mre wrote: Post your summaries here (pro and con positions) concerning the option your group was given. Ask any questions you want as well. I'll be online.
are you hiding in the school again mr.e? you're so silly. absent and online
mre wrote: Post your summaries here (pro and con positions) concerning the option your group was given. Ask any questions you want as well. I'll be online.
are you hiding in the school again mr.e? you're so silly. absent and online
No, no. I am coughing at home. Any questions? What is going on? Groups? Movie?
Option 1 - death of too many innocents -more rebellion than currently happening. -more cost than necessary -not our war to fight-why do we have to win? -other methods to protect our interest in Vietnam -enables draft to continue & runs risks of needing new resources for draft
Option 2 -too intimidating -potential skyrocketing death rate (civilian) -no decrease in involvment -more money put into the war -destruction of natural resources, surroundings, atmosphere
Option 3 yay! Pros -good timing to leave before it gets worse -less lives lost -maintain U.S rep -end to draft -calms down our public outcry about the war -change of purpose that we dont want to be involved in. -second to leave, because France did, showing no winning side.
Option 4 - complete collapse of Vietnam -makes U.S look scared -looks like a loss -no validation for troops and country -complete waste of time, money, lives, supplies -leave Southern Vietnam vulnerable -shows that the U.S gives up in major opposition
*Endanger our domestic programs + provoke demands for more drastic military action
*It would be unfair for the US to take over the war- Vietnam is poor and US is powerful- it wouldn’t be a fair fight
*Would provoke increased involvement of Soviet Union + China.It wouldn’t be fair for America to take over completely because America was not a part of the Geneva records.
Option 2- ESCALATE SLOWLY + CONTROL THE RISKS
*Keep our honor + reputation
*Convince the communist of our determination + overwhelming superiority
*Avoid provoking increased involvement by Soviet Union + China
* It would be known that United States takes it seriously. North Vietnam would back down- The United States could allow Vietnamese to fight but still protect South Vietnam + America’s own credibility.
*When nations lose credibility their power to influence others + protect their national interest suffers
*U.S. successes in the 1940’s +50’s were due to the credibility of our pledge to counter soviet aggression.
*Our success- in 1962 in forcing the soviets- to remove their missiles from Cuba-demonstrated that a measured, credible, response-to aggression will convince even the most powerful enemies to back down
Option 3-LIMIT OUR INVOLVEMENT + NEGOTIATE A WITHDRAWAL
*Breaking our “promise” to protect South Vietnam from communist aggression
*Ruin our reputation as a guarantor
Option 4- UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL- PULL OUT NOW!
*Look cowardly
*Vietnam would see us as traitors- therefore making an enemy.
*U.S. promised to Protect South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos from Communist aggression
*If we don’t protect- Communism will spread- US will lose credibility
*Other allies will start to doubt US
*Enemies will start to think we are weak
*Western Europeans will lose trust in the US- when they are threatened by Soviets
*We should halt the further deployment of US troops to South Vietnam because we are trying to fight against a communist power in a country of no importance to us.
*The communists attacked France (the ones controlling Vietnam) and the US has no need to interfere with the UN against these communists.
*We need to pull out all soldiers in South Vietnam.
*By reducing our troops and economic contribution we can show that we do not support the Saigon dictatorship of North Vietnam, which the people of South Vietnam don’t want, but are unwilling to fight against.
*Call on the U.N. to use their alliances and power to stop the spread of communism.
*The US should stay away from anymore further affairs.
*The US withdraw will lessen a chance to fight with China and the USSR.
*It is immoral for the military to change a culture.
*Law will be greater if the UN deals with it.
*US is undermining law and its obligation to the charter of UN.
*The United States role in the world has been, and should be made by its example, and not by its military power.
Con’s
[Option #1]
*The people of South Vietnam did not want to protect themselves against the communist people of North Vietnam.
*There would be no American interest for controlling either Vietnamese country.
*It would cause serious political tension and possible military tension with Russia and China.
*It’s against the values of democracy to try to control a separate independent government by use of force.
*America has no training or experience in dealing with jungle warfare.
[Option #2]
*Controlling the US involvement in South Vietnam is still involvement and the other communist countries will not see it any differently than they would on a full-scale attack.
*Why must an ally be able to rely on American involvement in their civil wars?
*Potential enemies would not look upon the US in any less of a manner if the UN was to deal with the problem instead of American force.
[Option #3]
*Leaves the remaining troops at a serious disadvantage by pulling out other American troops and leaves them vulnerable to attack.
*Would boost the morale of the enemy by slowly pulling out then disappearing all together.
*American honor and credibility would not be damaged by America pulling out if the UN was to intervene in its place.
