Chagall asked in Arts & HumanitiesHistory · 1 decade ago

What has the world actually leant from USA and Vietnam...?

..ok so America did tackle the Vietnam war wrong and therefore lost a lot of lives and money, which I agree is a terrible tradegy

but from my understanding the wrest of the world now knows that if a country is in trouble and is being taken over by bad guys... the solution is just to not get involved. If you get involved you will possibly be disliked more from other countries. Just leave the county alone, what ever happens to the country does not really matter.

All I see is how Cambodia was totally masaccred and no countries helped them. Are any of these countries blamed for not helping. No... but Is America blamed for trying to help Vietnam - yes.

If fact not many people even know about Cambodia really. No one even knows who the bad guys where. But everyone knows about USA and Vietnam.

If I hear the girl next door being murdered and there are no cops available and I and my ten mates with me all have guns...we will help her out. We won't sit around and worry what happens if any of us are shot or killed ourselves, all we know is that we have enough power to at least try and help the girl

Sorry,, not trying to be controvetial, just rying to understand...

9 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favourite answer

    The way you have written this makes you appear ignorant though im sure thats not the case.

    First of all, what happened in Cambodia was partially the U.S's fault. Nixon ordered secret bombings of Cambodia on the border as he knew that the Viet Minh were crossing over the border to regroup. He thought this would be a perfect way to prolong the unpopular war in Vietnam and to top this off he didnt even ask permission from the U.S Congress OR from the leader of Cambodia. These bombings distablised the Cambodian government and made it easy for the extremist Khmer Rouge to come to power, thats the reason why the U.S didnt help Cambodia, because they were part of the problem. But do you know who eventually helped rid Cambodia of the Khmer Rouge? It was Vietnam ( who had been provoked by several attacks by the Khmer Rough into Vietnam)

    Your comment about "Bad Guys' is totally misguided. why were the Viet Minh bad, because they believed in Communisim? There is this opinion that all Westerners have that Communism is bad,that isnt always the case. In fact, capitalism could not have worked in Vietnam as they were a peasant farming society at this time who had little to no industry at all, how can Capitalism work in a place which as little money and little ways to make money.

    Ho Chi Mihn is actually a hero to the Vietnamese people, even still now. He was a Nationalist before he was a communist,He helped to free the Vietnamese from their Japanese,French and later American oppressors. He helped make the country stronger.The Vietnamese did not want the Americans in Vetnam at all, in fact prior to the Vietnam war there was supposed to be an election for the whole of Vietnam. The U.S then stopped this from happening (and effectively stopped the reunification of Vietnam until the end of the war) because the C.I.A predicted Ho Chi Minh would win with 82% of the popular vote. ho chi minh actually hated the U.S.S.R and tried to establish relations with the U.S prior to the war but the U.S decided to push him away.

    What the U.S did there was just as illegal as what they are doing in Iraq. They interfered in the domestic problems of a country (with contravenes their position in the U.N) tried to take away Vietnam's sovereignty and tried to force Vietnam to follow political ideology they did not believe, if anything the U.S were the bad guys.

    Im from a western background (Australian) so i understand why you are misinformed. Western press and history sources try to paint a picture of the West being the ultimate heroes, the good guys, when half the time they are the cause of the problem. I hope i have enlightened you a bit.

    Source(s): Myself- I am a yr 12 student who studies politics and iternational affairs. I have do in depth presentations on both the political hisotry of Cambodia and Vietnam. i also love Vietnam, i am obsessed with the place and the culture :)
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The reason for the Vietnam War was the rise of what a Republican named Dwight D. Eisenhower called "the Military-Industrial Complex." Ike, a life-long soldier saw that the war contractors had been taking over the government, demanding more and more of the budget, and then needed an outlet to destroy all of these weapons so that they could build new ones.

    As the Pentagon Papers showed us, the spark that started the real killing of Americans, at least, was the Gulf of Tonkin affair, which was a manufactured border incident with the US Navy the aggressors, and the North Vietnam "Navy" the victims.

    There were no dominos to fall, and if there was a screaming girl, it was the brutal totalitarian dictatorship of a few corrupt families. And, of course, that Military-Industrial Complex. Those bAstards are at it again in Iraq, too.

    Every single reason that Bush, 43 gave for the war has been shown and even accepted as being lies. Not "bad intelligence," not misinterpretations, but deliberate lies set out to fool the gullible, frightened people of the US into trusting a failed oilman who can't read beyond a second-term level, and his corporate sponsors, many of whom, like Haliburton, reaped millions, and even billions in no-bid contracts for which no products were delivered and no services performed.

    Here's what I learned from Vietnam, and I nearly had to go but for the accident of the lottery (high birthday number in 1972) : never, ever trust these miscreants who get to office. They have been corrupted by the people that they are supposed to watch over. They do not represent you or me because we cannot match 1/10th of the funds that they need to be elected, so they take the bribes and influence money and then vote accordingly.

    When in doubt, vote the incumbents out!

  • 1 decade ago

    North Vietnam was the aggressor. They were backed by the then Soviet Union. President Kennedy himself declared very early that the US would do anything to help defend South Vietnamese sovereignty. US foreign policy was flawed at the time but a great injustice was done to the South Vietnamese when they were ultimately abandoned by the west. Has anything been learned? Probably not. What happened to Cambodia was unbelievable but who was going to get involved in that mess after Vietnam? Ironically, the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia after the formation of the new Republic of Vietnam but that didn't stop Pol Pot. Anyone who visits Vietnam now as a tourist is closely monitored by a very secret police and appear to be brainwashed by the communist authorities there into believing a pack of lies. Are we not our brother's keeper?

  • Tim D
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Intervention is fine, provided real interests are at stake and the means are really equal to the task. This was not the case in Vietnam. People were tod that if we let the communists take over Vietnam, they'll continue taking over one nation after another until they have the world. But nothing of the sort happened after Saigon fell in 1975, and within 16 years the communist world collapsed not ours.

    Real interests were at stake in the gulf in 1991, given the importance of its oil. But intervention was not justified in 2003. Hussein was not building WMD to try to kill us with. The US had no real reason to invade and it soon found itself in a quagmire. That was the fauly of the neocons who exploited 9/11 fears to pursue their pro-Israel agenda. Flying in the face of the lessons of Vietnam, they pushed the US into an unecessary war.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    That Self-Determination is the path to follow.

    The Majority of Vietnam didn't want us. But NOOOO we won't leave. We're afraid of letting other countries follow their own government.

    ACTUALLY!! We still haven't learned that.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    That a war of attrition doesn't work. They should have learnt this from Germany's failure in the battle of Britain during WW2. I doubt if this has been learnt yet.

  • 1 decade ago

    Nothing that they should have learnt, as wars are still going on, but yes they have learnt on improvising the situation of killing more enemies.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    "we were children playing with toys." New toys and minimal instructions,the soul purpose was carte-blanche,the major concerts and group gatherings,ERA movements..Riots-------- a rocket to the moon, got on the rock and got home again,

    Fuel for the "enlightenment period"

    Yeah , sorry as hell but.... we have surpassed.

  • 1 decade ago

    the world learned that you can't beat guys in pajamas carrying AK-47s..

    Source(s): true story...
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.