You've recently read or heard summaries of the first chapter from former President Nixon's book, No More Vietnams. The title of the chapter was entitled "The Myths of Vietnam" and in it he presents the four defining myths of the war. My questions for you are as follows:
1. Do you agree with President Nixon that a foreign policy with the "willingness to use power to defend national interests" is something for which the U.S. should strive? Why or why not? In other words, Nixon feels that the U.S. should be willing to use its armed forces when necessary instead of just relying on sanctions, diplomacy, the United Nations, etc.
2. Nixon said, "In the end, Vietnam was lost on the political front in the U.S., not on the battlefront in Southeast Asia." Give at least one example from what we've studied that can prove this statement false, and then provide another statement that can show how Nixon's assertion is true.
3. Under "Myth #2: The Vietnam War was unwinnable", Nixon states that "when we signed the Paris Peace agreements in 1973, we had won the war. We then proceeded to lose the peace." He blames Congress for not providing enough military aid to support the South Vietnamese government after the U.S. military had left in January 1973. His rationale was that the Soviet Union was supporting North Vietnam, we should support South Vietnam even if we're not fighting the war. Please comment on his initial statement about winning the war (keeping in mind the original reasons why we were there in the first place), and then tell me if Congress did the right thing by cutting off aid to SV between 1973 and 1975 when South Vietnam fell (remembering the details from chaos that ensued and mentioned in this chapter).
Pick two of these questions to answer in thoughtful paragraphs using examples from your notes, videos, and readings.
33 comments:
1. I agree with Nixon to an extent. None of the diplomatic actions mean anything if they can't be backed up by a strong army. The US should use the armed forces, but also the peacefull strategies as well. There should be a good balance between the two strategies.
2. Vietnam was not lost on the political front because peace was acheived. In 1973, Nixon signed a peace agreement in Paris, therfore being a political victory for the US.
Vietnam was won on the battlefront in SEA because there was a death ratio of 10:1 in our favor. Although the VC used Guerilla tactics, we were able to beat them with superior weaponry and fighting stratigies.
1.I think that a nations power often is seen as their military strength. I do think that the US should have the treat of a great military power but not use it every time someone steps on their toes. I do not see it necessary to send in troops into every country that we have a dispute in. I defiantly think that we should use our diplomatic skills first to solve the problem before we go in and kill American troops and innocent civilians. I also think that sanctions are a good idea because of the way that they could damage an economy. I guess that military force can be use as a back up but not a first resource.
-Alyssa!
1) I think that it is usually necessary to use more than just sanctions, and diplomacy when dealing with certain countries. To use a current example, I don't think that sanctions and diplomacy would have done anything while Sadaam was in power. He was so powerful that he could survive without the support of some countries. I believe it was necessary to send in troops to deal with the issue. I agree with Nixon that foreign policy without armed forces is extremely weak. Without a threat of physically hurting a country, the sanctions and diplomacy won't do anything.
3) Nixon says that we won the war when we signed the Paris peace agreements because that put an end to the waring between nations. But then we decided to invade Vietnam and we ended the peace. I don't think that the U.S should have cut off aid to South Vietnam during the time period when they were in the struggle. By doing this, it put SV at even more of a disadvantage and hurt their efforts more than it did any good.
Jason
1) I agree with President Nixon in that to “use power to defend national interests". I belive that if the United States wants a natural resource should be fought for and thought out before hand. If the resource is so important that there needs to be a war then there should be force to get what we want. I think that fooling around with santions and diplomacy takes a long a time and doesn’t always come out the way that we want it to. But sometimes the United States has to rely on diplomacy though, but we should always be “willing” to use force. For example when we try to make peace in Iraq, we use diplomacy and we also put military to back it up. All in all I belive that it is good that we use force as a back up to our diplomacy.
Question 1.
I don't agree with President Nixon that a foreign policy with the "willingness to use power to defend national interests" is something for which the U.S. should strive because it only leads to more problems. If we only use armed forces it’s not getting us anywhere. We need to learn that there are other ways to threaten a country. If we have the U.N.'s support then we will be greater, if we don’t have the U.N.s support or at least another country's support then we only have ourselves and if we get stuck there is no one to help us out. Also using sanctions and diplomacy will saves lives. Countries will listen if we use sanctions and if the U.N. is behind us because they know that they don’t want to mess with us. If we continue to just go in to other nations with out support and just jump in with our forces then its just going to get us into a rut. I think we should use other options like sanctions and diplomacy and then if it is needed we can threaten with our armed forces.
Siobhan
1.For question i highly disagree with Pres. Nixon because why should we sacrifice OUR men when other countries are getting hammered. We should let people solve their own problems. They need to be able to rely on their own society to get through the problems and struggles that may occur in the future. I think that we should only use our army as aid to other countries if we owe anything to that country or our security is in jeopardy. I think we should still rely on the sanctions, diplomacy, and the United Nations a little bit because they are strong and can solve issues. But, we still should only use our armed forces for the good of America.
2.We lost the war in my opinion on both the political front and on the battlefront. We lost it in the political standpoint by losing American support with riots, rallies, and anti-war protests. And with the whole war we lost alot of Foreign policy and and steared America towards isolationism. One example that makes Nixon's assertion false is that on the battlefront we had lost many many men, and had turned countries against us. We also had a tragic involvement in Indochina. We withdrew giving Vietnam the win along with an economy under their own rule and their own RULES.
Thanks,
Mike
1. I think that America should only use armed forces when it is completely necessary. I feel like other countries will respect us more if we REFRAIN from sending in our troops at the first chance we get. Setting a good example and showing other countries that conflicts can be resolved in more intellegent, creative ways than just using brute force will only score us "points" internationally. We have a bad enough reputation as it is when it comes to invading other countries. Also, it will be more effective when we actually DO have to use military force because we don't do it for just any old reason.
3. I think that the US might have won the war in the sense that we obtained the natural resources (rubber, salt) which were a large motive in being in Vietnam. However, the loss of peace breifly after signing the Paris Peace treaty and the lack of aid we gave to South Vietnam when they needed it. I disagree with Nixon because we did not win the war in any means that were helpful or beneficial to anyone but us.
1. Yes I do agree with President Nixon's foreign policy with the "willingness to use power to defend national interest" is something for which the U.S. should strive. I think the leaders of the United States are smart and usually know what is in the best interest for ourselves and the world. We have been smart in the past and we have the military force, so I believe that we should take advantage of it and use it. I think that you can't always rely on sanctions, diplomacy and the United Nations. You can see this in the middle east because the U.N. didn't want us to go over there although we used military force because it was in the best interest of the middle east and the United States.
2. "In the end, Vietnam was lost on the political front in the U.S., not on the battlefront in Southeast Asia." This statement is true because we lost much of our political support for our country as a whole over here. Many of the soldiers were spit on when they returned and it divided the nation because many viewed the Vietnam war as unwinnable and pointless.
This statement is also false because we lost 58,000 American soldiers for something we didn't even need to fight over and another 304,000 American soldiers were wounded. We also lost the minds of many of the soldiers who came back home with Post Traumatic Stress syndrome. We may have won the overall war but we lost many soldiers at the same time. In essence, we really lost the war at heart.
-AJ
I disagree with Nixon that we should be willing to use power to defend national interests. I think that using force as power is a sign of aggression and it makes people crave war. Putting armed forces before peaceful diplomacy will lead people to use force in any situation and to disregard the peaceful acts of governing. Because seriously, if there’s a kid who’s a bully verses a kid who talks things out, the other kids aren’t going to respect the bully (the U.S.), they’re going to fear him/her. Eventually the kids will just gang up together and stop talking to the bully so the bully will have no friends. However if the U.S. decides to be the more peaceful kid they’re still going to have people to trade with, and maybe they won’t get what they want every time but they’ll still survive in the long run.
I disagree with Nixon that when we signed the peace agreements we had won the war. The point of the war was to stop communism from having a domino effect on Asia and what ended up happening was that North Vietnam was able to spread it’s communist regimen into South Vietnam. However, in the idea that this war was one that would be won death tolls and not on land, we did win because we killed more than two million Vietnamese verses our 58 thousand. However I don’t really believe that this determines a win because we killed both South and North Vietnamese and we weren’t really sure who was our ally. I don’t think he’s right in blaming congress solely for the loss of the war because he already pulled our troops outs. I don’t really know if there was much more that congress could do for Vietnam after we left, the money that we provided would just go to waste. That’s like throwing money into a garbage truck and just watching it be chomped to pieces. There was no stable government in South Vietnam so there would be no real way to distribute it.
No I do not agree with Nixon. I think that if you handle a situation in a peaceful manner, peace will be the result. Diplomacy and sanctions is key for getting and keeping allies. I think that power only goes so far, and in many cases just used to intimidate other countries. Before going into Vietnam we thought it would be a clean win because we were the stronger more powerful army. However, we were there for a lot longer then expected not really “winning.” If we listened to the United Nations we would have been able to save a lot of people’s lives. In theory going into Vietnam sounded good because we were going to stop communism from spreading, but in reality it happened anyways. So I guess power is NOT the answer.
1.I agree with what Nixon said about the U.S being willing to use its armed forces when necessary instead of just relying on sanctions, diplomacy, and the UN. The US should not have to rely on anything or anyone else. We should be able to help out when we feel it’s necessary.
2.We won on the political front because Vietnam signed peace treaties in 1973. The US bombed NV for 11 days. Then NV came back to bargain. SV had no choice but to accept ceasefire. We won on the battlefront because they had so many more deaths than we did. For every one man from the US Army that died there were ten from Vietnam who died. The US had 58,000 dead and 303,000 injured. North and South Vietnam had over 2 million dead.
Question #1)
I do not agree with Nixon when he says that we need to use our military in order to defend national interests. I think that we could easily use sanctions, and diplomacy, and the United Nations in order to avoid war. I do not think that using these tactics makes the United States look weak. If anything, I think it makes us look like a stronger and more peaceful country. Like we talked about earlier in class, being brave and strong doesn't neccesarily mean you need to have a gun in your hand, therefor, it does not make us look weak.
Question #2)
Nixon states "In the end, Vietnam was lost on the political front in the U.S., not on the battlefront in Southeast Asia." Something that supports this quote is the protesting all around the United States. People here were against the war and it made people lose interest in winning a war they were against. It even led to several deaths on college campuses.
Something that supports his statement is Tet offensive. This was a huge turning point in the war becuase it cost the United States almost 30 billion a year and it was unwinnable to the Americans.
1. I disagree with Nixon’s statement because if you have to option of a solution with out war or destruction you should at least try. There is no reason why we can't try to get our allies to help, by stopping trade, or using diplomacy, making a treaty of some sort. We can be willing to have arm forces, but we need to be more willing to try for peace. If we can make some sort of treaty, or get them to slowly to agree by using the power to stop trade with them, we should. We should not have to bomb or invade the country just to get a point across. He has to realize that a peaceful way is better than deaths and destruction, no matter the probability of defeat. This way if it does not succeed in a peaceful way, we always have a great army to use if necessary, but only if necessary.
3A. I do not think we had won the war when we signed the Paris Peach agreements in 1973. They point we went into South Vietnam we wanted to stop communism from spreading from North Korea. We did not stop that, we did not succeed, and therefore we did not win the war. We could possibly be witnesses of the domino effect in the future, if they keep spreading as they did to Cambodia in 1975. If they spread even more, there could be another world war; they could push that first domino over causing the east to be in chaos.
3B. Congress was wrong to cut off South Vietnam between 1973 and 1975. just because our congress was tired of spending money on SV, we were their ally, we were supposed to help them. We only did half of our job, if not less. We went in to SV, caused some havoc, killed a great deal of people, left when it was not over, and then stopped helping them from our own country. We just left them there, pretty much hopeless. We just left them there to be taken over by NV. U.S. might have contributed to the start of the domino effect; we might have aided the domino effect. We might have created the event we tried to stop by going into war.
1.I disagree with what President Nixon said. I feel with out diplomacy the world would devolve. Instead of cavemen with sticks and stones, we’re politicians with nukes. I do think though that military force is an option, but should be our last option. If we go into a situation with guns blazing, then we will be put in a circumstance like the Iraq and Vietnam War. With out diplomacy we would se up the world for failure, and what I mean by failure is complete destruction!!!!!!
3. I strongly disagree with President Nixon statements. We did not stop communism from spreading in Vietnam, in fact all we did was kill people. The war was to me pointless. There was no end in sigh the entire time; we got in way to deep so even when we all knew we needed to get out we couldn’t. The Viet Cong eventually took over the South when we left. We provided no aid, such as supplies like food and medical equipment. When we left, we left for good and everything we work so hard for was for nothing.
Daniel
1. Yes I do agree with President Nixon that a foregin policy with the "willingness to use power to defend national interest" is something the U.S. should strive for because i belive that if we try to use peaceful means such as sanctions and diplomacy that they will not work at all. I think that it is neccesary to use aremed forces when you are protecting our national intersts. It is for the good of our country to use the armes froces because another country could easily take our natiaonal interest from us if we were to try to use peaceful means.
2. Nixon said, "in the end, Vietnam was lost on the political front in the U.S., not on the battlefront in southeast Asia. One example that we studied that can prove this statement true is that we lost it on the political front because the fear of another vietname had paraliyzed the U.S. forgein policy and sterad american towards isolationism. Also and example that we studied that would porve this statement right is that the U.S. withdrew from the war. The people would have had a better government in Cambodia, Laos and vietnam but instead the U.S. left.
-Bob
1. I disagree with President Nixon when he says that military aide is needed with the foreign policy in order to be seen as a strong country. I think that we should have a peaceful foreign policy and not use the military aid because if we use military aide then we would be threatening the foreign countries. I think that the use of military aid would make the other countries look smaller and the untied States look superior to the foreign countries. I think we should use the sanctions and diplomacy as much as we can and if they don’t work on the country then we should use the armed forces but not otherwise. If we use the armed forces right away then we would be causing unneeded conflict between the U.S. and other countries.
3. I don’t think that we won the war because we didn’t accomplish the reason why we were in Vietnam in the first place. We were in Vietnam to take away communism from North Vietnam. We also went for the natural resources and we didn’t get that either. Its not called a win if we give up and don’t finish what we started.
I don’t think that the congress should have cut off aide to South Vietnam because as Nixon said that we should have aided South Vietnam the same way the Soviets supported North Vietnam. If we had aided South Vietnam then we would have won because we are more powerful then the Soviets. Nixon states that the United States has the Vietnam Syndrome where the US is ashamed of its power and we feel guilty for being strong and that we are forgetful about the need to use its power to defend freedom. United States left South Vietnam because we didn’t want to spend any more money on the war and because of all the anti-war protests occurring at home, and that is the property that the communists used against the United States and won Vietnam communism.
Neha
1. Yes, I agree with President Nixon that a foreign policy with the "willingness to use power to defend national interests?" is something for which the U.S. should strive for. I agree because in the world we live in, its impossiable to rely on sanctions, diplomacy and the UN to solve probelms. I think that when necessary the U.S. should be willing to use its armed forces but only when our security and things that we need as a country are in jepardy. Also, to defend our national interests and the american people. I mean of course if the problem could be solved peacefully than that would be a ton better, but when its necessary we need to use our armed forces. Expecially with the U.S. being one of the world powers and such a powerful country, we need other countrys to feel threatened by us.
3. I don't think that we won the war, even though President Nixon stated that he thought we did during the Paris Peace Agreements in 1973. As he said, we continued to loose the peace and the US withdrawled from the war. The Vietnam War was Unwinnable because the victory by communist revolutionaries was inevitable. Our modern tactics were inefective and with different military and political strategys we could have had a victory. I don't think that we should have cut off aid to SV between the time of 1973 and 1975. This is because it really hurt South Vietnam and basically screwed them over. That was one of the reasons why we lost the war at home, and how we lost the peace. We abandoned them and left them to fight by themselves with out any military aid, when north vietnam was fighting with military aid from the Soviet Union.
-Melissa
1. Yes, I agree with President Nixon's foreign policy because we can't defend national interests without threatening the country or people with armed forces. If we just try to use peaceful methods then we won't scare them. We need to show that we aren't just messing around by using some of our power. Also we will get more respect from third world countries if we flex our muscles and show how powerful we are. It seems like we are all talk if we do not follow up with force and powerful action. We can't try diplomacy and sanctions with terrorists because it would be useless. We obviously need to use force and scare off the terrorists.
2. It was lost on the political front in the U.S. because our foreign policy weakened and people didn't respect us as much anymore. To the outside world they heard about teach-ins, peace walks, and draft dodgers. The outside world could see that we were making a big mistake and that we couldn't satisfy our civilians. Also, we lost foreign policy respect because of the way we just left South Vietnam without giving more aid or troops. We fought this war for a long time then we just left, which makes us look foolish. It was lost on the battlefield though because we lost 58,000 people and 303,000 were injured. We left making southeast asia highly unstable and caused a Cambodian genocide. We couldn't beat this tiny country or out smart their guerilla tactics which shows that we didn't win the war on the battlefront either.
1. Yes, I do agree with Nixon. Relying on UN sanctions is ineffective with tyrannical leaders because they are not threatened. A cold-blooded killer is not going to stop killing just because someone said so. These leaders are selfish, and don’t care if their people get cut off from food or trade. Using the military is necessary because the military has power, and the US military is one of the strongest in the world. The military has to be used to protect national interests because they are the only means to control dictators. Not using the military is totally ineffective in the Vietnam situation because talking to the North Vietnamese leaders is pointless because they were communist puppets. If we persuaded them, another would take their place and continue trying to spread communism. Using the military to scare and threaten these leaders is the only effective way to defend national interests.
3. Nixon’s statement, "In the end, Vietnam was lost on the political front in the U.S., not on the battlefront in Southeast Asia." Can be both true and false. Vietnam was not lost on the political front because congress voted to send troops and supported parts of the war. Since congressmen and women are politicians, and they supported parts of the war, the political front was won. On the other hand, many politicians hated the war and rallied against it. Also, many Americans were against the war, but they are not politicians, so the social battle was horribly lost. The battle in Southeast Asia was both won and lost. We won in military power, and we inflicted more casualties than we received. This could also be considered a loss because we were not very good at defending ourselves from guerrilla warfare and lost many soldiers to booby traps. Nixon’s statement can be viewed in different ways, but I agree with him. If the politicians explained to the people the point of the war better to the American public during the war, the political battle could have been won.
1. I somewhat agree with President Nixon that a foreign policy with the "willingness to use power to defend national interests" is something the United States should strive for. Nixon feels that the U.S. should use their armed forces when necessary instead of only relying on sanctions and diplomacy. I think that if it is possible to rely on diplomacy and the United Nations, it would be good, but always be willing to use power is always a good idea. Of course it's always better to be able to talk it out and try to find a peaceful way to do things, but if you aren't getting what you want, using force is kind of what you have to do. So agree that it is good to be willing to use power to defend our national interests.
3. Myth number two said the Vietnam War was un-winnable. Nixon said, “when we signed the Paris Peace agreements in 1973, we had won the war. We then need to proceeded to lose the peace.” Nixon blames Congress for not providing enough military aid to support the South Vietnamese government after the U.S. left in 1973. His grounds for this statement were that the Soviet Union was supporting North Vietnam so the U.S. should support South Vietnam, even if the U.S. isn’t fighting in the war. I don’t think Congress did the right thing by cutting off aid to South Vietnam between 1973 and 75 when South Vietnam fell because they were forgetful about the need to use its power to defend freedoms. America was ashamed of its power and feels guilty for being strong and forgetting that they needed to use their power to help defend for freedoms. We could have used our power for a greater good…for freedom. So I do think that Vietnam did the wrong thing by cutting them off when they fell.
brit
3. I really think that Nixon was wrong to say that we technically won the war. The original reasons for going to war in the first place under Kennedy and Johnson was to rid Vietnam of communism. When we left, Communism had taken over and the country was in worse shape. There was no more freedom of press, political parties, free elections, and the civilians were left with a harder life. Nixon stated that when we signed the Paris Peace agreements in 1973 that we had won the war and then proceeded to loose the peace. I personally think that a large part of this war was the peace and if you didn’t have that, you didn’t have a victory. At the time I understand Nixon’s argument about Soviet Union supporting North Vietnam so we should support South Vietnam. At that time we were still in the cold war and we were still afraid of the spread of communism. But congress supporting South Vietnam there was less of a chance of Soviet/ North Vietnamese communism taking over.
-Alyssa!!
1. Yes, I do agree with President Nixon that a foreign policy with the "willingness to use power to defend national interests." The reason why America is known as one of the most powerful countries is because we are assertive. I think if it's necessary we should put our powerful military to work. If we just used sanctions, and diplomacy, we wouldn't have so many countries threatened by us. We shouldn't always result into fighting, but if we need to make a point and nothing seems to be working, than i think we should show the force that we are capable with. That's what makes the U.S. known as the most powerful country.
3. I don't think we won the war when we signed the Paris Peace agreements in 1973. We went into the Vietnam War to help stop spread communism. When we left, North Vietnamese was taking over South, and communism was still spreading. I also don't think it was right for congress to cut off aid to SV. We basically went into that war for no reason, cause we came out with no accomplishments, just losses. People died and were injured for that war, for what reason? They fought for no reason, because the U.S. didn't stick it through and stay in the war. If we decided in the first place to go in the war, we should follow through with that decision. We went in trying to stop communism from spreading, and came out with nothing but having communism spread.
-Joslyn
1. I do agree with President Nixon that a foreign policy with the "willingness to use power to defend national interests" is something for which the U.S. should strive. I believe that if the U.S. needs to defend its interests, it should threaten to use force. If it does not do this, then the country that we are threatening with wimpy sanctions won’t listen to us and won’t care. But if they feel that one of the strongest nations in the world is going to unleash its military force on them, they might start to care. However, like I said before, we should only use military force if we absolutely need to defend our interests. Otherwise, we should try to resolve our problems peacefully, or get help from the UN. For example, in Iraq if we had first tried to use peaceful measures or get support from the UN, we might not be in this war in the first place.
3. I do not think that we had won the war. The reason we went to Vietnam in the first place was to rid it of communism and to prevent communism from spreading throughout all of South East Asia. We did not accomplish our goal to get rid of communism because North Vietnam took over South Vietnam and spread its communist influence. Also, Vietnam was not peaceful. Finally, the U.S. did not accomplish anything by invading Vietnam. For these reasons, it is obvious that we didn’t actually win the war in Vietnam.
I do not think that Congress did the right thing by cutting off aid to South Vietnam between 1973 and 1975. I think that since we invaded them and caused much of the chaos that followed, it was our responsibility to stay there until there was peace. Even though staying would have meant more of our troops dying, it was immoral to leave and cut off support to the country that we screwed up in the first place. We have to clean up our own mess.
2)To prove this statement true, I would have to say that the President Nixon and his people talked up the war to seems very important. He also tried to make the intentions of the war appear to be life or death and that we had a strong plan. In reality “there was no plan” explained by Robert McNamara. He went on to say that we were just waiting in Vietnam. So on the true side of the quote it was the fault of the politicans. On the false side of the quote, our American troops had no idea on what the war was going to be. They were fighting in a jungle that they had no idea on where they were going. The rebels wold hide and use Guerilla war far against us. So there is two interpretations of this quote and weather it is false or true, it can be backed up.
Question 2:
Nixon said, “In the end, Vietnam was lost on the political front in the U.S., not on the battlefront in Southeast Asia.” This statement is true because in the movie The Cold War Series- Vietnam 1954-1968 McNamara was talking about after he was replaced by Clark Clifford; Clark asked the administration what was the plan for the war. The administration responded with we don’t have one; we are just hoping that they give up. This just proves that there wasn’t a set plan for the war they just threw forces in to Vietnam with out having a plan of attack. This statement can also be false, and it can be said that the war was lost on the battlefront in Southeast Asia. There were many factors of why we lost the war on the battlefront. One reason is that we didn’t know the land or the way the Viet-Con fought. We had to change our tactics to fight in the jungle and use guerrilla warfare to fight. This was hard for us to adjust to and may be the reason why we lost the war.
Siobhan
3
The Vietnam War was already won by the Vietnam Communists. They felt so much stronger on the issue then we did. Of course we hated communism, but it seemed to me we were fighting the wrong war. The war was lost in the U.S and not in SE Asia because American leaders like Johnson and Kennedy didn’t actually explain the justice of why we were fighting. It seems like our reasons for fighting were not strong enough. I really think it had nothing to do with how much military aid was in Vietnam, because we were the ones who ended up killing more people. However, I think that cutting off aid to SV was wrong. If we are involved in something, we can’t just pull away. Once you get yourself into a mess you can’t get out till its over. We really screwed over South Vietnam by helping then just leaving them.
1. I partially agree with Nixon because there are some situations in which we need to use military force, and where we need to use other means like diplomacy or sanctions. For instance, in the Iraq war, I thin the only way to make a difference there would be to use military force. If we asked them to negotiate or used sanctions, they would have looked at us like we are crazy and Sadam would have bombed the U.S. In a situation like the one we have with Cuba or other South American nations, I think we should use the other means of foreign policy.
2. I think that the statement that Nixon made "when we signed the Paris Peace agreements in 1973, we had won the war. We then proceeded to lose the peace," I think he just said that to make America feel better. The Vietnam War was not popular and Nixon did not have any support behind him do I think he just said it to make it seem like they actually made progress. And when he blames congress for not giving him enough support, which is crap. He needed a scapegoat, and he chose congress.
I think it was the right thing to do, by cutting off supply to SV, because it ended the war. Even though we didn’t “win” per say, it ended the war which was very important.
1. I think that U.S. should be willing to use its armed forces when necessary but only when necessary. I feel that we should rely on sanctions, the United Nations, and diplomacy but if all tha fails then we must have a plan B. I think however in the Vietnam case armed forces were needed in South Vietnam.
With the Chinese and the Soviets supporting North Vietnam and promoting communism and trying to take over South Vietnam there was danger ahead. If the communists from North Vietnam took over South Vietnam, it would leak into Cambodia and continue going towards the rest of Southern Asia into Thailand and India, thus creating a domino effect. That is where we come in to try and help South Vietnam fight aganist the communists and stop the domino effect from taking place.
3. When Nixon says that we won the war when we signed the Peace Treaty in 1973, I think that he was lying. I feel that if he told the American public that we had won the war that America as a whole would feel a little better becuase Nixon didn't have much of the public supporting the war. Some of those who were drafted for the war tryed getting out it. I think that Nixon just wanted to be credited for ending the war.
I do think that Cngress did the right thing by cutting of aid to South Vietnam from 1973-1975. It was for the better because the death tolls for the U.S. were getting worse and worse every day. Humanitarins were balming us for turning Cambodians into murderers from peaceful people. Anti-war protestors hated the war, Nixon, and the gov't. The Kent State article about the shoot out was another turn off for the war. I think that it was for the better that we backed out of South Vietnam.
#1. I disagree with Nixon in that we should not just depend on our armed forces when we had no chance of winning since the beginning. As said in section 5, diplomacy without force is the best answer to stopping communism. The U.S. military power is useless in 3rd world countries and all this will end up doing is causing aggresion towards the U.S. as we act as the dictator while being hypicritical of ourselfs. The communists were going to take over and no power could convince them other wise. They knew that if we used our A-bombs or such then either the Chinese or Russia would act and start a third world war. For this reason the U.S. had no plan of attack and thought it was just better to wait it out until the communists gave up. No power could have won and peace talks or something to that nature would have been a much better way to play it. Unless you get the people to agree with you, there is no chance of winning the war no matter how much power you have as seen today in the Iraq war.
#3. As Nixon says that after signing the Paris Peace agreements in 1973, we had won. But we hadn't. Since the beginning we had no plan and nothing we could do could help us win the war. It was unwinnable as many Vietnamese would die to become communists. It was there land all the way across the world and we had no right or way to intervene in their civil war and help them with their fight. Congress did the right thing to cut off South Vietnam because we were wasting money, resources, and American lives day by day for a cause which had no purpose at all. It was a waste of money and we would still be their today if we had stayed. We needed to leave as nothing could be done.
~Q
Fisrt im going to talk about President Nixon and his willingness to use power to defend national intrest. I think this is defiantly something America should strive for. I think Nixon has all the power so he should be able to use his armed forces whenever he wants to. Vietnam was a major turning point and there was fear of another vietnam so anything that was crutial for this U.S to win is what we needed. However diplomacy woth out force is the best answer to stop communists. So it could go either way. But in order for the U.S to get over United Nations syndrome the U.S has to use its military forces and provide aid to our allies.
The next quote im gonna talk about is the one where Nixon states that we had won the war. I think that we didnt win the war. We were in Vietnam in the first place to stop communism. The U.S was basically crippled during the war because we couldnt control intrests in the developing world, and secondly because american leaders like Johnson and Kennedy didnt accuratly explain the justice of why we were fighting. And in the end we didnt stop communism. So that leads to Nixon blaming the congress for not providing military aid to support the south vietnamese. I think Nixon has no one to blame but himself. America was close to reaching its goals, then SV showed american public that the SV army was ready to take over fighting. This is because we were busy providing aid to the SV.
-emily
1. I agree with President Nixon that we have to back our diplomacy up with force. Many people counter that our military power is useless in 3rd World Countries such as Vietnam (since we failed to achieve our goals in Vietnam). However, we cannot rely solely on dipolmacy to make things happen. There will always be some foreign power who will take advantage of a peaceful nation’s good intentions. We tried peaceful diplomacy in regards to Vietnam, and in the meantime, the Soviet Union took over South Yemen, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, Afghanistan, and Nicaragua. Over 100 million people were lost during our five-year ‘geopolitical sabbatical,’ proof that diplomacy doesn’t automatically mean peace. Peace involves the best of intentions from every nation, because it only takes one hungry nation to ruin it for everyone.
2. Vietnam was lost not only on the battlefront but also on the political front. Nixon asserted that it was the political discord over our intentions in Vietnam that caused our eventual downfall. America was divided over whether or not we should involve ourselves in Vietnam; the moral and political disagreement did not allow for a strong united effort. America was plagued by protests and draft-dodgers, sending a message of our weak conviction that what we were doing was right. College campuses became hot-beds of protests and resistance, and the Vietnam Moratorium’s efforts significantly damaged pro-war morale.
However, the war was not lost solely on politics and lack of support. Our troops were not ready to fight this war. Though we had an excellent army and navy, we were not accustomed to the fighting tactics of the Vietnamese soldiers. They constantly caught the Americans off guard with their hit-and-run Guerilla warfare tactics. We were unfamiliar with the Vietnamese terrain, and we had inferior leadership. The soldiers themselves were unmotivated and unsupplied, with the anti-war attitude at home and the great distance to ship supplies.
The war was not lost on either politics or battle alone. Each contributed to the loss.
Ellie O'Leary
1. I agree with Nixon that we should use armed forced when necessary instead of just relying on sanctions, diplomacy, and the United Nations. I think that when our national interests are in danger, military power should be used. Nixon says that we have tried to use peaceful diplomacy, but the Soviet Union took over. For example, we tried this is Afganistan in 1979. Other countries we tried peaceful diplomacy in were South Vietnam, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, and Nicaragua. If the United States used peaceful diplomacy as a way to protect our national interests, other countries may take advantage of that. Even if most countries became peaceful, there would always be one county who would be the agressor.
2. Vietman was lost on the political front in the U.S, as well as on the battlefront in Vietman. On the military side, we were not prepared to fight this war. The Vietcong fought in an untraditional manner, guerilla warfare, which threw our army off guard. We had very little support from allied countries, so we fought alone. The U.S military lost over 50,000, and over 303,000 were injured. The army ran thin because so many Americans dodge the draft, and casualties numbers were high. On the political side, there was no plan made to win the war. When McNamara left office, he left no evidence of a Vietnam vicotry plan. The people at home were agaisnt the war, so the government did not have the publics support. Protesters and draft-dodgers gave America an unpatriot feel, which brought down the government. At home we were not united, which caused for a political loss.
-Natalie
1. I do not agree with Nixon's foreign policy. We should not strive for force which could ultimately lead to war, but solve our problems for national interest like diplomatic people. Maybe Nixon's view would be changed if President Carter came before him.
3. We never won the war in any way.
We lost numerous men and resources all to protect a small country from falling to communism. If we had a better leader at home or more support, we could have won the war. We lost the peace when we stopped the war and our support to SV. If we continued support to SV, we would have been stuck in there for longer than intended.
-Maggie
Post a Comment