Why did America enter, and escalate involvement in the Vietnam war?
457408
Prevent the spread of communism
213033
The key difference is that there was no moral justification for our invasion of Vietnam.  We betrayed ourselves and not unlike Iraq entered into a war of choice based on false evidence. \nIn WWII, there actually was a REAL enemy who declared war on the United States from Asia and Europe .\nWW II was winnable, Vietnam was not. Both were costly, only one war was the US right to be involved in.  It was not Vietnam.
1000150
Gee i seem to understand that America had a few problems ourselves after the revolution.  I mean like a previous answerer stated Germany and Japan were not fixed overnight.  The biggest difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that in Vietnam the Democrats would not let the military fight to win, but were more interested in making money on our dead 58,000 American soldiers than doing what needed to be done to help democracy succeed, but now the Republicans, much to the anger of the liberals, have turned the conflict over to the military so that they can do what they need to in order to win.  In wartime someone always makes money, but something you need to keep in mind is that most of the major conflicts America has been involved in the Democrats have squarely planted us in them.  You are so concerned with getting us out of Iraq, and so worried about the soldiers dying there, because Bush got us there, but you have said nothing about the American, and allied troops that still get into firefights in Bosnia!!!  Clinton put us there 11 years ago, and we still rotate troops there, but no says anything about Clinton's screwup!!  If you are going to ask these kind of questions, then at least have the balls, and intestinal fortitude to ask about ALL the places AMERICAN troops are dying in!!!!!
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.
465185
I am a Viet Nam veteran, serving with the First Cavalry Division in  the Central Highlands.  When I was there, in 1966-67, I supported what we were doing.  After I got home and studied the situation and what was happening in Viet Nam my mind was changed.  After Robert MacNamera apologized for the lies that got us into that war, I knew the US was wrong for going into the Nam.  The Domino Theory was a big fat lie.  We lost the war and I didn't see the whole area turning communist.  In fact Cambodia is a free nation know.  Viet Nam only wanted to be free from foreign domination which they finally achieved.  The US doesn't have the right to tell other countries what to do and how to live, but in todays world, might makes right so we interfer where we shouldn't
165790
The war in VietNam escalated because Lyndon Johnson was so hawkish on the need to escalate. One big mistake JFK made prior to his death was to send old Lyndon over to VietNam to "keep an eye on the situation over there."  In truth, Kennedy simply wanted Lyndon out of the way.  That was a big mistake because Lyndon took the job seriously, he really thought he knew what had to be done.  His idea was to send troops over to resolve the problem.  He had no idea that it would escalate into a full scale war.  Fifty thousand American lives later, we decided to hang up our spurs.  The rest is history!
786132
The USA is obsessed with the concept of world dominance. It has refused to  learn from history and its experience in Vietnam. It could not prevent Vietnam from being a communist  state. It had fueled Afghanistan crisis and now trying to dose it off. Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan will not be that easy and the change of guard in White House will have least impact on taking such a decision.
568954
Again, as in Vietnam, the US has betrayed its self with this unjustitied and criminal invasion/occupation.   The resistance to foreign forces is only going to strengthen over time and what is the US going to do about it.  With waining support its only a matter to time before Iraq solves this problem its own way.  \n\nWhat is driving this war here is an unwillingness to face realities on the part of our leadership.  As in Vietnam, its the American people who will put a stop to our mission in Iraq.  We are not at that point yet.  I can't guess when it will happen, but at some point our leadership will be compelled to start withdrawing forces.
578289
At the time of WWII the allies were very anxious to have the United States enter and aide in the conflict due to the fact that at the time it was one of the only countries with the resources to possibly wage a successful war against Germany.  Of course there is always politics in any conflict but the basic reason for the war was Germany's desire to conquer and rule countries and people that wished to maintain their own sovereignty.
359111
Which war ? Vietnam has been at war for one thousnad years .\n" Every generation of men, they grew up knowing they were going to be in a war. The country had a 1,000-year history of warfare — with the Chinese, with the Japanese during World War II, with the French. — You accepted that as a way of life."\n\n" America inherited from the Europeans a world replete with dictators\nEven Vietnam was nothing more than a nasty inheritance from the French "
270201
1-There is no superpower (China and Soviet Union) actively supporting the insurgency through supplies and the regular army of a client state. In Vietnam, much of US Military policy was developed with the idea of defeating the Viet Cong and North Vietnam, while not drawing the Soviet Union into a larger war. For instance, the US resisted direct attacks or even laying of underwater mines in the harbor of Hai Phong in North Vietnam because the sailors on the Russian cargo ships might be killed. Many of the army units from Europe had been removed to Southeast Asia, leaving US security vulnerable elsewhere. The President today, by contrast, seems to be looking for a reason to begin direct military action against Iran and Syria, believed to be the main supporters of the Iraq insurgency.\n\nSecond, because the insurgency represents a wide, semi-cooperative coalition instead of a massed hierarchy, this war has no enemy chain of command for the American military to either interdict or to negotiate with. The United States was able to carry on (granted often ineffective because of the lack of commitment from the enemy side) intermittent peace talks in Paris with the Soviet Union, North Vietnam and even some representation of the Viet Cong leadership. That opportunity, even if it were welcome by the US which it is not, does not exist in this war. After the Tet Offensive, of course, the Viet Cong was so disrupted that they ceased to be even a semi-independent force.\n\nC-That should get you started.
721563
Yes it played a major role into the failures of the Vietnam War.  Limited War provides a safe haven for the enemy, where they can regroup and launch additional attacks.
429878
In January, 1968 (I think) the North Vietnamese Army along with the Viet Cong launched an offensive against US and South Vietnamese positions throughout South Vietnam on the holiday of Tet.  While the offensive was a military disaster for the NVA & VC, it so rattled the American public that the anti-war effort got the impetus it needed to eventually cause the US to abandon Viet Nam.
949034
1. Participation in the Vietnam War\n2. Invasion of Iraq\n3. Intervention in the political affairs of the Philippines\n4. Dropping Atomic bombs in Japan\n5. Occupation of Panama
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.
46305
historical and geopolitical reasons.  \n\nfirst, during world war 2, the united states found itself allied with the chinese nationalist movement (kuomintang) headed by chiang kai-shek, because they had a common enemy in japan.  american airplanes bombed japanese targets in manchuria in support of kuomintang offensives and the kuomintang provided logistical support to american troops in the region.\n\nafter the war the united states continued to support the kuomintang government during the communist revolution.  mao's communists defeated the kuomintang who retreated to taiwan, where they have remained a powerful political party to this day.  this continued alliance was natural for the US, which believed itself to be engaged in a "global struggle against communism" from the fifties up through '89.\n\nwith wars in korea and vietnam, having an ally in asia was important to maintaining the global reach of the american military.  taiwan is highly dependent on american protection; without american warships lurking in the china sea and US-supplied weapons, they probably would have been overrun long ago.  this has paid off nicely for taiwan, which has reaped considerable economic benefits from the close relationship with the US.\n\nthese days the protection given to taiwan can be seen as one of loyalty, but a more practical reason is that the US government needs allies around the world to conduct its military operations, particularly in areas like the middle east and SE asia.  also, there is a genuine belief in the US that open, democratic societies should be protected and nurtured; so the threat of military reprisal is used in places like israel, taiwan and south korea that would probably otherwise be taken under by hostile neighbors.
833500
about wars, specifically the Vietnam war.