How would the Vietnam War effect voting in the United States in the 1960's and 1970's?
463330
It wasn't just Vietnam, it was the whole social movement. There was an aura of change in the air in the 60's and the early 70's, people felt that they can change the world for the better. \n\nToday, people are faced with a stalemate, they can either vote right or extreme right. To have an impact, to change the world, seems quite impossible these days as people would have to completely reform the structure of the society, starting from the economic corporate colossus, through the administrative chaos and the concentration of power into the hands of one man and his advisors. And let's not forget all those hidden agendas that are going on and which people are not even willing to uncover, out the sheer fear of what they might find. Voting today seems pointless, since a vote won't change a single thing.
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.
766796
I served in Vietnam from mid 1967 to Oct 1968.\nWas drafted and felt an obligation to serve.\nMy dad was in WWII for three years, his older brother was killed  in Europe and younger brother served during Korea. Grandpa was in WWI.  I went willingly to what was shaping up as a questionable war because I believed it was necessary to resist the spread of communism. I have since learned our presence in Vietnam did a lot of good. The communists spent so much time and resources in Vietnam they couldn't exert their influence elsewhere. So we did stop them from spreading through Asia.\n\nNone of my family knew it until I started searching our family history about seven years ago, GG-grampa served in the civil war.  GGGG-grampa was in the revoluitionary war and was attached to General George Washingtons' party.  So, it seems my ancestors have served in every major conflict that came along.
241201
The U.S.A. went to Vietnam for almost the same reasons that it went into Iraq and Afghanistan, it is fighting an "evil ideology". Millions of Vietnamese died fighting for uniting their country under communism. In Iraq and Afghanistan, millions are not fighting the U.S.A. because U.S.A. is bringing democracy to those countries, to let the people decide. However, in Vietnam the U.S.A. did not allow their to be elections in South Vietnam, out of fear that communism might be voted into power. But I think the lesson is learned, that instead of denying democracy, they can allow it, and this will allow the people to give up fighting and decide their future. But we have to see if the U.S.A. will fully allow and accept the elections and democratization to flourish, or if the U.S.A. would simply set-up another puppet-regime through rigged elections.
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.
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!!!!!
656522
The Vietnam War or Second Indochina War (also known colloquially as Vietnam or Nam as well as the American War in Vietnam) 1 was a conflict between the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRVN, or North Vietnam), allied with the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China, and the Republic of Vietnam (RVN, or South Vietnam), and its allies — notably Australia, Korea, and the United States. US combat troops were involved from 1965 until the official withdrawal in 1973. The war ended on April 30, 1975 with the military conquest of the South by the North.\n\nSummary\nThe Vietnam War began after a very large-scale division of Vietnam into two countries with a de-militarized zone (DMZ) between them. As Maurice Larkin notes, crumbling under the economic strain of the war and fearful of the tide of opinion (which had now turned decisively against further fighting for control in Indochina), the French, under Pierre Mendès-France, simply 'passed the parcel bomb' on to the Americans, slipping out of the back door, so to speak. The Vietnam War ostensibly began as a civil war between feuding governments. Being Western-oriented and perceived as less popular than Hồ Chí Minh's northern government, the South Vietnamese government fought largely to maintain its governing status within the partitioned entity, rather than to "unify the country" as was agreed to at the Geneva Conference. Fighting began in 1957 with the U.S. and Soviet-Chinese involvement, and would steadily escalate from there. The conflict spilled over into the neighboring countries of Cambodia and Laos. North Vietnam did not respect the independence or borders of either country.\n\nThe Geneva partition was not a natural division of Vietnam and was not intended to create two separate countries. But the South government, with the support of the United States, blocked the Geneva scheduled elections for unification. In the context of the Cold War, and with the recent Korean War as a precedent, the U.S. had feared that a unified Vietnam would result in a Communist government under Hồ Chí Minh, either freely or fraudulently.\n\nThe South Vietnamese government and its Western allies portrayed the conflict as based in a principled opposition to communism —to deter the expansion of Soviet-based control throughout Southeast Asia, and to set the tone for any likely future superpower conflicts. The North Vietnamese government and its Southern affiliated organization (NLF) viewed the war as a struggle to reunite the country and to repel a foreign aggressor —a virtual continuation of the earlier war for independence against the French. While North Vietnam used nationalist propaganda, its party doctrine denounced the very concept of nationalism and any form of unity other than rule by the party.\n\n\n\n\n\nFrance had gained control of Indochina in a series of colonial wars beginning in the 1840s and lasting until the 1880s. At the Treaty of Versailles negotiations in 1919, Hồ Chí Minh requested participation in order to arrange more freedom for the Indochinese colonies. His request was rejected, and Indochina's status as a colony of France remained unchanged. During World War II, Vichy France had collaborated with the occupying Imperial Japanese forces. Vietnam was under effective Imperial Japanese control, as well as de facto Japanese administrative control, although the Vichy French continued to serve as the official administrators until 1944. In that year, the Japanese overthrew the French and humiliated the colonial officials of the state in front of the Vietnamese population. The Japanese then began to encourage nationalist activity among the Vietnamese. Late in the war, Japan granted Vietnam nominal independence. After the Japanese surrender, Vietnamese nationalists expect to take control of the country and organize a socialist dictatorship. The Japanese army in Indochina attempted to assist the Viet Minh in their goal by keeping French soldier
1010338
John F. Kennedy. Had he finished his term he probably would have been re elected to another term. I also feel that Vietnam would not have escalated to the proportions that it did. I also feel that there would have been more advances in terms of Civil Rights. Kennedy also seemed more in touch with the American people than any other President.
968454
Yes, I will. I am 58 and have voted in every election since I came of age, except for two times, , both mid-term elections like this coming Tuesday, which I missed because I was in a fast attack submarine on deployment in the Western Pacific.The way I see it, if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about the results.
418544
Vietnam was before my times. But I've been following the Iraq war in great depth. Yes, we shall lose, but not without hurting our political image thro'out the world and destroying the social fabric of Iraq. Despite lack of democracy, atleast Saddam ensured that Shiites and Sunnis didn't fight and children could go to school, oil was available to the world and he never(ever) harboured Osame and his ilk. So its all a great sham by the US to flex its muscles, and in that endeavor its own borders are being breached, health care costs are rising and gang violence and drug abuse are at an all time high. When will Bush and party learn?? \n\nOkai, point blank answer - the war would be on until the next President is elected. Even then it would never be potrayed as a loss/defeat, it would just be "strategically withdrawing" our troops.
1006672
Several factors: 1) voting machines were rigged .  In one precinct alone where there were 1800 registered voters over 4,000 votes were cast for Bush.  This precincts voting took place in a church.  The Secretary of State of Ohio where this took place owns major stock in the company that manufactures the voting machines used, Diebold.  His reward, he is now running as the rethuglican party's candidate for governor.   2) The homophobic religious right was gung ho to ban abortion and gay marriage and turned out in record numbers.    3) A lot of people do not like to change Presidents during a war.  This happened when FDR was President and he was elected to serve an unprecedented 3 terms.
1018145
I can't say that it is.  The 60s were a time of real questioning, and the people who saw that things were wrong, that the government was doing what it shouldn't, took actual strides to make it stop and to make people aware of it.  \n\nToday?  Well, we've got all sorts of civil liberties violations and our government breaking the law, and people are so afraid, so full of fear, that they aren't doing anything.  The largest issue to get people to vote is homosexual marriage.  Without that, the voting stalls would have been ghost towns.  \n\nI wish we had a little of the vim and vigor of that past decade today.
351065
The 1950s in the United States of America were marked with a sharp rise in the economy for the first time in almost 30 years and return to the 1920s-type consumer society built on credit and boom-times, as well as the baby boom from returning GIs who went to college under the G.I. Bill and settled in suburban America. Most of the internal conflicts that had developed in earlier decades like women's rights, civil rights, imperialism, and war were relatively suppressed or neglected during this time as a world returning from the brink hoped to see a more consistent way of life as opposed to liberalism and radicalism of the 1930s and 1940s. The effect of suppressing social problems in the 50s would have a significant impact on the rest of the twentieth century.\n\nThe 1950s were also marked with a rapid rise in conflict with the United States and the Soviet Union that would heighten the Cold War to an unprecedented level which would include the Arms Race, Space Race, McCarthyism, and Korean War. Stalin's death in 1953 left an enormous impact in Eastern Europe that forced the Soviet Union to create more liberal policies internally and externally. The rise of Suburbia as well as the growing conflict with the East are the two generally accepted reasons for the conservative domination of this decade.
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.
979711
We've been fighting a world war since 2003. Think about it. With the start of Operation Iraq Freedom, this conflict has affect all of Europe, the United States, All of the middle east, and of course now Asia is getting affected because of North Korea's scandal of Nuclear war weapon testings. South Korea is on its toes waiting for an attack, and China is backing up North Korea. Vietnam is on the verge of another civil war because communism is eating up the economy. And with the fall of that trading agreement with the US, Vietnam will be going through a depression (not like it hasn't since the fall of the French) \n\nSo if you think about theoretically we've been in a world war. Everyone is in some ways connected to Iraq.
555289
not sure. but my guess is how society changes in respect to it's opinions on politics- as in more or less liberal/conservative. or how politics and world events may affect a society in general.
521106
In the 1960's people did many of the same things that you do today.  We had all of the advantages of modern times however we were not so sexually promiscuous.  Abortion was not legal, and the pill was still in the experimental stages.  In the late sixties that changed and coupled with a sudden onslaught of marajuana there came about a period called free love when many people experimented with new found sexual freedom and a sub culture of drug experimentation began.\n\nMore people read avidly the Internet was far from  available and really would not be used by just everyone for many more years.  I just read that someone said we listened to the radio... we listened to music on the radio but dramatic programs on the radio ceased when television became popular shortly after WWII by the time the sixties rolled around pretty much everyone had color tv.\n\nWe debated a great deal there were many social changes in the making.  Mom's were making the move into the job  market and it created great angst in many homes when women left there homemaking chores for jobs that paid actual money.  \n\nThere was a war in SE Asia and we were all very anxious about our friends and loved ones there.  In fact it can be truly said that anyone who had not been there had someone they knew or loved who had.  It was incredibly frightening we watched on the news every night afraid that we would not see our loved one and afraid if we did it would not be the kind of sight that we wanted to see.\n\nMeanwhile at home there was huge social change as racial equality became the issue of the day.  Not everyone on either side rapidly embraced the changes as there was fear coming at this issue from every direction.  Bad as things are now huge strides have been made and we applaud them many of us risked a great deal to make these changes happen.\n\nSocial life did not revolve around anyone thing, not everyone went to church in fact it was the beginning of a time when folks who had gone to church started to fall away people were disillusioned with all the distruction caused in the war and many blamed God.\n\nThere was a new awakening with regard to the enviornment we wanted to leave the world a better place for our children and we had huge debates on how to make that happen.  There were more young people in the United States than old people a result of the post  WWII baby boom.  The country for a time put all of its emphasis on what to do with all those young folks.\n\nI hope that helps there's tons more.  I was born in 1946 I remember the sixties well and I can tell you this.  There were such wonderful and diverse things happening that it would be impossible to put them all here.  Please don't use blanket statements when you refer to the people of that era it would be as inaccurate to do so as it would to say that all people living today like hip hop.  It was a large world with a huge population even then and if we had anything in common with each other it was that we were all doing our own thing.  Much as people do today.