The advantages of the Vietnam war.

[Indofred]

I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.

Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?

 

[Steven_R]

Well, it wasn't that the war was outright lost by the US. North Vietnam was bombed to the peace table by Nixon in 1972. The US pulled out and North Vietnam invaded again in 1975, but Congress declined to support South Vietnam. It might be a fine point to make, but the war that started in 1954 did end in 1972.

As far as a change in world order, there is an argument that fighting in places like Korea and Vietnam showed the resolve of western powers to fight Soviet expansion. The Domino Effect idea was that letting one nation fall to the Soviets and doing nothing just prompted others to do the same, so we had to fight. Given how many nations in Asia did fight Communist insurrections with only a few falling to the Communists (namely Cambodia) there may be some validity to the argument. The US certainly was involved in Central and South America in the 70s and 80s propping up various regimes with the eye on keeping them from going like Cuba.

I think the other thing to remember is that places like Vietnam and Afghanistan were proxies during the Cold War. We could fight and support our causes in places like that without actually directly fighting the Soviets (and vice versa).

 

[Indeependent]

Vietnam and Korea allowed the US use their airports during WWII despite their fear of Hitler's reprisal.
If the US didn't help them no one would trust us again.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.

Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?

Because big national players cannot war with each other anymore – the devastation would be far to massive. Instead, we end up fighting in smaller nation who pay the real price.

We are not in N. Korea for Korea either. We are there to influence China.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Same advantage as every other war: field test new weapons, get experience for combat forces. If we never went to war we'd have all zero-experience troops and unproven weapons systems.

 

[gipper]

I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.

Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?

That's easy...the Vietnam War was about empowering the State and enriching the power elite. Nearly all wars are fought for this purpose and America's war in Vietnam was no different.

The power elite had a president murdered in 1963 so they could impose their war.

 

[gipper]

Well, it wasn't that the war was outright lost by the US. North Vietnam was bombed to the peace table by Nixon in 1972. The US pulled out and North Vietnam invaded again in 1975, but Congress declined to support South Vietnam. It might be a fine point to make, but the war that started in 1954 did end in 1972.

As far as a change in world order, there is an argument that fighting in places like Korea and Vietnam showed the resolve of western powers to fight Soviet expansion. The Domino Effect idea was that letting one nation fall to the Soviets and doing nothing just prompted others to do the same, so we had to fight. Given how many nations in Asia did fight Communist insurrections with only a few falling to the Communists (namely Cambodia) there may be some validity to the argument. The US certainly was involved in Central and South America in the 70s and 80s propping up various regimes with the eye on keeping them from going like Cuba.

I think the other thing to remember is that places like Vietnam and Afghanistan were proxies during the Cold War. We could fight and support our causes in places like that without actually directly fighting the Soviets (and vice versa).

Regarding your comments in the first paragraph, I agree completely.

America did not LOSE the Vietnam War, it negotiated a peace and left. When the North continued it's aggression, America chose not to fight.

It must be remembered that America signed a treaty with the South Vietnam government, which stated America would support the South completely should the North continue it's aggression. America failed to honor this treaty due to Nixon's Watergate difficulties and Ford's inability to persuade the D Party to honor the treaty.

The D Party, which controlled Congress at the time, refused to support the South and honor America's treaty obligations.

The world knows they can't trust the word of an American politician. When will Americans realize this?

 

[Bill Angel]

I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.

Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?

Here is another rationale for the US decision to become involved in Vietnam:

Like other states based upon Marxist–Leninist ideology, Vietnam's communists embraced a militantly atheistic stance against religion.... In 1954, it was because of the communists' anti-religious stance that U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower's government decided to promote the leadership of a devout Catholic named Ngô Đình Diệm for South Vietnam. It was assumed that he would protect the rights of freedom of religion in South Vietnam, due to his deep faith... After the Communists won the war and reunified Vietnam, the government in Hanoi turned to suppress religion with great force.... Buddhist self-immolations, like the kind that had occurred in South Vietnam against the government in Saigon, soon occurred in the unified Vietnam in protest of the government's treatment of Buddhism. In November 1975, 12 Buddhist monks and nuns immolated themselves in Cần Thơ. In 1977, Thich Nu Nhu Hien burned herself in Hanoi in order to be a ‘torch of wisdom’ that would bring the government to embrace religious tolerance.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Vietnam

 

[Indofred]

Vietnam and Korea allowed the US use their airports during WWII despite their fear of Hitler's reprisal.
If the US didn't help them no one would trust us again.

Last I checked, Vietnam and Korea were well outside the range of any bombers that fancied lighting up a German city.

 

[Indofred]

As far as a change in world order, there is an argument that fighting in places like Korea and Vietnam showed the resolve of western powers to fight Soviet expansion. The Domino Effect idea was that letting one nation fall to the Soviets and doing nothing just prompted others to do the same, so we had to fight.

Given America left Vietnam, regardless of the reasons, surely that would have meant the Soviets were emboldened.

Did the Soviets invade America or do any damage at all to the United States?
As they did not, that argument is suspect.

 

[Indofred]

The world knows they can't trust the word of an American politician. When will Americans realize this?

That may well be true but, I have to be fair, there are very few politicians anywhere that can be trusted.

 

[Spiderman]

It was proxy war with the Soviet Union and we lost.

 

[Indofred]

It was proxy war with the Soviet Union and we lost.

That may well be true but why did America bother and what did the politicians of the day hope to get out of it?

As far as I can see, there was absolutely no reason to bother and, even if you'd defeated the North, there was no gain for America.

 

[Spiderman]

It was proxy war with the Soviet Union and we lost.

That may well be true but why did America bother and what did the politicians of the day hope to get out of it?

As far as I can see, there was absolutely no reason to bother and, even if you'd defeated the North, there was no gain for America.

It was a game of political brinksmanship plain and simple as for what they wanted to get out of it who knows but war is usually used as an excuse to expand government power and that is exactly what happened.

Too bad it had to cost the lives of millions of people.

 

[Indofred]

Politics don't fully explain the war.
In fact, the only reason I can see is cash.
The U.S. arms industry made a fortune.

 

[editec]

I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.

Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?

Hubris?

And that is the BEST possible reason that might be advanced to explain it

Another one and far less noble include -- Those in the business of SELLING ARMS and lending money to the government had enough influence to convince congress to pay for that war .


Example?

Check out the price of NAPALM in 63 compared to the price in 73.

You'll see what could be a motive right there

 

[gipper]

Politics don't fully explain the war.
In fact, the only reason I can see is cash.
The U.S. arms industry made a fortune.

Agreed. That was the real reason for the war. However it was disguised by the Domino Effect propaganda promoted by the power elite, to dupe the American people into another disastrous war.

The power elite continues to dupe the American people into funding a huge military industrial complex. Even today when Obama is requesting extremely modest cuts to Defense (if only he would cut the rest of government), many pols and commentators are demanding it be stopped.

Ike warned about the heinous nature of the military industrial complex, though he did nothing to curtail it during his presidency, but no one listened. One would think Ike would have been more outspoken, particularly after it murdered his successor.

 

[Steven_R]

Vietnam and Korea allowed the US use their airports during WWII despite their fear of Hitler's reprisal.
If the US didn't help them no one would trust us again.

Last I checked, Vietnam and Korea were well outside the range of any bombers that fancied lighting up a German city.

Plus they were in Japanese hands throughout the war.

 

[whitehall]

The U.S. took action when the monsters from North Vietnam invaded the peaceful South Vietnamese just as the North Korean monsters invaded peaceful South Korea and the Japanese monsters invaded Singapore and the Germans invaded France (twice). Why is that concept so hard to understand? The problem was that the new democrat party decided to revise the rules so that the US could win every battle and still lose the war.

 

[gipper]

The U.S. took action when the monsters from North Vietnam invaded the peaceful South Vietnamese just as the North Korean monsters invaded peaceful South Korea and the Japanese monsters invaded Singapore and the Germans invaded France (twice). Why is that concept so hard to understand? The problem was that the new democrat party decided to revise the rules so that the US could win every battle and still lose the war.

And America would have been better off if it had avoided ALL those wars and followed a policy of non-intervention.

Allowing corrupt political elites to take America to war is ALWAYS a mistake that leads to terrible death, destruction, and lots of debt...along with growing the size and power of government, which constrains individual liberty.

War is the power of the State...and the State, run by politicians who are nothing more than scammers and racketeers, is never to be trusted.