaggle accomplished in a few short years what Giap could not do in three decades of fighting.

Giap was an immensely accomplished general, highly respected (some say brilliant). Before, during and after his martial career, he was a scholar, journalist, historian, and philosopher.

The following quote is from his memoirs currently found in the Vietnam War memorial in Hanoi:

"What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes.

If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it.

But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!"

Giap knew we had crushed his Army in the battles of Tet. Our generals and soldiers knew we had won. But when ‘Uncle Walter’ told the American people that February in 1968, “Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure.”, waffling public opinion changed. Cronkite may not have been sure but Gen. Giap sure knew.

Not unlike Gen. Robert E. Lee who supposedly said, "“It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers.” "General" Cronkite apparently had greater insight and omniscience than Gens. Giap and Westmoreland.

Cronkite said, “The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw.”

No it wasn’t even close to a draw . . . and Giap understood, if the nattering nabobs didn’t. However, that lesson ignored does underscore that the media is the first draft of history, and their errors, omissions and prejudices are obvious in their copy.

Answer 7

There's a reason, but I don't think it's a good one...

Reason: Contain the communism domino effect

Why it's stupid: Why is it our goddam business what other countries do? As long as they are not jeopardizing the safety of the world, let them do as they wish! So what if it's a failed policy? It's not our job to police the world and intervene in other countries' affairs.

Answer 8

Because S. Vietnam asked for our help.

And we don't leave our 'friends' in the lurch.

Answer 9

To stop communism

Answer 10

Same reason why we sent troops to iraq. stupid.
no but becasue america wanted to help democratic people to escape from communist.