It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Need ATS help for class debate on Vietnam war tomorrow

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
We're doing a debate in my recent american history class tomorrow and the topic is Vietnam (Should we have been there or not). I got tossed onto the "antiwar" side but my knowledge about Vietnam is admittedly very limited. I know very little about the reasons for going to war there and very little of the arguments against the war.


Think you guys could let me know what you think the pro side will argue and a good counter argument to use for each one?


ATS - I TURN TO YOU FOR HELP!

-Cut

[edit on 6-4-2005 by Cutwolf]




posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
One point of view could be....

Why go to War? Why did America have to get invloved in the internal affairs of another country? To stop communism? What if the Vietnamese wanted it? How come the South Vietnamese Government was corrupt and guilty of war crimes, yet was supported by the US?

Why did the US ignore the geneva conventions, and bomb neutral sovereign countries and massacre thousands of civilians?

That should get the debate going................. Have fun.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Thanks for those.

I should have mentioned that I'm the cross examiner for my side. I'm the one who's supposed to poke holes into their arguments.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Just what exactly do you need to know?




seekerof



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Basically, the three most common "pro involvement" arguments and the best counters to them. The only one I know that they'll bring up is stopping the spread of communism.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Another argument they may use, probably similar to the "stopping commies" one, is to support a democratic Government.

The SV where far from democratic, with the SV leader being very autocratic and borderline dictator. But apparently better than the commies, according to propaganda.....

Suggest you do some Internet googling and see what you turn up.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Another argument they may use, probably similar to the "stopping commies" one, is to support a democratic Government.

The SV where far from democratic, with the SV leader being very autocratic and borderline dictator. But apparently better than the commies, according to propaganda.....

Suggest you do some Internet googling and see what you turn up.



I tried. So much crap to sort through and she only gave us 1 day to prepare for it.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I shall see if I can find you some stuff...



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Try this out, good place to start. Seems pretty unbiased, so you can get a good view of what was going on.

Digital History-Vietnam War



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Try this out, good place to start. Seems pretty unbiased, so you can get a good view of what was going on.

Digital History-Vietnam War



Thank ya!



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Well, that was the primary reason. This quote below is written by one of the most knowledgeable historians of the Vietnam War living today, George C. Herring. It is also mentioned in his book entitled America's Longest War and is one of the best objectively written books to date on the US involvement in Vietnam and on the Vietnam War, in general:


The US involvement in Vietnam was a logical, if not inevitable, out-growth of a world view and policy, a policy of containment, that Americans in and out of government accepted without serious question for more that two decades.

Learning From Tragegy
The Wrong Kind of Loyalty--McNamara's Apology for Vietnam

Herring:
George C. Herring's America's Longest War

These links above might help you in what you seek.


The three pro-involvement arguments would all lead to the same conclusion: Policy of Communist Containment

1) The failure of the US to prevent China from falling under Communism.
Truman was blamed for this and it was used to bolster the arguments for Communist containment in Southeast Asia. Who lost China + Truman

2) Domino Effect: in essence, was the theory or politcal belief that with the fall of China to Communism, that Communism would spread [world revolution theory] into Southeast Asia.
Ho Chi Minh was a Communist--started the first Communist Party in France--and was thus viewed as a dis-stabilizing effect. The US had been helping France to regain their colonial possession of Vietnam, along with their desire to regain those colonial possessions that they lost because of WWII. With the events of Dien Bien Phu, the US saw no choice but to enter on France's side against Communism and Ho Chi Minh. The total picture was that if Vietnam fell to Communism, then the whole of Southeast Asia would fall to Communism.

3)The US propped a democratic government in Ngo Dinh Diem [which occurred under the Eisenhower Administration] and thus agreed and committed to supporting a free and democratic South Vietnam. This would lead to the US gradual escalation. Eisenhower and Kennedy would begin with the sending of advisors then troops. True US escalation would go full tilt under the Johnson Administration and the passing of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.


Again, all three point to one: a policy of containment.





seekerof

[edit on 6-4-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Well, that was the primary reason. This quote below is written by one of the most knowledgeable historians of the Vietnam War living today, George C. Herring. It is also mentioned in his book entitled America's Longest War and is one of the best objectively written books to date on the US involvement in Vietnam and on the Vietnam War, in general:


The US involvement in Vietnam was a logical, i not inevitable, out-growth of a world view and policy, a policy of containment, that Americans in and out of government accepted without serious question for more that two decades.

Learning From Tragegy
The Wrong Kind of Loyalty--McNamara's Apology for Vietnam

Herring:
George C. Herring's America's Longest War

These links above might help you in what you seek.


The three pro-involvement arguments would all lead to the same conclusion: Policy of Communist Containment

1) The failure of the US to prevent China from falling under Communism.
Truman was blamed for this and it was used to bolster the arguments for Communist containment in Southeast Asia.

2) Domino Effect: in essence, was the theory or politcal belief that with the fall of China to Communism, that Communism would spread [world revolution theory] into Southeast Asia.
Ho Chi Minh was a Communist--started the first Communist Party in France--and was thus viewed as a dis-stabilizing effect. The US had been helping France to regain their colonial possession of Vietnam, along with their desire to regain those colonial possessions that they lost because of WWII. With the events of Dien Bien Phu, the US saw no choice but to enter on France's side against Communism and Ho Chi Minh. The total picture was that if Vietnam fell to Communism, then the whole of Southeast Asia would fall to Communism.

3)The US propped a democratic government in Diem and thus agreed and committed to supporting a free and democratic South Vietnam. This would lead to the US gradual escalation.


Again, all three point to one: a policy of containment.





seekerof




Thanks, Seeker! Who da man? You da man!



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   
If you are on the "anti-war" side, do some google research on the event that supposedly "kicked off" the Vietnam Conflict: the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Some say it was a fabricated event by the cia.

When the other team starts to talk about how much of a help we were giving to the Vietnamese civilians, mention the specifics of the Mei Lei massacre. Ask them how they'd like to define "helping the citizens".

They will probably retort with, "well some civilian casualties are to be expected".

MK



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Just a note, Cutwolf, once you get the 'advice' that you need, I will be moving this thread to where it needs to go.



I hope all goes well for you. It should be a tough debate especially for the pro-side, but the pro-side has foreign policy reason to back its arguments for involvement. What happened during the war/conflict is another matter.

Good luck.






seekerof



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Too bad your debate isn't next week, Oliver North's War Stories on FOX will be all about how we got into Vietnam on Sunday.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Think you could delay moving this thread until tomorrow morning? I'm gonna explore the links tonight and since the debate is tomorrow, the info will be no longer needed after that.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Well the Vietnam War wasn't my strong point, but I can think of a few things. For one thing it wasn't our business in the first place. After all, the US was once a revolutionary country.

In support of communism remember in WWII the US was somewhat socialist? Well it was a time of emergancy. And Vietnam was still recovering from major conflict, sort of like the US during the Great Depression. It may not be the easiest point to get across but it can work well.

Anyhow good luck, sorry I couldn't provide more help.




top topics



 
0

log in

join