Beginning in the 1950s, maintaining a non-Communist South Vietnam became crucial in American efforts to contain communism. What was the nation's justification for its actions in South Vietnam in the 1950s and its determination to abide by the outcome of free elections there only if those elections yielded a non-Communist leader? For a long time the United States were in fear of the threat of communism stemming from a direct attack and the aspect of the Cold War, played a vital role in the fears. In the beginning the Vietnam War was first thought to be just another Cold War between northern and southern Vietnam. While the United States was nervous of Communism consuming the entire globe.
In addition, it was typical of Johnson to try and defend his actions, because he wouldn't want to be seen in the wrong. However, source C is more reliable, because the French President isn't fighting for any sides, and highlights key problems such as a communist state in Tonkin, and the threat from North Vietnam, whereas Johnson seemed more concerned in justifying his actions by trying to win over US public opinion rather than giving actual facts. Nevertheless, both sources are useful, because source C highlights the problems in South Vietnam, and although mentioned briefly in source D, it also shows what Johnson's aims were at time regarding the situation – that South Vietnam couldn't be left defenceless, because of Johnson's strong belief in the Domino theory. In Source D, the US President Lyndon Johnson makes it clear that the aims of the US in South Vietnam is to
He said “at the center of non-violence stands the principle of love” (Martin Luther King Junior). Malcolm x believed that the only way to stop violence is by any means necessary. He believed that if someone hits you and you ignore it, that person is going to continue hitting you. He said, “Obey the law, respect everyone, but if someone puts their hands on you, sent him to the cemetery”. Malcolm was not a violent person he just did not like people to take advantage of him or his people.
It has hurt our credibility across the world and caused a loss of faith in government by its citizens. Although the necessity of the war is argued by many, it is only done in an analysis of its occurrence. Had it not happened and the world possibly fell under Communism, then we would be arguing the exact opposite. The United States did what it felt it had to do at the time, given the information it had. To go to war in Vietnam was a risk the US felt it had to take in order to contain Communism, thus securing its economic prosperity and worldwide dominance.
Aiming to win back support from the American’s, as many people did not support the Vietnam war due to the bad media that was publicised. This was the first War to be so publicised and it shocked many of the people back home. This lead to Anti-War protest, which became one of the US governments aims to stop. However they still stuck to the aim to try and contain Vietnam from the spread of communism and supporting the SV defeat the VC in nearby country Cambodia. On the other side the aims of the NV government and their terrorist organisation the VC did not alter as they still aimed to persuade the SV government to vote for Vietnam to become a communist country.
That one could love America yet dissent from the policies of the particular government of the moment, that one could be against a war on Vietnam without being pro-Communist or pro-North Vietnamese, was lost to many in the political passions of the time. Similarly in the McCarthyism witch-hunts of the Fifties, people who dissented from McCarthy's excesses were accused by him, and many others, of being anti-American and pro-Communist, as if McCarthy and America were identical. So with Socrates. His attacks on the current democratic regime were mistaken for attacks on democracy as such and confused with disloyalty. His friendships with traitors and anti-democrats made this mistake almost impossible to
It is further mentioned in source U that “Norfolk and his colleagues do not wish for battle, showing tacitly that the petitions of the rebels are lawful”. Therefore, this shows that the rebels were not completely going against the King, so it would be difficult for him to act against them. By the source saying, “the men of the North are able to defend themselves” it shows that there was widespread support. Source V can further support this claim when it is stated that by their “negligence the rebels should march forward and cross the don”. This implies that the rebels would be able to cross over to the South where their numbers would have increased significantly.
This source is not reliable because it seems that Lord Lansdowne is using his opinion and his status/authority to try and get the public to agree with him wanting the war to end which suggests it is not a genuine concern of Lord Lansdowne which may affect the usefulness of this source. Source 2 also agrees to a far extent because it is a letter from Vera Brittan to her brother saying that she wanted the war to continue even though she was against war and condemned it. This source is very reliable because the letter is from Vera Brittan whose fiancé died of wounds from the war which means the British public could relate to her emotionally. In addition Source 3 also agrees to an extent because it was a reply to a letter from a common soldier which entailed the support from women to the soldiers in the war. This source may not be reliable because it is only one person’s opinion.
So instead they supported Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam. Diem was an unpopular leader because he was accused of corruption and torture and failed to win over the peasants. Instead, popular support went to the South Vietnamese Communists, called the Vietcong. They sent in aid and increased the number of military advisers. There were supported by Ho Chi Minh, who was backed by the Soviet Union and China.
Our founding fathers fought for a separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to avoid conflict and rise of power in one or more branches. In that aspect I believe the government works in a constructive manner to ensure equality between the branches, however, in the matter of working in a constructive manner for the good of the people is less certain. This country is facing an economic crisis and there are members of both parties that would tell the general public they would like the war in Afghanistan and Iraq to come to an end when in reality an economic recovery is the last thing they want to happen in a foreign country. The Republican Party, for example, would have liked to see a higher unemployment rate towards the end of 2012 in hopes of decreasing the chances of the President’s re-election. Higher unemployment rates lead to a more devastating economic crisis resulting in the failure to re-elect a democratic President or more precisely, our current President.