Hugo Chavez

[Carnut]

As presidents committed the United States to conflict bit by bit, many of these ambitions were forgotten. Instead, inertia developed against withdrawing from Vietnam. Washington believed that U.S. withdrawal would result in a Communist victory--Eisenhower acknowledged that, had elections been held as scheduled in Vietnam in 1956, "Ho Chi Minh would have won 80% of the vote"--and no U.S. president wanted to lose a country to communism. Democrats in particular, like Kennedy and Johnson, feared a right-wing backlash should they give up the fight; they remembered vividly the accusatory tone of the Republicans' 1950 question, "Who lost China?" The commitment to Vietnam itself, passed from administration to administration, took on validity aside from any rational basis it might once have had. Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy all gave their word that the United States would stand by its South Vietnamese allies. If the United States abandoned the South Vietnamese, its word would be regarded as unreliable by other governments, friendly or not. So U.S. credibility seemed at stake.

Looks like Washington's beliefs were right, the communists did take over when we left. No inertia there.

And since we left, yes U.S. credibility was at stake, and we lost it. Kinda why Bin Laden and associates think they can beat us and no one wants to help us.

Want good is an atom bomb if you don't use it?

[Dihannah1]

No flames here Monkeys. This is a really good discussion.

Maybe I did not do a good job Dihannah of trying to explain the reason for us being in Vietnam in the first place. The big fear was Communism. Russia was a powerful Communist nation. They also had nuclear power. We were so afraid that as more Nations became communist it would give Russia and other Communist Nations more power and then they would come for us and take away our power. So I guess in the long run all wars become about power.

I can remember reading that Saddan Hussein also wanted more power. He wanted to gradually take over all the Arab nations.

Carnut, I do not think we can Nuke em. We would have to nuke us all because the Muslims are now everywhere.

Maybe this is a simpified version . I am giving a link to an article on Vietnam. I am copying and pasting a couple of paragraphs. There is more in the article.
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm

The multiple starting dates for the war complicate efforts to describe the causes of U.S. entry. The United States became involved in the war for a number of reasons, and these evolved and shifted over time. Primarily, every American president regarded the enemy in Vietnam--the Vietminh; its 1960s successor, the National Liberation Front (NLF); and the government of North Vietnam, led by *Ho Chi Minh--as agents of global communism. U.S. policymakers, and most Americans, regarded communism as the antithesis of all they held dear. Communists scorned democracy, violated human rights, pursued military aggression, and created closed state economies that barely traded with capitalist countries. Americans compared communism to a contagious disease. If it took hold in one nation, U.S. policymakers expected contiguous nations to fall to communism, too, as if nations were dominoes lined up on end. In 1949, when the Communist Party came to power in China, Washington feared that Vietnam would become the next Asian domino. That was one reason for Truman's 1950 decision to give aid to the French who were fighting the Vietminh,


As presidents committed the United States to conflict bit by bit, many of these ambitions were forgotten. Instead, inertia developed against withdrawing from Vietnam. Washington believed that U.S. withdrawal would result in a Communist victory--Eisenhower acknowledged that, had elections been held as scheduled in Vietnam in 1956, "Ho Chi Minh would have won 80% of the vote"--and no U.S. president wanted to lose a country to communism. Democrats in particular, like Kennedy and Johnson, feared a right-wing backlash should they give up the fight; they remembered vividly the accusatory tone of the Republicans' 1950 question, "Who lost China?" The commitment to Vietnam itself, passed from administration to administration, took on validity aside from any rational basis it might once have had. Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy all gave their word that the United States would stand by its South Vietnamese allies. If the United States abandoned the South Vietnamese, its word would be regarded as unreliable by other governments, friendly or not. So U.S. credibility seemed at stake.

We are saying the same today about Iraq. I do agree the stakes are higher now.

Thanks Sam for sharing this!  It has provided me the most undersanding of that war than anything before.  I can 'see' where people could suggest they are the same.  In some ways they are, but the difference is now, we are not fighting a country or government, we are fighting completely different, evil ideoligy that has spread all over the world.   There is not a government or many of them together that control this.

[Dihannah1]

That generation was much smarter and aware than the current young generation. What do we have now? Students who bring guns to school and shoot em up like Columbine. No sense of right and wrong, no ethics. Unruly students who have no respect for teachers. Gang bangers who kill people in drive by shootings to make their bones. Mindless self gratification. Cell phones, the iPod generation. Cars. The American family broke down years ago. Single mothers who have to work to keep a roof over their heads and the heads of their children. The mothers have forgotten that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. No time for supervision and guidance. Clueless.

Communism was nothing compared to terrorism. We were fighting an ideology then and while we have a much bigger enemy now, it is also somehow related to another much greater and far more evil ideology.  Over the years, people said "no, the Koran does not say that" but it does say it. And we see the proof of that ideology right now.

LV, as usual, spoken so eloquontly and so factual and complete.  However, I took portions of your post that I feel most strongly about.  The biggest one being this generation...  We were talking about it today at work.  Kids have no fear or respect for authority anymore!  They are becoming immune (can't think of the word I'm trying to use at the moment) to pain, suffering, etc..  They see it in the movies and tv's and video games, they are numb now!   Our country has a lot to worry about here than almost everything else....   I'm 42, and pray I don't see some of the things I fear come to fruition.  I worry about my grandson, I can't imagine bringing a child into the world now.  Though I wouldn't trade him for the world!  I just worry about his future!