Much of the book focuses on the American participation in helping South Vietnam vie for freedom to combine the country as a whole not under Communist rule. Without seeing many results, the war drug on for quite some time with neither side giving up. This resulted in problems in Vietnam and the U.S. Lawrence’s purpose in writing this book was concise and to the point. In recent history, due to the fall of the Soviet bloc, new information has been made available for use in Vietnam. As stated in the introduction, “This book aims to take account of this new scholarship in a brief, accessible narrative of the Vietnam War… It places the war within the long flow of Vietnamese history and then captures the goals and experiences of various governments that became deeply embroiled in the country during the second half of the twentieth century” (Lawrence, 3.)
American involvement in the Philippine crisis represented a brave new step for the country because it had emerged from its former state of isolation. However, by the time the Vietnam War began, America felt obligated to participate simply because it was the most powerful nation in the world militarily and had much experience in warfare and foreign relations. Vietnam struggled for its independence from France in the First Indochina War. It was divided into North Vietnam, which fell under the control of Communists, and South Vietnam, which attempted to establish a republican form of government. The Northern Vietnamese were determined to reunite Vietnam under Communist rule.
Entering the American Revolutionary War, the colonists possessed a keen desire and aspiration to have and keep their freedom. With determination the chaotic army of America strived toward victory. The British had the powers of money, numbers, and experience, but sometimes seemingly potent advantages have little effect on the determination of free will. Works Cited “American and British Strengths and Weaknesses.” U.S. History Online Textbook, 2011. Web.
While Americans ought to know the standards their country was founded upon, it is rather difficult when these standards and beliefs are misconstrued throughout a work declaring the country’s independency. While Jefferson is certainly able to make a very strong argument for the independence of America through his use of rhetorical strategies as well as his respectful declaration of colonial rights, he clearly fails to present a true definition of the equality of men, as determined by the Creator, in the Declaration of Independence. Before being able to fully understand what it is
World War 1 established the US as a formidable opponent and a world power. World War 2 confirmed the superiority of the United States military and the unstoppable patriotism of its people. The Cold War showed that the government could negotiate peacefully instead of directly waging yet another conflict. The main problem with being seen as a powerful nation is that there is an expectation that we look after our allies and lesser-developed countries. This is where we made a critical error that led to the Vietnam War.
He tells of his participation and final acceptance of communist ideals. In the final selection of reading Ho Chi Minh calls upon all the people of Vietnam to join in the fight for full independence. In this letter Minh appeals to heroes of the past who have resisted oppression and relates these heroes to the present struggle. Johnson In this selection of reading President Johnson is defending his Vietnam policy. This address by Johnson lays out many arguments for why the war in Vietnam is necessary; they are as follows: (a) the self-determination of nations; (b) aggressive forces; (c) communism as a menace to the world; (d) idea that everything operates like dominoes; (e) avoiding another Munich; (f) responsibility of the American people; (g) a “new deal” for third-world countries; (h) a better tomorrow for the world Scheer In this article Scheer explains why the US got involved in Vietnam.
" Iraq is no diversion. It is a place where civilization is taking a decisive stand against chaos and terror, we must not waiver," said President George W. Bush in favor of the Iraq War of 2003. When considering the rhetoric used by those to gain support for the war and by those to oppose the war, it is clear that both sides tried to use historical analogy to argue for their side. While the proponents of the war argued that the Iraq War was comparable to World War II, the opponents argued that it was comparable to Vietnam. Both of these sides used this kind of rhetoric among many other tools, to persuade people to support their side by asserting that if they want to avoid another Hitler, or another Vietnam, then they should support their side.
While France was still involved, the U.S. could share the same goals, but what could a country without colonial interests gain by fighting to put down a colonial independence movement? England had lost its American colonies because it was unfocused in exactly how to go about regaining control, and for the same reason, the France and the U.S. were unable to crush the nationalistic Vietnamese freedom fighters. Works Cited Chant, Christopher. The Military History of the United States: The Vietnam War, the Early Days, Marshall Cavendish, New York, 1992: 9, 22, 25, 38. Dougan, Clark.
He is someone who has suffered through an entire generation of rebellious teens. What impact did LBJ's foreign policies concerning Vietnam War have on American society? The Vietnam War really isn't a war. Congress never declared war and thus, it is constitutionally considered police action. The United States can have troops in an area for ninety days, but how ninety days became twelve long, bloody years is beyond my knowledge.
These hidden interests are one of the biggest problems with the political aspects of government in modern society. One of the prime examples of this is the Vietnam War. Although South Vietnam asked for our help, which we had previously promised, the entire conflict was managed in order to meet personal political agendas and to remain politically correct in the world's eyes rather than to bring a quick and decisive end to the conflict. This can be seen in the selective bombing of Hanoi throughout the course of the Vietnam War. Politically this strategy looked very good.