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.
No, the US should have gotten France to agree to Vietnam's request for self-governance. No fighting, or Communists, needed.
If only LBJ could have gotten into a time machine in the 1960s and went back to Woodrow Wilson more then 40 years earlier and say "hey you spineless twit, stand up to the Imperialists"!
But no seriously, there was no way that Wilson could have known what was going to happen in Vietnam decades later. Also there was no way at that time to force a major power like France to change its colonial policy. Can you imagine an American President threatening war with our old ally France over a place like Vietnam which most people never heard of? NO WAY it would happen.
Wilson could not even get the Congress to support the USA joining the League of Nations let alone care about French colonial policy.
The same way we had been doing it to the UK and the Netherlands and would do it again to the UK and France during Suez- Marshall Plan and economic pressure.
The same way we had been doing it to the UK and the Netherlands and would do it again to the UK and France during Suez- Marshall Plan and economic pressure.
Such vastly different conflicts in every respect: motivation, execution, outcome...
That said, Vietnam was so utterly braindead; as if we'd prevent the Vietnamese from behaving as Vietnamese. It was a defeat before the first US troops got off the boat.
Just like Afghanistan.
Just like Iraq.
You assume that the Vietnamese or even most of them wanted to live under Communism. And that most Iraqis liked being ruled by Saddam Hussein and his murdering raping sons.
As for Afghanistan, so long as it isn't being used as a base for terrorist operations, then it doesn't much matter what happens there.
Now obviously WWI had a lot more deaths and participants but aside from that speaking in terms of the overall goals and lack of achievement which do you think was the more pointless and unnecessary war?
Vietnam, of course. After all, at least some of the participants in World War I somewhat supported the concept of national self-determination. In contrast, the U.S. certainly doesn't appear to have supported national self-determination when it fought in Vietnam.
As for Afghanistan, so long as it isn't being used as a base for terrorist operations, then it doesn't much matter what happens there.
So, in other words, you have no problem with Taliban rule in Afghanistan if they don't support terrorism even if most Afghans oppose Taliban rule--correct?
I voted WW1 because it was none of our business what went on in Europe. After all what do americans know about european history? Nothing now or back then.
For one, I know that the Italian city-state of Florence flourished and prospered under the rule of Lorenzo de Medici back in the late 1400s.
It is difficult to identify any participant as having had an affirmative purpose in mind when they went to war.
France: The return of Alsace-Lorraine.
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.
