| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "DEBATE U S INVOLVEMENT VIETNAM": |
|
|
Debate Over U.S. Involvement in Vietnam, 2002.
An overview of the debate between the "Hawks" and the "Doves" over U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is an examination of the debate during the Vietnam War between the "Hawks", who were pro-war, and the "Doves", who were against the war. The paper looks at the origins of the controversy and looks at the opinions of several people from each side regarding the issue.
| |
|
U.S. and Vietnam?s Misperceptions during the Vietnam Conflict, 2002.
This paper explains how the U.S. and Vietnam?s misperceptions of each other affected the way they fought the war, mentioning the My Lai massacre and the affect this had on the way Vietnamese perceived the United States.
1,360 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Because of the way the Americans fought this war, the Vietnamese had different perceptions or misperceptions of the United States. All of the assigned readings make this point valid. Many of the Vietnamese civilians saw the American soldiers as instruments for America?s leaders wanting their war machine to defeat the North Vietnamese, not to help Vietnam, but just to win. American leaders were making their decisions by listening to certain people ?who didn?t really know what they were dealing with.? This paper explains how the Americans misunderstood the Vietnamese and what went wrong when they tried to take over the fight between North and South Vietnam.
From the Paper
"After reading the assigned books for this paper, I have come to the conclusion that the way the US fought this war was not very honorable. The American military leaders back in the United States did not know enough about what was really going on in Vietnam and as a direct result, they underestimated the power of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Regular Army. Herr makes this evident when he says ?there is a point of view that the United States got involved in the Vietnam War ... simply because we thought it would be easy.?1 "
| |
|
The U.S. Economy and the Vietnam War, 2002.
Review of three books on the state of the U.S. economy, before, during, and after the Vietnam War.
965 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews different literature discussing the economic implications of the Vietnam War on the U.S. Economy. The books analyzed are "Lyndon Johnson and The Wars for Vietnam", "Nixon's Economy: Booms, Busts, Dollars, and Votes", and "The Economic Consequences of the Vietnam War". The paper concludes with the finding that the U.S. economy was significantly damaged by American involvement in the war and that American presidents of that period were aware of the damage being done to the economy but pursued war nonetheless.
From the Paper
"Perhaps the most eloquent work in this regard is that of Anthony Campagna (1991) with his book titled "The Economic Consequences of the Vietnam War." Campagna in this book traces the historical performance of the US economy along with the country's involvement in the unwanted War. According to him the US involvement began during the Truman administration when the US promised to help the French government in their governance of the Indochina region. The US after the World War II followed a containment of Communism foreign policy and to help the French meant containment of the Asian and China region effectively."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2005.
This paper discusses U.S. foreign policy from 1900 to the present.
1,680 words (approx. 6.7 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the military activities in the Philippines and Mexico signaled a change in the attitude of U.S. foreign policy from isolationism to imperialism. The author points out that the Second World War and the Cold War caused all of U.S. life to be filtered through the lens of foreign policy such as (1) the facilitation of grant programs such as the National Defense Student loans, (2) reliance on state and local governments for local infrastructure financing because federal monies were committed to Cold War foreign purposes and (3) the more rapid integration of the races at home due to the necessity of integration in the military to have enough troops to conduct overseas operations such as Korea, Vietnam and assorted smaller wars. The paper concludes that, today, there is no foreign policy agenda per se; Bush II is a tabula rasa, straddling two wings of the same party, like a feckless cowboy on two horses.
Table of Contents
U.S. National Foreign Policy Style, 1900 to the Present
U.S. Foreign Policy Domestic Context 1950
Changes over the Last Ten Years
From the Paper
"It would seem this attitude of foreign policy was written in stone. However, one of its early ardent supporters, Theodore Roosevelt, was among those who began to see that U.S. imperialism was not working. In the end, it was Wilson who noted that the drive for colonies contributed mainly to savage warfare. He concluded, in another sea-change manner that would influence U.S. foreign policy at least until another Roosevelt (Franklin Delano) entered the White House, that it would be best to "dismantle the colonial structure itself. His plan included self-determination for former colonies, international arms reduction, an open trading system to discourage economic imperialism, and a commitment to collective security through international organizations, what is now sometimes referred to as multilateralism." That drive, culminating in such bodies as the League of Nations and reluctant entry into further wars, would be the dominant attitude until the start of World War II."
| |
|
American Involvement in Vietnam War, 1998.
This paper studies the years of repression in Vietnam and the events that led to the outbreak of the Vietnam war.
1,950 words (approx. 7.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper gives an historical overview of foreign intervention in Vietnam starting with the colonial occupation of Vietnam by the French. It details the Vietnamese revolution as a result of French rule (including the rise of Ho Chi Minh). It concentrates on the causes of the Vietnamese civil war and the later American Involvement in Vietnam.
From the Paper
"Vietnam, bordered by China to the north, Laos to the west and northwest, and Cambodia (now Kampuchea) to the southwest, is an S-shaped country no bigger than the state of Florida. Vietnam occupies the eastern coast of the Indochinese Peninsula. For thousands of years the people of Vietnam have lived with constant foreign intervention and colonization (by the French)."
| |
|
Australia's Involvement in the Vietnam War, 1998.
A discussion of why Australia took part in the Vietnam War.
1,655 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay looks at the reasons behind Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War and the performance of Australian troops in the conflict. The paper then discusses the internal pressures faced by the Australian government to dissengage it's troops from the conflict. The paper includes information on the seven other nations who were also a part of this conflict in the 1960's and 70's.
From the Paper
"Following the victory of Ho Chi Minh?s communist guerrillas over French forces in the former French colony of Indochina, Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel by an 8 kilometre wide demilitarised zone. To the north was the communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam, to the south the notionally democratic South Vietnam. The Geneva Accords which brought this into effect were not endorsed by Australia, as it was feared that communism would continue to march southwards. The Domino Effect theory predicted that the remainder of Indochina would fall next, followed by Thailand, perhaps Malaysia, maybe Indonesia or the Philippines."
| |
|
U.S. Cold War Foreign Policy Failures, 2002.
This paper discusses that the foreign policy failures of the U.S. in Cuba and Vietnam were the results of a foreign policy based on Cold War ideology.
2,040 words (approx. 8.2 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the American failures in Cuba and Vietnam in the 1960s were due in large part to the fear, arrogance and ignorance of Cold War containment policies that developed in the aftermath of World War II. The author believes that the problem was the assumption that all political and economic reform movements in Third World nations were not indigenous but were inspired instead by the evil Communist leaders of the Soviet Union. The author states that once this Cold War policy was in effect, no leader of the U.S. had the courage, wisdom or political independence to try to alter fully that policy.
From the Paper
"Kennedy certainly entered office under the pall of the same Cold War ideology and its containment policy, as evidenced by his "missile gap" rhetoric, his increase of advisors in Vietnam, and the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. It will never be known whether he would have averted a war in Vietnam, but his test-ban treaty with the Soviets, his denunciation of the CIA after the Bay of Pigs disaster, and his plan to withdraw some troops from Vietnam indicate at least a willingness to consider more flexibility in that policy."
| |
|
The U.S. at War, 2002.
A look at U.S. participation in different wars throughout history.
1,774 words (approx. 7.1 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at how the United States is a country which has risen to become a ?superpower? country since its liberation from British rule during the early 19th century. It analyzes how America has developed from a newly-established nation to a political power in the world today through its various public information and policy campaigns during the wars it has participated in. It also discusses how its active participation in the Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam War have helped determine America?s political stance and military capabilities, qualities that have made the nation one of the strongest and most stable forms of political and social system.
From the Paper
"The Korean War was once of the conflicts that US participated in during its containment policy program or the Truman Doctrine in 1947, a few years after the WWII. The Truman Doctrine or Containment policy of the United States seeks to prevent the spread of Communism in the world, particularly in Southeast Asian nations, which are in danger of becoming influenced with Communist doctrines and beliefs. The Korean War stemmed from the separation of Korea as a nation during WWII. Because the North was allied to the Japanese and Russian forces during US?s containment policy, US sought South Korea?s help to combat the probable spread of Communism in the country. With the help of the United Nations, the US enforced anti-Communism in the Asian region, and participated in the violent attack against North Korean forces, resulting to further damage in the country and widening the gap between the North and South Korea."
| |
|
U.S Domestic and Foreign Policy, 2002.
An examination of the period 1960-1974.
2,025 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 9 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Examines the period 1960-1974. Argues that U.S. made effective progress domestically in the area of civil rights which gave minorities & women greater freedoms & rights. Contends U.S. foreign policy did not promote progress abroad. U.S. focus on the Cold War and Vietnam policy. Policies of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon.
From the Paper
"This study will argue that between 1960 and 1974 the United States was an effective champion of progress at home, but did little to promote it abroad. Specifically, with respect to progress at home, political and social leaders and activists advanced the cause of civil rights during this period. The civil rights movement affected for the better the lives of blacks and other minorities and women, groups which had been restricted in their freedoms and rights in the past. The reason for the lack of the promotion of progress abroad was that the United States was fixated in those years on the Cold War. Foreign policy was based not on the desire to help the people of other nations politically, socially or economically, but rather to fight the communists, particularly the dreaded Soviet Union, and to fight them specifically in the poor nations of the Third World. Those..."
| |
|
The Impact of the U.S.- Vietnamese War on North Korea, 2002.
An examination of the social, economic and cultural consequences of the Vietnamese war on North Korea.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the impact of 11-year U.S.-Vietnamese War on North Vietnam?s economy, society and culture. In the postwar years, the pace of change in Vietnam is satisfactory but, unfortunately it is limited only to the realm of culture and social values while the economic sector is still desperately looking for a revival. The change on this front is expected soon with the softening of America? attitude towards its ex-enemy.
From the Paper
"The 20th century was a period of great social and political upheaval for Vietnam. The US-Vietnam war that lasted eleven years changed the face of a country, which had already been injured by severe poverty and intense political instability. It is important to understand that the war did not only change things at home but also transformed the state of international relations. Vietnam suffered socially, economically and politically because of this war and even though it won in the end, the victory did not exactly made any difference as far as development was concerned. But even though the war had far reaching implications, it is quite interesting to know that Vietnamese do not give as much importance to this war as we do, here in the United States. This is because the two countries and their people do not share same views on the subject of Vietnam-America war. In other words, while we assign tremendous importance to this event, to Vietnamese the only reason it was significant was because America was involved. (Lamb, 2002)"
| |
|
The Vietnam War: Involvement and Escalation, 2006.
A look at how American minimal involvement in the Vietnam War escalated into full-scale involvement.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 2 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses American involvement in Vietnam during the Truman and Eisenhower presidencies, explaining that involvement at that time was minimal, and was primarily limited to diplomacy, combined with covert military support for the French, who were battling the Viet Minh insurgency. The paper then looks at how American involvement escalated when the French base at Dien Bien Phu fell in 1954, compelling French withdrawal from Indochina and causing American policymakers to conclude that the United States would have to take a more direct role in Indochina in order to prevent communist takeovers of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand.
| |
|
U.S. Involvement in the Persian Gulf Conflict, 2000.
An analysis of the reasons behind U.S. involvement in the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict.
1,775 words (approx. 7.1 pages), 7 sources, $ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An analysis of the developments that lead the U.S. to become involved in the Persian Gulf conflict. The author discusses aspects such as image, economics, priorities and interests of the U.S. that lead her to become involved.
From the Paper
"On August 8, 1990, President George Bush announced that he had sent American troops to Saudi Arabia to protect it during Iraq?s invasion of Kuwait. This was the beginning of U.S. military involvement in the Persian Gulf Conflict, which had started with Saddam Hussein?s decision to invade only a week earlier. What made Bush decide to get involved so quickly? What did he stand to lose, and what did he expect to gain? Given a thorough understanding of the United States? priorities and relationships with other countries in the Middle East, the answers to these questions are easy to find."
| |
|
U.S. Involvement In Bosnia, 2002.
A research and explanation of the current U.S. involvement in Bosnia.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An analysis of US foreign Policy and security stance in the Bosnia situation and the effects its had on the world order and the domestic policy within the US. It assesses the role of the US and the origins of intervention.
| |
|
U.S. Involvement, 2003.
A discussion on America's international involvement in Asia and China.
690 words (approx. 2.8 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 23.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the Open Door policy. The author expands on the American entry into Asia, and its interests in China.
From the Paper
"Today the U S is an international super power. Built at the outset of the Twentieth Century the internal growth of America finally got politicians and diplomats to look outside the country. As a Christian nation America ..."
| |
|
U.S. Involvement in Bosnia during the 1990s, 2002.
An overview of America's foreign policy towards Bosnia during the turbulent war years of the 1990s.
3,658 words (approx. 14.6 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 101.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This research paper traces the evolution of American involvement in and international strategy toward Bosnia during the period beginning with the outbreak of war among indigenous forces there in early 1992 and continuing to the present time. It begins by discussing the war in Bosnia and U.S. international strategy after the end of the Cold War. It then discusses Bush's strategy vis-a-vis Bosnia and Clinton administration non-strategy. The writer then addresses the reassertion of American leadership in 1994-95 and concludes the implementation of the Dayton Accords.
From the Paper
"The international strategy of any nation contains three elements: its foreign policy (ends or goals) and the means used to achieve those goals (foreign policy means, including the use of diplomacy, the threat of or use of military power, and economic tools, such as foreign aid, trade, etc.), as permitted or constrained by foreign policy resources (including the sinews of national economic and military capacity and strength, and intangible sources of national power, such as international prestige and reputation, national will and public support). International strategy consists of three basic elements or components: global strategy, regional strategy and strategy toward a particular nation or state. The primary thesis of this paper is that the United States failed for at least four years to develop and, therefore, implement through appropriate use of diplomacy and military force an effective international strategy for dealing with the Bosnian war because it suffered from confusion as to its basic objectives there and a lack of conviction that its vital interests were involved. Even today, four years after the signing of the Dayton Accords, legitimate questions can be raised as to whether American policy makers, the Congress or the American public sufficiently appreciate the long-term nature of the commitments they have undertaken in Bosnia and whether they are prepared to stay the course long enough to complete them."
|
|
|
