The Vietnam War Was Something We Should Have Not Engaged In.

LosingIn order to determine why we should have engaged in the war, we must start at the end in our current timeline. It is evident that the US losing Vietnam was a political decision, instead of a military necessity. In order to explain this conclusion we must first look at the timeline of the Vietnam war.1973 - North vietnam agreed to create to sovereign vietnamese nations, not much different from North and South Korea. This essentially meant that the US had won the war, as the goal of the war was to stem communism. An important aspect of this is that the US had to have a significant military and economic presence so south Vietnam could rebuild its economy. 1974 - Nixon resigned due to the watergate scandal, and the democrats won a sweeping victory in the midterms. The dems at the time were not convinced with foreign intervention in Vietnam. North Vietnam sensed weakness, and realized that the US would not protect south Vietnam because of the democratic legislature. The attack came swiftly. It evident that just by looking at the timeline of the Vietnam war that our lass was a political decision, harbored by the new Democrats. It is evident that there would no way to realize this would happen when we engaged, not to mention multiple benefits that could have occurred by staying in Vietnam. One such benefit would be stopping the Cambodian massacre, which would have not happened as the US would have intervened. IdeologyWe entered Vietnam during the Cold War, a time where Ideologies were clashing, Russian and Chinese Communism against American Capitalism. Each ideology was trying to win over the third world countries, the countries that had not chosen a side. The US had to engage in Vietnam, otherwise it would have been viewed as a sign of weakness. At that time Communism was an oppressive and horrible governmental policy. The previously mentioned Cambodian massacre occurred because of the oppressive communist government. The Vietnam war shares many similarities with the Korean War. Both consistent of two state, a northern communist state and a southern capitalist state. The Northern state crossed a national recognized boundary with help of Communist superpowers(Russia and China). In both cases the USA helped the Capitalist state fend off the aggressors. The US was the biggest superpower at the time, why should anyone believe that the outcome of Vietnam would be anything different from the outcome of Korea. Actually, the outcome was no different, except for the very ending, where the US did not defend the southern capitalist nation. Therefore, another reason that we should have engaged in that we must defend our ideology. EvilI will not argue about modern notions of communism, though I believe communism is flawed concept. Nobody will deny that at the time communist governments were responsible for horrible crimes. Stalin killed at least 3 million people, Pol Pot murdered at least 3 million people, the list is endless(1). Even if you think that we should not have intervened to defend our ideology, nations have an obligation to stop genocide in other countries. We cannot just sit back at let governments murder their people. Communism is evil, and we have a moral obligation to stop it. It is evident that if communism took over Vietnam then genocide would have occurred, as it did. There is nothing wrong with trying to stop that. In conclusion, is is evident that we should have engaged in Vietnam. We have to defend our Ideology, stop innocent lives from being murdered, and we should have won. People are too persuaded by the outcome of the war to consider the factors that resulted in the loss, or why we engaged. The war was not worth it, the unnecessary outcome was horrible, but we should have engaged. 1. . https://en.wikipedia.org...*I usually don't use Wikipedia, but their list is thorough. If if you have something against umbers, each massacre mentioned still occurred.