The Pros And Cons Of The Vietnam War
War is ubiquitous; there will always be one country at war with another during all the times of the year. The first recorded war was in 2700 BCE in Mesopotamia between Sumer and Elam, and the latest have been the Syrian and Iraq wars. Although there have been countless amounts of changes in warfare since 2700 BCE there will forever be a constant controversy about what good comes from war. While soldiers are risking their lives across the world civilians are at home contemplating the pros and cons of warfare. Though trauma that accompanies war is unforgivable, war is not entirely useless. Without it countries and people around the world would be taken advantage of. The destruction left behind by war is nothing in comparison to the catastrophic
…show more content…
This controversy was due to the belief that there was no logical reasoning for even being involved in the war considering America was never truly in danger. John Kerry was one of the most passionate supporters in this accusation. In his article to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations he says, “...there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America” (2). This could be true but America wasn’t fighting for the safety of it’s citizens, but instead was fighting for the safety of Vietnamese people in jeopardy of a communist rule. America was attempting to stop the possible chain reaction of communist countries. Just like World War II, countries were fighting against the mistreatment of the Jewish population in Germany. How can war be good for nothing if it fights for those being taken advantage of. In the article, “But Was It True?” written to debunk the claims against the Vietnam war, Mackubin Thomas Owen explains the danger of the Vietnam war. He says, “The Communist ‘liberation’ of South Vietnam cost… a minimum of 100,000 summary executions at the hands of Communist liberators” (10). This proves to something that the Americans had a right to fight against. If the U.S. does not fight back, who will? There needs to be a country that is willing to make sacrifices in order to help another; there is no pride is
This controversy was due to the belief that there was no logical reasoning for even being involved in the war considering America was never truly in danger. John Kerry was one of the most passionate supporters in this accusation. In his article to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations he says, “...there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America” (2). This could be true but America wasn’t fighting for the safety of it’s citizens, but instead was fighting for the safety of Vietnamese people in jeopardy of a communist rule. America was attempting to stop the possible chain reaction of communist countries. Just like World War II, countries were fighting against the mistreatment of the Jewish population in Germany. How can war be good for nothing if it fights for those being taken advantage of. In the article, “But Was It True?” written to debunk the claims against the Vietnam war, Mackubin Thomas Owen explains the danger of the Vietnam war. He says, “The Communist ‘liberation’ of South Vietnam cost… a minimum of 100,000 summary executions at the hands of Communist liberators” (10). This proves to something that the Americans had a right to fight against. If the U.S. does not fight back, who will? There needs to be a country that is willing to make sacrifices in order to help another; there is no pride is