There are true observations here, despite the blind ridicule. There are probably many, many stated reasons and convictions on this war as on others. Convictions and beliefs can be strong; like comments to my stated observations...or even strong enough to forcefully impose them on others... or even strong enough to kill another person. Convictions were in this war as in other wars. Force was applied and countered with force, intention and counter intention with energy applied. Push and push back. Countering a force with force is not really the best way to handle force. Example: North Vietnam had its political convictions. South Vietnam (after the newly instituted US puppet government) had its convictions. Each side thinking that it had the "correct" point of view. Sometimes a government's stated reasons (like a PR campaign to gain acceptance and support) are different than its true agenda. The U.S.A. unfortunately has a terrible reputation because of its many covert agendas. The unseen, undisclosed reasons of war (often being incredulous, i.e. hard to believe at first glance) could be the most alarming. It should be noted that it takes someone to "stir up" or start to cause conflict, to get the commotion started. This, can be contagious. Economics, money, possession and/or control of resources and peoples are of the same ilk. In this war, as in others, tremendous changes were made in regard to this type of power and on who had more or less of it, both at home and abroad. These were factors in that war. There is nothing untrue about these being factors in that war. Some of the primary reasons the US became involved in Vietnam include convictions (from both sides)...(and with force applied from both sides), points of contention being stirred up, and also intentions to change the power and the control of resources and people. The PR statements of both sides do not tell the whole story and many underlying motivations were not thoroughly revealed in this war. While there are the primary factors involved with this conflict (such as these three definitive factors: convictions with force, contentions stirred up, and quests for power), so many, many, many chains of events and interjecting influences and undisclosed occurances throw more confusion into an already confusing scenario. For war to exist, there has to be confusions...a lack of understanding. That is a far-reaching statement and very applicable: "For war to exist, there has to be confusions...a lack of understanding." War does not exist in the presence of thorough understanding. We are commonly told that the US became involved because of the idealogy of communism was being forced upon S Vietnam, and the US used force opposing this. While this has elements of truth, there are many undisclosed other factors surrounding this. One fact of many which is not commonly known: With Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence in mind, Ho decided to establish a Democratic Republic in Vietnam. The following is a portion of Ho's speech of independance - "A people who have courageously opposed French domination for more than eighty years, a people who have fought side by side with the Allies against the Fascists during these last few years - such a people must be free and independent." An example of another oddity, is how the rules of engagement were played out (i.e. one side can cross the border, but another can't; or don't want to offend other countries directly and so both North and South are indirectly supported by countries of opposing convictions, etc.) It is similar to two fellows having a strong argument, and other people behind the scenes on both sides egging on a fight along with inciting and supporting the conflict and interjecting "rules". China and Russia supporting the North, while America and others supporting the South. Sometimes you see this kind of conflict in schoolyards. Whereas, if it is just two people alone and uninfluenced who have a contention, they either work it out or somebody gets whooped in short order...and that kind of ends the matter. However, when others indirectly incite and support conflict, the contention and force vs. force can go on a long time. This war did. It was supported and incited by others on both sides...it was stirred up. Rightness or wrongness here is a matter of viewpoint. Of course, the opposer was wrong in the viewpoint of the other. As just one example of the many, many, many ways in which power of money or people changed hands in this war (and could be part of underlying motivations), the US economy was in stress at this time. Suddenly, defense contractors (who are still big boys playing the war game today) are fed all these funds to fuel a war. That is incredible sums of money and dramatic shifts of financial power. LBJ sure helped his Texas Haliburton friends and others (e.g. Brown and Root) during this era. Huge shifts of wealth and political power and influence occurred throughout the globe...and believe me...there were some people smiling that this conflict was taking place...and they wanted it to continue. It is something which they wanted, despite the PR and publicly stated reasons of the whole mess. Despite the many brave people who fought and died or were wounded on both sides for what they believed, there were many undisclosed motivations in the Vietnam War. And that is my primary point. There are many undisclosed reasons for this war. All war is nutty.

The most direct, publicly stated reasoning: Containment. Stop the spread of Communism throughout the rest of Asia. The belief is that if Vietnam fell, so then would Cambodia, Laos, etc. Prevention of the 'domino effect' was a key reason. Intimidation. Show the Soviet Union and China that we mean business. Unfortunately it didn't have the effect. Preservation. Preserve the anti-communist, somewhat democratic government of South Vietnam, which itself was full of so much corruption that it fell in on itself. Evidence. Build a case against Communist enemies, particularly the Soviet Union. Find evidence of Soviet stockpiling and advisement. There was plenty of both. Many weapons used by the VC were directly from the Soviet Union, primary weapon being the Kalashnikov Assault Rifle AK-47.

Aside from attempts to hedge the spread of communist China's supporting (remember, Cold War era, the whole anti-commie situation around the world) of North Korea...? My understanding, was more or less a diplomatic relation with France. At the time, the French were already in conflicts of sorts with Vietnamese government(s) over claims to land. Basically, the US supported southern region of Vietnam which was pro-Western world, and attempted to aid the French in supporting them against the Northern Vietnamese (pro Communism, gaining support from other communist nations nearby). Would suggest more indepth articles you could find by utilizing Google and Ask Jeeves... Hope that answered, simple enough.

In short because the US was scared that a communist government would show a good example to all poor people in developing nations. Ho Chi Minh wanted democratic elections in Vietnam. He would have won 80-90% of the vote. The US knew this and vetoed elections. They had a corrupt puppet government in the south of the country installed. They say they were afraid of the Domino EFFECT, WHICH IS ACTUALLY TRUE, BUT NOT FOR THE REASONS THE GAVE. iF vIETNAM UNDER COMMUNISM SHOWED OTHER COUNTRIES THEY COULD HAVE A BETTER LIFE, THEN OTHER POOR PEOPLE WOULD OVERTHROW THEIR OWN CAPITALIST SYSTEMS. tHE us FEARED THIS AND BASICALLY BURNT vIETNAM TO THE GROUND-KILLING 4 MILLION PEOPLE. tHEY WERE BASICALLY SAYING-"iF YOU WANT cOMMUNISM, THIS IS WHAT WE WILL DO TO YOU"

power

I saw a documentary recently, Sir! No Sir! about the war resistance in Vietnam by American soldiers. They said that President Kennedy increased troops dramatically in Vietnam after his embarrassment over the Bay of Pigs. Presumably to make a strong show of force to the world and to change media attention.

The big picture: to fight the "war on comunism". A big money-making machine used to control the masses. Now you got the "war on terror" for the same purpose. My 2 cents.

The answer is long and involves many facets, but in short the US entered the war in Vietnam to assist the French in what they saw as a fight against the spread of worldwide communism.

JFK sent in 'military advisors' in accordance with the 'Domino Theory' that Communism would take over the world unless it was opposed wherever it could be identified. They were helping the North, so we started helping the South. The whole mess started out as a French colonial matter, then the MIGs started flying, and the French quit.

Keep in mind that unlike WWII, it wasn't a declared war ---WWII being America's last. First it started with commie leader Ho Chi Minh <msp> fighting the Japanese. The French wanted the country back as a territory. Ho said no, and fought them, at times humiliating the French at places like Dien Bien Phu <msp?>. Because Ho was a commie, America got involved. Because the South Vietnamese couldn't fight well, at least considering that Ho got help from the Chinese and Soviets, America started to send in advisors. Then they overthrew the gov't of Diem. Then there was the "Domino theory" credible as it happened to East Europe. Then the build up. Then a big de facto war. America won every military victory, but it was a lost cause America pulled out. All of Vietnam became Communist. They then invaded Cambodia ---and suffered a bit what they made the Americans suffered. They became pro-Soviet to spite the Chinese. Now they are kinda friends with China. Now they're kinda experimenting with Free Market reforms ---even McCain favors trade with them. At least that's what I figure. ;-)