at the point of the gulf of tonkin resolution, what strategy could have won the Vietnam war?
538891
The only way you win a war, total war!
878265
Probably not. We need to take our time to make sure this turns out the right way. If we try to leave to quickly the whole Iraq liberation would be a failure and we'd have another vietnam.
949834
True JFK continued and expanded the US advisory role started by Eisenhower.  The LBJ went ballistic and eventually had more than 536,000 troops in Vietnam.\n\nPersonally I blame the French.  They fought a colonial war with Vietnam (at the time still a single, united country...as it is today) from 1945 to1954.  The US had given the army of Vietman $2.6 billion during their struggle for independence...sound familiar? \n\nHo Chi Minh as the leader of the Vietnamese army; as he was during the American War as the Vietnamese called the Vietnam War.\n\nIn 1954 the French were drawn into battle in a valley at Dien Bien Phu.  This was their last and most costly battle.  Some 6000 French troops died and over 10,000 French soldiers were taken prisoner.\n\nThe French....well, bailed leading to a peace conference in Geneva where Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam received their independence.  Vietnam was temporarily split into north and south.\n\nIn 1958 with the continued communist influence in Vietnam and south east Asia Esienhower sent 2000 US military advisers to the south.  By 1963 under Kennedy the advisors had reached 16,3000 and then on to LBJ.\n\nAnd why do I blame the French....if they had just held on to keep Vietnam their colony to this day then we never would have lost over 58,000 troops.\n\nOK...unrealistic and the French surrender monkeys hadn't won a war since the musket was the modern weapon of war...but I thought a brief history of how the war started might clarify my choice for Presidential blame.
827667
Vietnam won the Vietnam war because of the Communist country support.they will still win because the communist will still support them during the war
634706
U.S. involvement in Vietnam did not begin in the 1960's or even the 1940's, but in 1845. That's right -- 1845. In that year the people of Da Nang arrested a French missionary bishop for breaking local laws. The U.S. commander of "Old Ironsides" (the U.S.S. Constitution) landed U.S. Navy and Marines in support of French efforts to reclaim their missionary. Mad Jack Percival, the ship's captain, fired into the city of Da Nang, killing 3 dozen Vietnamese, wounding more, and taking the local mandarins hostage. He then demanded that the Catholic Bishop be freed in exchange for his hostages. The Vietnamese were unimpressed. They refused his demand and waited. "Mad Jack" got tired of waiting, released his hostages, and sailed away leaving the Bishop behind.\n\nDuring WW11, US and Vietnam fought against the Japanese. After the end of World war, Ho Chi Minh asked the Americans to honor their commitment to independence, citing the Atlantic Charter and the U.N. Charter on self-determination.\nHowever, by the end of the war, the U.S. government had begun to redirect its foreign policy from the wartime goal of the liberation of all occupied countries and colonies to the postwar anti-communist crusade, which became the Cold War. \nAmerican policy supported General Charles de Gaulle and his anti-communist "Free French." De Gaulle aimed to restore the glory of France, which meant the return of all former French colonies. U.S. relations with the Vietnamese turned sour. President Truman refused to answer letters or cables from Ho. Instead, the U.S. began to ship military aid to the French forces in Indochina.\nAccording to international agreement, Vietnam was to be temporarily divided into north and south, with free elections to take place nationwide in 1956. Even before the French were out, the U.S. was moving in.\n\nFrom there on the US involvement in Vietnam increased and so called vietnam war started.
347402
The Vietcong and Insurgents both used massive guerilla warfare.\n\nI'd say way more IEDs in the iraq war.\n\nthe vietnameese beat us with technology [SAMS, ak-47, etc]\nand knowledge of the land.\n\nThe insurgents are just using household products.
962556
You might be surprised to learn that many of us that were in Vietnam in the early 60s thought that the conflict in Vietnam was a little deal, and that Vietnam would be used as a staging aria for war against Laos. At that time Laos was in far more danger of falling to the domino theory than was South Vietnam.
327116
It wasn't all that different from Iraq.  The US decided that we wanted to prevent communist domination, in this case of S. Vietnam.  We said it was to help freedom and democracy, but it was really about a power struggle.  So like the freedom fighters we are, we stuck or noses in to prevent S. Vietnam from Northern invasion.  However, the North had their own supporters like Russia.  As the war lingered on and the draft was forcing young men to fight a war that wasn't directly threatening our national security, a lot of people disagreed...many innocent victims, us and them.  War heros returned to an unpopular welcoming.  The famous boxer Mohammed Ali refused to go and they took his title away from him.  The whole thing sucked.  Not too many guys really wanted to go and many moved to Canada, if their number was picked.  Hippies protested with peace signs while the smoked grass and dropped acid.  I missed a lot of this...a bit young, but I know other guys that were there.  It was no picnic.  One buddy of mine was so ready to fight.  He was #1 in boot camp, ready to storm the beach.  He got his wish, first off the boat, stepped on a mine, blew his face off, lost an eye, half a nose, half a mouth, a bunch of hair, and a little brains, while Nixon and Kissinger watched this whole thing go down the toilet.  It was a stalemate.  Rambo couldn't do it justice.  We finally bailed out.
640252
Khe Sanh was one of the key battles of the Vietnam War, in early 1968. It was a massive face off between the US and North Vietname armies. North Vietnam took heavy casualties, and led them to alter their strategy to guerilla fighting in the Tet Offense.\n\nSaigon (now Ho Chi Minh City) was the capitol of South Vietnam. It fell to the Communists in April 1975.\n\nThe biggest mistake would likely have been walking off a road or marked trail. There were millions (still are millions) of land mines littered all over Vietnam, some from the US, some from the enemy. A "bouncing betty", a very nasty bounding mine, could kill an entire platoon in seconds. The explosion lifts it 5-6 feet off the ground and sends shrapnel in all directions.\n\nI think the grunt's primer you are refering to is "Vietnam Primer" by David Hackworth.\nhttp://hackworth.com/vporder.html
886796
I think it was the other way around.  The United States got involved in Vietnam's political situation by supporting a puppet regieme and taking its side in a civil war , which ultimately determined who the legitimate government was - when the US backed side lost.  We had no business being there in the first place.
233609
Cute_Blondie seems to have a pretty thorough answer there.  My question is do you mean the Vietnam War that the US fought in or is there another war called the Vietnamese War?
692580
"The use of air power in the Vietnam War would change the way wars were fought for the Twentieth century and beyond. New technological advances and more sophisticated weapons made the Vietnam War a testing ground for the U.S. military. New tactics and approaches were used and to varying degrees of success. Air power would be used as a bargaining tool and as punishment for North Vietnamese acts of aggression. Vietnam also introduced the attack helicopter as a vital weapon and it dawned a new age of tactics for the U.S. military. Starting with the training and advising of the South Vietnamese Air Force (VNAF), and culminating with the Christmas bombing of 1972, the U.S. would be involved in the skies over Vietnam for over 15 years"\ndon't forget agent orange either.  I'm pretty sure that was the first time it was used as it was.
718420
1. Battle of Mormandy\n2. Pearl Harbor\n3.Hiroshima\n4.Gulf of Tonkin Resolution\n5.???\n6.United Nations\n7.NATO\n8.SEATO\n9.Cold War
721087
Vietnam had effectively been turned into two countries, like North and South Korea.  The war was North Vietnam seeking to conquer the South and reunite the country by force.  The fighting in Iraq is nothing like that.  In Iraq, a few terrorists and religious zealots are trying to prevent Iraq from becoming a democracy.  They are funded and supplied from the surrounding countries (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia), but no other country is trying to conquer Iraq.\n\nIn Vietnam, we were actually fighting another country, North Vietnam.  That is not true in Iraq.\n\nAlthough it was an integral part of the Cold War, the Vietnam War was an actual war unto itself.  The fighting in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror (stupid name, it should be the War on Islamofascism) but is not really a war by itself.  At least not any more.  Iraq fell within three weeks of our invasion.  The currant Iraqi government is our ally.  The fighting is the US-led coalition and Iraq against the terrorists.\n\nUS fatalities in Vietnam were at about 10 times the rate of fatalities in Iraq.  As wars go, the US fatalities in Vietnam were quite low; US fatalities in Iraq are minuscule.\n\nIts not quite true to say there was no coalition in Vietnam.  The South Vietnamese and the Aussies fought there with us, as did the South Koreans.  The French, of course, bugged out.\n\nThe US force in Iraq hovers between 120,000 and 150,000; the force in Vietnam peaked at over 500,000.\n\nDemocrats supported the war in Vietnam while there was a Democratic President, and turned against it when a Republican was elected.  We will see if their principles are just as flexible now if a Democrat wins in 2008.
883064
My personal belief unfortunately will be the same as Vietnam...after spending vast amounts of money and human lives we may end up withdrawing.\n\nThe true outcome is determined by the citizens of the US .Will the citizens continue to support a war that has proven to be costly both in economic and casualty aspects? \n\nIt will take more than military force to establish peace in the Middle East.The divisions among the Shites and Sunnis go back many decades and peace must be worked out among these to groups themselves.\n\nThese groups will continue to live in the area long after the Coalitation Forces have returned home.
585438
Interview a couple of veterans.  I was six or seven years old when hostilities started, but was involved in the evacuation of Saigon in 1975.\n  Go to Google.\n  Go to your local library.\n  Keep an open mind and realize that there are no truly unbiased opinions.  It was a war.  Don't let anybody white-wash it or demean those of us who went over there by referring to it as a 'conflict'.
207946
1950\nPresident Truman sendt 35-man military advisory group to aid French fighting to maintain colonial power in Vietnam.\n\n1954\nAfter defeat of French at Dien Bien Phu, Geneva Agreements (July) provide for withdrawal of French and Vietminh to either side of demarcation zone (DMZ) pending reunification elections, which are never held. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy (from 1954 onward) sent civilian advisers and, later, military personnel to train South Vietnamese.