The
Ho Chi Minh Trail has always been the stuff of legends, a seemingly endless number of backwater paths and trails that started near Hanoi and ran almost 1,000 miles down the length of the country, crossing into Laos at several points, and ending near Saigon (today's Ho Chi Minh City) where it deposited weapons into the hands of the communist guerrillas fighting against US and Southern Vietnamese forces.
The Vietnam War was a long, costly armed conflict that pitted the communist regime of North Vietnam and its southern allies, known as the Viet Cong, against South Vietnam and its principal ally, the United States. The war began in 1954 (though conflict in the region stretched back to the mid-1940s), after the rise to power of Ho Chi Minh and his communist Viet Minh party in North Vietnam, and continued against the backdrop of an intense Cold War between two global superpowers: the United States and the Soviet Union. More than 3 million people (including 58,000 Americans) were killed in the Vietnam War; more than half were Vietnamese civilians. By 1969, at the peak of U.S. involvement in the war, more than 500,000 U.S. military personnel were involved in the Vietnam conflict. Growing opposition to the war in the United States led to bitter divisions among Americans, both before and after President Richard Nixon ordered the withdrawal of U.S. forces in 1973. In 1975, communist forces seized control of Saigon, ending the Vietnam War, and the country was unified as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam the following year.
Vietnam's
geography was especially important for the success of the trail. The Truyen Sang mountains played several interesting roles.
Here's a collection of
current and archived news related to Vietnam from the New York Times.
The
movement against U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War began small--among peace activists and leftist intellectuals on college campuses--but gained national prominence in 1965, after the United States began bombing North Vietnam in earnest. Anti-war marches and other protests, such as the ones organized by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), attracted a widening base of support over the next three years, peaking in early 1968 after the successful Tet Offensive by North Vietnamese troops proved that war's end was nowhere in sight.
I think war is a horrible event but, still a process of negative feedback and certain equilibrium
In my opinion: Our communication still is not advance enough to get a commune understanding or sufficient education and avoid war.
Advanced we defiantly are to end wars, with new weapons such as nuclear deterrents and other advances. It is not how well equipped we are that determines whether people go to war it is more about can we choose to avoid it and is war really necessary
Wars don't come down to just being more advanced than the others, throughout the course of history it has become clear that no matter how advanced we get, there will always be someone just as advanced that disagrees with something. I believe that wars will never become a necessity but as long as there are humans there will be war.
We will never be advanced enough to end war as war is a product of human nature. As long as there is competition for resources and something to be won or lost, there will always be war.
I think war is unnecessary because the key to most problems is compromise. You don't have to fight to get your way, you can reach an agreement and make peace. If compromise is out of the question and the opposing side is stubborn and stupid, then war is definitely the answer and the only way out of the situation.
i think we are advanced enough to end all wars becuase we one so many and because its just stright up hurtful to families and friends
No. War is a natural and inevitable consequence of history. Someday, the abolition of war will become just as inevitable in the evolution of civilization.
We have the innovative and sufficient technology to end warfare, but it comes down to more than if we have the power. Ending war requires compromise and that is often hard to come by with the many conflicts and the differences between countries. Countries should only result to warfare when peaceful negotiations have been attempted and are longer an option. That is when war becomes necessary.
Only when a country/leader refuses to compromise does war become necessary, especially when dealing with situations where the needs or rights of the people are being ignored. Advancements in technology, especially weaponry, have given us an advantage when it comes to war, but we are still unable to avoid it. Other countries have also advanced their technology and the need for power still remains among leaders.
No, I believe war is just an inevitable evil of human beings. Humans are not and will never be perfect. We are constantly left to bicker among our ourselves. Human history and economy and even social interactions have always been around use of land and religion. I just think that this planet will always be plagued with war. Any decision that is made most definitely ends in someone being upset and mad.
in some cases yes such as world war 2 but in the case of vietnam or more recently the iraq war no those wars are more for money and power which go hand and hand with each other but now that i think of it no war is not necessary because in my opinion wars are started for 2 reasons money and religion and i you will not convince me other wise.
Wars probably teach a lot. Both World Wars were fought on Europe,and the great destruction might have taught them a lesson. And now they worked so much on their human development that almost every country there ranks high on HDI
I think that war is an accepted evil. When ordinary civilians are not involved, and the war isn't on their soil, they tend to think "Well, the government will handle that." or "Our military will handle that." However, when a war reaches our borders or a draft is inacted like Vietnam, then all of the sudden these wars aren't necessary to ordinary people. What I'm essentially saying is a lot of people in mainstream society aren't going to question war unless it directly effects them.
I think that although humans are technologically advancing so to speak we have not fully advanced on an emotional level. As a result, countries are less understanding and are generally more hostile because they fear each other's differences. I think at this stage humans will still carry on engaging in war because of a lack of open communication and understanding
In my opinion, we must not confine war just brutal war. often many people say war made a devastated ground and harsh ********* to the presents but that sometimes made an improved region. not only history but also these days the most important thing is communication with each other. those ones are usually made controversial, and we made hard efforts to solve them. along the way, war is necessarily needed. so we see the war in the comprehensive points, we need war.
I think that if countries cannot solve the problems that they have it is uncivilized.
Yes because if we have people like Hitler then you will have to go to war to stop that evil with another evil.
Yes because without war America wouldn't of gained there independence from Britain
We are probably not advanced enough to end all wars but wars are definitely not necessary because there is no war without deaths and nobody who dies in a war deserved it. it`s horrible way to die that nobody deserves.
I think the war is bad and not necessary because they were just destroying the path instead of helping it, They could have just split it in half and had their share of the resources on the path.
No it isn't bc it would end worse than every other war we've had because are technology is more advance
i think the war was important but a horrible thing.
i think your wrong
i think war is fabulous but can affect lots :)