As opposed to the other superpower, America got directly involved, sending not only financial aid1 but actively participating in the military effort. American involvement in the Vietnam War was an unnecessary commitment which negatively impacted on public opinion of the United States government throughout the world during the 1960’s and turned the civil war between North and South Vietnam into a theatre of operation for the great power rivalry which resulted in increased cold war
Many American citizens in 1959 viewed the Vietnam War as a righteous battle against communism, similar to the Iraq War today however now many view this war as a necessary battle against terrorism. Looking at America's overall goal in Vietnam, it is evident that we did not come close to keeping South Vietnam from collapsing, who fell to communist rule in 1975 (Frankum 210). America's involvement in the conflicts of Vietnam and Iraq were so discordant that our government, people, and military were constricted. Yet both wars were fought with the knowledge that America may change the invaded nation, which brings a precarious question; what makes the government believe that they have the right to go into a country and change it to the way they
The government they set up was failing so in 1965 the United States send in troops to prevent collapse of it. The horrible tactics of the Diem government eventually led to opposition within South Vietnam. Ngo Dinh diem’s government represented a minority of Vietnamese who were mostly businessmen, Roman Catholics, large landowners, and others who had fought with the French against the Vietnamese. The United States first tried to help the Southern Vietnamese government with military advisers and financial assistance, but more involvement was needed to keep it from collapsing. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave President Johnson permission to escalate the war in Vietnam.
The first article by the senator had a few things that I felt were not correct. He came up with lots of reasons for going to Iraq and how we went for the wrong reasons but he does not mention the reason we went there in the first place, which was to remove the dictator Saddam Hussein from power. Throughout the editorial the senator also seems to somewhat villainies the U.S. I don’t believe a U.S. senator should make his country that he serves look bad even though others feel that it is ok to do so. Lastly, he wants to get across the message that the U.S. is at war with Muslims and not Iraq, which I believe is completely untrue.
War is bad, and that’s a given. Now that doesn’t mean that war is always unnecessary, sometimes it can be justified. For instance, where would we be if the United States never fought for Independence during the Revolutionary War? What if the United States never stepped in and ended Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich? These past wars were indisputably necessary; however, was the Vietnam War worth it?
Vietnam: America’s involvement is necessary America’s involvement in Vietnam was a much contested topic during the sixties. There were people, such as, Lyndon B. Johnson who supported the war and others, such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who opposed it. America involving itself in the war was the right choice. There was a need for America to prove that it was willing to fight communism on all fronts, to keep its promise to keep peace and help other nations, fight as there’s no other way to obtain peace, as well as gain stability in its home soil. The nations of the world had just gotten out of World War 2 a few decades ago in 1945.
11, 2001: "We will stay on the offense against the terrorists, fighting them abroad so we do not have to face them here at home." Former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle believes the message sends a mixed signal. "It's certainly true the president has not succeeded in inspiring the belief that we face an existential threat," says Perle. "The problem with the term 'war on terrorism' is it leaves the enemy ill defined." A few weeks ago, one of the president's advisors told NPR that Mr. Bush never wanted to burden the public with the war; that, in his mind, he was hired by the American people to do the job on their behalf.
was involved with. In the late 1960’s, Ted opposed the war his brother John had began against Vietnam. He made a trip to Vietnam in 1965 and returned to the U.S. in 1968 because he was shocked by the corruption of the South Vietnamese government. In 1973, he sponsored a successful resolution against any further spending on the war. His experience with Vietnam influenced his thinking on military intervention.
During the Vietnam War, the United States (U.S.) government and the media had a tenuous relationship and many have blamed the media for interfering with government policy. George Shultz, former Secretary of State in the Regan administration, said of journalists “it seems as though reporters are always against us and they are always trying to screw things up.”1 Government officials are not the only ones to charge the media with an opposition mentality. Robert Elegant, a reporter for the LA Times/Washington Post news service in Vietnam, felt that the U.S. and South Vietnam military successfully did their part, only to see political pressure from the media stop Washington from supporting Saigon after U. S. withdraw in 1973.2 In fact, following
Coupled with these casualty figures were stories that eventually came out about atrocities committed by US troops against the very people they were meant to be defending and supporting. The most infamous was the My Lai massacre. This event actually highlighted to the US public the enormous strain frontline troops were experiencing on a daily basis against a supposedly inferior enemy. 1968 seems to be the key year for protests. To some, especially the young, America was not only sacrificing her male youth but the government was also sanctioning the death of children not only in South Vietnam but also in the North with the blanket bombing raids that were occurring on almost a daily