Why did Nixon's policies fail in Indochina?
362659
How about a lack of commitment on the part of the liberals. Had they been willing to provide support for winning a war  we could have prevented 2 MILLION men, women and children from being slaughtered after we left.  Mark up another couple million or so for the libs - hey good job guys, you're on a role.\n\nTHATS ONE WAY TO FEED THE STARVING CHILDREN OF THE WORLD - LET SOMEONE BUTCHER A MILLION OR SO EVERY NOW AND THEN SO THERES LESS TO FEED.  \n\nIS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN BY PRO CHOICE SINCE WE CHOSE TO LEAVE?
568179
Let's verify there was a massacre before we make any comparisons. Since Vietnamese villagers were not known for blowing themselves up to kill U.S. personnel and few if any of their women were ever combatants, shooting down civilians in that theater was a lot more difficult to take than anything that happens in a war zone where women and children routinely take up arms, put on disguises and attack both military and civilian targets.\n\nAs for Calley, I don't think Nixon went overboard in granting him clemency. He was being scapegoated.
131980
Basicly, the reason of the fail was that a nation of 10 million uprised against the whole communist block and the free world in those days,for little interests, betrayed Hungary. Without strong allies Hungary was doomed....
246227
Politically they both scored great landslides in their bids for the Presidency.  I think that Reagan would have took Nixon in a knock down drag out fight as well as would have beat him politically as well.  Reagan as an actor played his greatest role as a politician.
669263
By President Nixon going to China, a lot was accomplished including lots of trad agreements that opened China up for more favorable trade with the United States. I can't remember,but I don't think on his trip there that he made China a Most favorable trading nation with the United States, I am thinking he did not sign that agreement.\n\nThe two countries agreed to trade more commodities than they had before, since this was heads of states meeting the trade agreements made international news with all the agreements that were signed while he was there.\n\nI think George H. Bush and Henry Kissinger set the stage for the meetings as well as the agreements.
834786
Vietnam-a complicated war. As a matter of fact, it wasn't called a war for years-it was a "police action" or "conflict". Not a lot of clear answers there.\n\nU.S. military advisors first became involved in Vietnam as early as 1950, when they began to assist French colonial forces. In 1956, these advisors assumed full responsibility for training the Army of the Republic of Vietnam or ARVN. Large numbers of American combat troops began to arrive in 1965 and the last left the country in 1973.\n\nPresidents involved were:\nHarry Truman 1945-1953\nDwight Eisenhower 1953-1961\nJohn Kennedy 1961-1963\nLyndon Johnson 1963-1969\nRichard Nixon 1969-1974\n\n American forces rose from 16,000 during 1964 to more than 553,000 by 1969. (Johnson). The irony here is we couldn't win that guerrilla war with 553,000  troops but thought 100,000 in Iraq would be plenty. Robert McNamara(then Secretary of defense) has since said he believed JFK would have ended the war has he not been assassinated in 1963.  I believe Democrats were a bit fooled by Johnson in that he fought strongly for great civil rights laws(he did do a lot there) back then but on the other hand escalated the war. It was easy for Democrats to believe he was a good man fighting the good fight. \n\n \n\nNixon had continuously campaigned under the slogan that he "had a plan to end the Vietnam War." (Peace With Honor)Unfortunately, no such plan existed and the American commitment would continue for another five years. The goal of the American military effort was now to buy time, gradually build up the strength of the South Vietnamese armed forces, and to re-equip them with modern weapons so that they could defend their nation on their own. This policy became the cornerstone of the so-called "Nixon Doctrine"\n\nSo Nixon finally pulled troops out but dragged his feet for years.Since he was elected largely because he promised to get us out of Vietnam, people were unhappy it took so long. I believe he finally did withdraw to get re-elected. He was re-elected for a 2nd term but resigned because of Watergate. (Watergate was unraveling during the campaign but most people didn't believe he was involved-thought instead it was a left-wing conspiracy). His Vice-President became President and pardoned Nixon soon after. \n\nIt was a tumultous time indeed. Robert Kennedy was assassinated in 1968 during his Primary run for President.\nThere was a lot of talk that he would certainly be President but \nRichard Nixon was instead. \n\nThere was a lot more to all of this and I'd encourage you to research more-a fascinating time, although very sad. History, politics and life seems interchangeable.
192689
The United States entered that war incrementally, in a series of steps between 1950 and 1965. In May 1950, President Harry S. Truman authorized a modest program of economic and military aid to the French, who were fighting to retain control of their Indochina colony, including Laos and Cambodia as well as Vietnam. When the Vietnamese Nationalist (and Communist-led) Vietminh army defeated French forces at Dienbienphu in 1954, the French were compelled to accede to the creation of a Communist Vietnam north of the 17th parallel while leaving a non-Communist entity south of that line. The United States refused to accept the arrangement. The administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower undertook instead to build a nation from the spurious political entity that was South Vietnam by fabricating a government there, taking over control from the French, dispatching military advisers to train a South Vietnamese army, and unleashing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct psychological warfare against the North.\n\n\nhttp://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm
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.
242056
In Vietnam, the politician's back home 'lost' the war, in Iraq, the tactical operations were left to the military and victory was achieved in days.  The current violence, insurgency and more soldiers dying are the result of an occupation force trying to install a democracy over a people that don't seem to want it. A civil war is brewing and were caught in the quigmire.  \n\nIn Vietnam, tactics of conventional warfare were used to fight non-conventional enemies.  The US Armed Forces relied too much on their great fire power and modern weaponry and equipment. American leaders seemed to be overconfident in their "know-how" in fighting a war that required the more know-how on psychological strategy than just on modern technology\n\nThe Vietnam Communist Party and its regime were strongly supported by the whole Communist bloc. Immense military aids came from Beijing and Moscow. Unofficial sources estimated that aids from Red China and the Soviet Union had been in tens of billion dollars, not far lower than US aids to South Vietnam and American military expenses in the Vietnam War. \n\nMoreover, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and possibly Cuba joined North Vietnamese Communist forces in direct fighting the Americans in North Vietnam with their combat pilots, and air defense SAM-6 surface-to-air battalions (Soviet). Beijing also sent some infantry divisions to safeguard the northern mountainous area of North Vietnam and many engineer regiments to repair bombed bridges and road in North Vietnam\n\nWe were defeated in Vietnam by the communist bloc at the time, sent packing from the rooftops of the American Embassy.  I don't see a similarity with Vietnam except maybe the discontent among the liberals back home.
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.
545286
1966. Very very simply, Mao was becoming unpopular with his failed policies eg Great Leap Forward which was the biggest man made famine in history.\n\nThe CR was a way for Mao to gain popularity again and also a way to get rid of his political enemies. Anyone that dared to say anything bad about Mao were branded as class enemies.
705952
Vietnam was the biggest military blunder I've seen in my lifetime. And ya know, people said back then, "This is one grade "A" boneheaded disaster!"\n\nBut there were a whole lot of Americans who had an answer for that. They said, "How do we know it's a disaster? Don't you think our Government would pull our boys out if there wasn't very good reason for them to be there?? This will probably turn out to be...a blessing!"\n\nWell, only if you call many thousands of dead Americans, a country left in ruins and absolutely no good achieved..."a blessing".\n\nBut it did teach us something didn't it? It wasn't for nothing, because we learned our lesson, didn't we?\n\n...No. No, I guess we didn't.
740673
Are you kidding, he was too much of a candy *** to go to Vietnam. He joined the national guard and didn't even complete his service there.
887016
The chief cause of the war was the failure of Vietnamese nationalists, in the form of the Viet Minh, to gain control of southern Vietnam both during and after their struggle for independence from France in the First Indochina War of 1946-1954.\n\nAllies of the Vietnamese communists included the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. South Vietnam's main anti-communist allies were the United States, South Korea, Australia, Thailand, the Philippines, and New Zealand. The U.S. in particular, deployed large numbers of military personnel to South Vietnam. U.S. military advisors first became involved in Vietnam as early as 1950, when they began to assist French colonial forces. In 1956, these advisors assumed full responsibility for training the Army of the Republic of Vietnam or ARVN. Large numbers of American combat troops began to arrive in 1965 and the last left the country in 1973.
820497
The USA is attempting to install freedom in Vietname (as in all countries) with trade rather than militarism which has proven to not work there. The idea is that once these people of Vietnam and China becomeused ot free trade, good benefits of trade, better and more modest living conditions they will not return to the communist governents of yesterday.\nI think this  actually working better than military (if the unemeployed of america can withstand all of  these free trade agreements which are costing them their jobs).\nAutocracies \nThe government is trying to install democracies the old fashioned way. Slowly accustomizing the public with goods, services and better living conditions.
364721
The Causes of the Vietnam War\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\nAndrew J. Rotter\n\nMost American wars have obvious starting points or precipitating causes: the Battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775, the capture of Fort Sumter in 1861, the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and the North Korean invasion of South Korea in June 1950, for example. But there was no fixed beginning for the U.S. war in Vietnam. The United States entered that war incrementally, in a series of steps between 1950 and 1965. In May 1950, President Harry S. Truman authorized a modest program of economic and military aid to the French, who were fighting to retain control of their Indochina colony, including Laos and Cambodia as well as Vietnam. When the Vietnamese Nationalist (and Communist-led) Vietminh army defeated French forces at Dienbienphu in 1954, the French were compelled to accede to the creation of a Communist Vietnam north of the 17th parallel while leaving a non-Communist entity south of that line. The United States refused to accept the arrangement. The administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower undertook instead to build a nation from the spurious political entity that was South Vietnam by fabricating a government there, taking over control from the French, dispatching military advisers to train a South Vietnamese army, and unleashing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct psychological warfare against the North.\n\nPresident John F. Kennedy rounded another turning point in early 1961, when he secretly sent 400 Special Operations Forces-trained (Green Beret) soldiers to teach the South Vietnamese how to fight what was called counterinsurgency war against Communist guerrillas in South Vietnam. When Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, there were more than 16,000 U.S. military advisers in South Vietnam, and more than 100 Americans had been killed. Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, committed the United States most fully to the war. In August 1964, he secured from Congress a functional (not actual) declaration of war: the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Then, in February and March 1965, Johnson authorized the sustained bombing, by U.S. aircraft, of targets north of the 17th parallel, and on 8 March dispatched 3,500 Marines to South Vietnam. Legal declaration or no, the United States was now at war.\n\nThe multiple starting dates for the war complicate efforts to describe the causes of U.S. entry. The United States became involved in the war for a number of reasons, and these evolved and shifted over time. Primarily, every American president regarded the enemy in Vietnam--the Vietminh; its 1960s successor, the National Liberation Front (NLF); and the government of North Vietnam, led by *Ho Chi Minh--as agents of global communism. U.S. policymakers, and most Americans, regarded communism as the antithesis of all they held dear. Communists scorned democracy, violated human rights, pursued military aggression, and created closed state economies that barely traded with capitalist countries. Americans compared communism to a contagious disease. If it took hold in one nation, U.S. policymakers expected contiguous nations to fall to communism, too, as if nations were dominoes lined up on end. In 1949, when the Communist Party came to power in China, Washington feared that Vietnam would become the next Asian domino. That was one reason for Truman's 1950 decision to give aid to the French who were fighting the Vietminh,\n\nTruman also hoped that assisting the French in Vietnam would help to shore up the developed, non-Communist nations, whose fates were in surprising ways tied to the preservation of Vietnam and, given the domino theory, all of Southeast Asia. Free world dominion over the region would provide markets for Japan, rebuilding with American help after the Pacific War. U.S. involvement in Vietnam reassured the British, who linked their postwar recovery to the revival of t
314843
Yes, had Nixon not been the paranoid man that he was, his ability to conduct foreign affairs with almost pinpoint precision would have made him a man of the ages.  Instead, most people refer to him as the president behind Watergate.  That's a shame.  He was also very adept at working both sides of the political aisle in US politics.  He was a genius at times.