Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While most will say our involvement in Vietnam was pointless, was there anything positive about it that had the U.S never gotten involved in Vietnam in any way, shape or form would've been bad?
I certainly can't think of anything other than the money made by Dow Chemical, Aeronca (munitions manufacturer), Kaiser-Jeep, Food Machinery Corp (builders of the M113 armored personnel carrier), Hughes and Bell helicopters. Other than that, nothing.
Oh, wait, one thing, major advancements in emergency medicine and EMS services.
The only thing that makes me wonder, why there were so many "liberators" in the Vietnam history is its proximity to the Golden triangle.
Otherwise, Vietnam is way over yonder, and the US is way over here across a lot of water.
Probably would have hurt the careers of Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, Phil Ochs and that crowd, not to mention undermining the chief claims to fame for Abbey Hoffman, Jerry Rubin et al.
If you were a fan of any of the above, the war produced that benefit.
Obviously not. If it was to hold back communism it took us long enough to figure out that wasn't a good idea. Lives lost and men suffering even today with PTSD that the govt denied was happening. My take is our country was making money big time,businesses booming,economy great and they just continued in a war we couldn't win.
It was as pointless a war as the US has ever engaged in, although, that said, getting sucked into fighting there wasn't nearly as stupid as invading Iraq in 2003.
It is generally believed that the 'Domino Theory' that was talked about at the time has generally been discredited.
BUT - The truth is we can never know for sure. It is impossible to know for sure what would have happened if the U.S. had not tried to prop up the South Vietnamese government.
Probably would have hurt the careers of Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, Phil Ochs and that crowd, not to mention undermining the chief claims to fame for Abbey Hoffman, Jerry Rubin et al.
If you were a fan of any of the above, the war produced that benefit.
That's a good point. In fact the primary impetus for the formation of the entire 1960s counterculture would not have existed. The culture of the Baby Boom generation would be completely different.
The songs "Won't get fooled again" by the Who and "War Pigs" by Black Sabbath would never have been written. That would be a loss.
Probably would have hurt the careers of Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, Phil Ochs and that crowd, not to mention undermining the chief claims to fame for Abbey Hoffman, Jerry Rubin et al.
If you were a fan of any of the above, the war produced that benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentobox34
That's a good point. In fact the primary impetus for the formation of the entire 1960s counterculture would not have existed. The culture of the Baby Boom generation would be completely different.
The songs "Won't get fooled again" by the Who and "War Pigs" by Black Sabbath would never have been written. That would be a loss.
Seeger, Baez and Ochs were already established folk singers, so not much change there after all they still had the Civil Rights movement and other social issues. As for Hoffman and Rubin who the hell knows, hedge fund managers?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
