[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

Replies:

[> Re: Nixon -- Ray Huang, Thursday, March 20, 09:40:53am [1]

No, I do not think that Nixon should be discredited solely because of the Watergate Scandal. Media has a tendency to overemphasize negative or bad news more than good news, which is why most people know Nixon only because of Watergate. It was the same with the Yellow Press during the pre-Spanish-American War period in Cuba.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Emily Rosier, Sunday, March 23, 03:42:25pm [1]

I agree with Ray. The media does tend to over exaggerate certain things, especially in the matters of government affairs.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Mcheala Katz, Wednesday, March 26, 03:08:52pm [1]

I stongly agree with Ray as well. The media has a major part in all events that take place and the way people think. The media can easily persuade people and how they think about events and decision made by our president. Also, I think it is a good connection that Ray makes with the Spanish-American War period, I would have never made that connection.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Kyle Frost, Wednesday, March 26, 08:39:28pm [1]

The media is a good thing to bring up. The media definitely chooses to emphasize certain things, like the Watergate Scandal in Nixon's case. Today is the same; we always hear about bad news and not necessarily the good news that happens at the same time.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Amanda MacAvoy, Thursday, March 27, 07:59:46pm [1]

You make a good point about how the media can blow things out of proportion and distort the publics view of things. It really isn't fair that Nixon is known for Watergate, just because the media chose to emphasize that part of his presidency.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Kyle Frost, Sunday, March 23, 11:32:51am [1]

The Watergate scandal alone should not prevent Nixon from being considered a good president. Many presidents have made mistakes, and in many cases the good things they did balance out the bad. JFK, for instance, was criticized for the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, but was known for many positive endeavors including his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nixon did good things as well - he was the first president to visit the Soviet Union where he engaged in talks to promote trade, arms-limitations, and peaceful coexistence. He also participated in peace talks with communist China and withdrew American troops from Vietnam. A president should be judged by his whole presidency, not by one scandal.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Maria Yorgakaros, Wednesday, March 26, 10:21:28pm [1]

I agree with Kyle in that Nixon known for many positive endeavors throughout his presidency. However, I disagree that a president should be judged by his whole presidency, not one particular scandal because this scandal was very serious and had a huge impact on the people of the United States. If Nixon got away with this scandal and was reelected as president, many dishonest, detrimental decisions could have been made which would have effected the welfare of the entire country.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Emily Rosier, Sunday, March 23, 03:54:49pm [1]

No, the Watergate scandal does not eliminate Nixon from being a good president. The scandal received so much negative media coverage that people only noticed that, rather than looking back at all of his other accomplishments. Nixon decreased a lot of the tension between the Soviet Union and the US by being the first to visit Russia. Also, he ended the Vietnam conflict by pulling American troops out. Because the Vietnam conflict was so highly protested and the US was beginning to reach an end to the Cold War, Nixon's achievements should be more important than the Watergate scandal.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Cathy Tinker, Monday, March 24, 07:20:25am [1]

The Watergate Scandal, while shocking at the time, should not discredit President Nixon or the numerous things he achieved during his presidency. To throw everything away solely over this controversy would be unjust. The media is known to blow up government issues to sell more papers and to create gossip. We can relate this scandal to yellow journalism, which took place in the late 1800s to early 1900s. With Nixon, the media focused on the negativity during his presidency instead of reflecting on the good impact he had throughout the world. Yellow Journalism, starting in the 1800s, is when the media focuses on the ‘bad’ news and even creates false headlines to sell more papers and create a bigger story. I do not think the Watergate Scandal was all that it was made out to be, and I certainly do not think Nixon should be classified as a bad president.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Jacob Zonderman, Monday, March 24, 12:32:57pm [1]

The media coverage on Nixon could not exactly be considered "yellow journalism" because it did not create the situation. It covered the situation by reporting on the facts. The media did not "blow up" any of the facts or opinions it heard. If something bad happens, that's the headline, nothing elese. Thats what the media does.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Jacob Zonderman, Monday, March 24, 12:28:33pm [1]

Yes, I think it negates him of all consideration as a good President. He committed a crime and did so as the President of the United States. The President is supposed to be a role model as a good leader who does the right thing for the people. Being selfish is not part of the job description.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Dylan RoyDavis, Monday, March 24, 12:58:25pm [1]

Its true that the Watergate scandal was very selfish on Nixon's part, but I disagree that this should exclude him from being a good president. The world could even be in turmoil today if he had not put up a set of rules for nuclear warfare that the world as an entire could agree upon. We already are not the best of friends with China and Russia today, what would it be if we had not had Nixon to make the basic connections?

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Steve Hunt, Tuesday, March 25, 09:28:41pm [1]


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Steve Hunt, Tuesday, March 25, 09:32:28pm [1]

I agree with Jacob here because this one event really tarnished the presidency for Nixon. He did do some good things along the way like talking to other communist countries for peace, but Watergate will overshadow him for the rest of his politic career. For example, Bill Clinton had an affair and that is all people remember him for. Nixon may be considered a good president among the scholars, but to the media and the public, he's a traitor.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Melissa Anderson, Tuesday, March 25, 09:53:56pm [1]

I agree that the Watergate Scandal permanently scarred Nixon’s reputation. A president should indeed set the standard for all Americans to live by. However, one event should not outweigh the beneficial things Nixon did for the US.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Jen, Wednesday, January 14, 08:19:20am [1]

President Clinton also committed a crime. Should we then negate any positives he may have made?

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Dylan RoyDavis, Monday, March 24, 12:53:48pm [1]

No, Richard Nixon is definitely still a good president despite the Watergate Scandal. He created ties with China and Soviet Russia that the United States would have thought laughable. He revolutionized what nuclear warfare would be, even by todays standards, with SALT(Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty). You cannot weigh one scandal that would effect the United States for a couple years to cancel out all the amazing things he did for the United States' foreign policy, which would last the United States until its time was up.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Ray Huang, Wednesday, March 26, 08:22:47pm [1]

Yes, what Dylan said. Watergate really shouldn't be seen as an antithesis to all the stuff that Nixon accomplished in the eyes of the public, but peoples' fascination with malfeasance blows things way out of proportion.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Steve Hunt, Tuesday, March 25, 11:17:02am [1]

Yes I think that this scandal really tarnished the presidency of Nixon. Most people always think of Watergate when they hear about Nixon. Also, Bill Clinton had a scandal of his own while he was the president and most people just think of him with Monica. Nixon did do good things like his peace talks with communist countries, but Watergate proves that cheating and scandals will prevail in the media and in the American public.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Melissa Anderson, Tuesday, March 25, 09:50:13pm [1]

Although the Watergate Scandal puts a bad mark on Nixon's record as president, his entire presidency should not be judged exclusively on this event. Nixon was productive while in office and accomplished various things. He pulled the United States out of the Vietnam War, eased tension with China and Russia, and controlled nuclear weapons between nations. Even if the majority of people immediately associate Nixon with the Watergate Scandal, he should not be completely ruled out of being considered a good president.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Nicole Delbuono, Wednesday, March 26, 07:44:37am [1]

What would the country be like if Nixon wasent in office? He promoted peace, he earend great ties between countrys, and he ended Vietnam for the United States. Would we be close to the Soviet Union and China now. No, i didi not see any other president have the guts to visit the Soviet Union, insted they fought with them across an Ocean!

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Erin Sullivan, Wednesday, March 26, 03:40:05pm [1]

I agree with Melissa. Although the Watergate Scandal is a major negative of Nixon's presidency, he should not be judged on just that. He did a lot of positive things throughout his presidency as well and that should be focused on. The Watergate Scandal was a big mistake, however, that should not be the judgment of whether or not he made a good president.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Nicole Delbuono, Wednesday, March 26, 07:39:46am [1]

Nixon should not be known as a bad president because of the Watergate Scandal. Presidents make mistakes, he made one too. As horrable as this sounds he just did not cover it up as well. Presidents have lied to the U.S. public, used the media to cover them, and have never gotten caught. I mean in class we just recently leaned about the 7000 page document detailing every step the U.S. took with forign affairs before Vietnam, the ones the public knew about and did not know about. That invovled Kennedy and Johnson but noone really has established them as poor presidents. The media heavely influanced this inncident. The Washington globe massaced the story and out Nion out there to be the bad president.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- John Sember, Wednesday, March 26, 08:24:39pm [1]

I fully agree with nicole. He made a mistake, and the media blew it out of proportion. If he hadn't been caught or if he had "covered" it up more, than he would be known for his good accomplishments during his presidency, not his mistake.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Nick Giori, Thursday, March 27, 12:41:11am [1]

Nixon did do a lot of good for the counry, but he has another duty to fulfill: he must be a good role model for the American citizens. How can he justify convicting criminals of committing crimes when he himself commits them and expects to get off scot free? Sure presidents can make mistakes, but there is a big difference between making a mistake and consciously committing a crime.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: Nixon -- Casey Modderno, Thursday, March 27, 07:42:02am [1]

I can see what you're saying, and he had been caught before for tapping the secretely financed "slush fund" while in Senate. The question at hand though, is whether or not he should be remembered as a good president. He resigned for his shady actions in the Watergate Scandal, and that was that. In looking back, is it more important that he was dishonest, or was it more important that he made a lot of positive changes? The latter seems much more important to me.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Michaela Katz, Wednesday, March 26, 03:01:44pm [1]

No, the watergate scandal should not eliminate Nixon from being a good president. Although it was a mistake Nixon made which lead to his resignation and which people capitalize on, Nixon did other great things as President. This includes how he put a final end to the Vietnam war taking out our troop, and how minimized strong tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Marc DeMattie, Wednesday, March 26, 10:16:20pm [1]

I agree with Mak that he did great things and this scandel should not eliminate Nixon from being considered a good president, but it does. The Watergate scandel is the first thing that comes to mine when you think of Nixon and in order to be considered a good president you must not have a scandel next to your name.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Erin Sullivan, Wednesday, March 26, 03:45:54pm [1]

President Nixon should not be judged as a good or bad president based on the Watergate Scandal. Many people remember him by this scandal, however that should not be the case. People should look at all the things he did as president, like pull the United States out of the Vietnam War and begin the first peace talks with Russia and China during the Cold War. People probably do consider him as a bad president because of the Watergate Scandal. I personally do not think that he should be eliminated from the consideration of being called a good president for that reason. Everyone makes mistakes and yes, it was a huge one but, his mistake was just one negative thing he did. The many positive things he brought to the table as president should be focused on.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Sean Sullivan, Thursday, April 03, 12:58:11pm [1]

I agree with Erin. All the positives of the Nixon Administration greatly out weigh the negatives of the Watergate Scandal. In addition, the Watergate Scandal was greatly exaggerated by the media and made out to seem worse than it was.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- John Sember, Wednesday, March 26, 08:21:54pm [1]

Yes it does eliminate him as being considered a good president. It shouldn't have to because of all the good things he did in his presidency, but like you mentioned he is most remembered for the scandal. The media and people found a mistake he made and blew it up. So instead of remembering Nixon for the good things he did, many will know him for his scandal.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Leanne Bilo, Wednesday, March 26, 08:59:10pm [1]

In my response, I said that Nixon was not eliminated from being considered a good president, but I can see what John means. Even though he did a lot of good things he is remembered for the Watergate, so essentially all the good things he did for the United States has been discredited.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Leanne Bilo, Wednesday, March 26, 08:37:39pm [1]

President Nixon was guilty of a really bad scandal, but the watergate scandal doesn't change the fact that he was sucessful with foriegn policy. Like how he ended the Vietnam War and was the first president to begin peace talks with Russia and China. I don't think that the Watergate scandal eliminates Nixon from being considered a good president. Even though this scandal caused him to resign, these days most presidents have some kind of scandal that they are infamous for. But it doesn't matter how many good things you do, people always focus on the one bad thing.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Marc DeMattie, Wednesday, March 26, 10:11:30pm [1]

I do not think that it should eliminate him from being considered a good president as he did so many great things for this nation. Like Mr.Davis said, he ended the Vietnam War had peace talks with Russia and China and did much more. However, the watergate scandel does diminish his presidency. When people think of Nixon most say, is he the guy in the Watergate scandel? Also, people want to know what have you done for me lately. So when Nixon was president, everyone loved him, but when the scandel occured they could not believe what he did and is now remembered as a scandelous person because of a misfortunate wrong doing.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Maria Yorgakaros, Wednesday, March 26, 10:18:38pm [1]

The Watergate scandal did indeed eliminate Nixon from being considered a good president. Although he did many successful things throughout his presidency, such as pulling out of the Vietnam War and formulating relations with China and Russia, the scandal was extremely serious. A person that feels the need to cheat his way into the presidency does not deserve the right to make the decisions for his country. Clearly, he cannot even make valid decisions for himself, and he therefore brought upon himself his reputation.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Nick Giori, Thursday, March 27, 12:32:54am [1]

When someone holds a position like president, there are very strict guidelines they must follow. In holding such an influential office, you have to monitor your actions and make sure that you're not doing anything that you wouldn't want those whom you lead to do, so it is understandable that breaking the law can deeply tarnish your reputation. However, this is not to say that Nixon didn't perform helpful and honorable tasks as president, because he indeed did, but there is more to being a "good" president than just doing just service. Presidents we might consider "good" such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were good not only because of the duties they performed, but also because of how they presented themselves: as people embodying the morality they wished to see in all Americans. To be a good president you must also be a good leader, and to be a good leader you must handle yourself properly, regardless of how you might have helped your country in the past.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Alexandra Alexiades, Thursday, March 27, 01:15:12pm [1]

It's important that Nick pointed out that there is a difference between being a good president in your decisions but also in the way you present yourself to the American people. I like how he linked this to previous years by mentioning Washington and Lincoln and how they were not only good presidents but they had good morals as well. Every president should follow these guidelines in order to be consider a "good" president.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Ruby R, Monday, April 07, 06:46:46pm [1]

Though I disagree with most of what Nixon did, I think that, unlike what Nick was suggesting, a president can be useful despite a moral failing. It is well known that Lincoln although the emancipator, owned slaves; and almost any other iconic president you pick out will have similar failings. I think Nixon's blunder was huge, and should no way be disregarded, but I think it would also be foolish to ignore his largely useful work in foreign policy (i.e. opening up China and establishing a working relationship)

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Casey Modderno, Thursday, March 27, 07:34:01am [1]

In modern politics, politicians are constantly doing shady things that they don't want the public to know about. This keeps a lot of things out of the public's eye, and therefore, when a situation like Watergate occurs, it gets blown out of hand by the media and public. However, modern-day politicians still use means to uncover dirt on their opponents, a current example would be Hilary's use of dirt on Obama. Although she may not bug his office, as Nixon's men had been caught doing, she still goes about attaining her information in a sketchy manner. The difference is that Nixon's own men were caught in the office, and more current politicians usually go through other firms to do so.
That being said, if Nixon had truely achieved some positive things for the United States, then he should be viewed upon for his achievements, and not some silly mix-up he had while in office.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Nixon -- Sean Lilley, Thursday, March 27, 11:02:14pm [1]

Well, I wouldn't say that the Watergate Scandal was "some silly mix-up", but I definitely agree that many politicians are involved with similar undercover operations that if exposed could easily ruin their reputation like what happened to Nixon. It's amazing how people will often judge an entire presidential career by a single incriminating event rather than look at the reforms and changes (or lack thereof) that define a President's career. I thought the example with Hilary Clinton was a nice tie this all in to current events.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Alexandra Alexiades, Thursday, March 27, 01:21:02pm [1]

Even though the Watergate Scandal was controversial because the President was involved with things he should not have been, I would not consider him to be a bad president. Nixon did provide a lot of good things for the American people and the country as a whole. I give him a lot of credit for the way he handled the situation in Vietnam. He could have done a couple of things differently, like not bomb Cambodia, however, that was not any deciding factor as to whether or not the US won the war so it does not have that much impact. It just caused a little bit of controversy amongst the citizens in the US. President Nixon's policies of Vietnamization and the Nixon Doctrine were the keys to getting out of the war in Vietnam. It was good strategy to slowly pull out the US troops and allow the SOuth Vietnamese to fight the remainder of the war by themselves, however, we still sent sufficient military aid and financial support. Nixon was a good president, despite his involvement in the Watergate Scandal.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Amanda MacAvoy, Thursday, March 27, 07:56:43pm [1]

Nixon should still be considered a good president, regardless of the Watergate scandal. The media loves scandal, and tends to overemphasize the bad about people and leave out the good. Watergate is a reflection on Nixon's personality and his capacity for corruption, not a reflection of his abilities as a leader. Nixon was the first President to engage in peace talks in Russia, and he ended the Vietnam war. One scandal should not overshadow all the good Nixon did as President.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Sean Lilley, Thursday, March 27, 10:49:19pm [1]

It's unfortunate, but the Watergate Scandal does eliminate Nixon from being considered a good President. Its always nice to remember a past president for all his positive decisions, but ultimately those negative stories are the ones that remain through time. We even see this now with Bill Clinton's reputation. Though he had a successful presidency in which he improved the economy tremendously, his affair with Monica Lewinsky will always eclipse all the positive attributes of his career. The fact is, people like gossip more than straight cold facts and clearly we see this with Nixon's presidency. I do not condone the Watergate Scandal by any means, but really all Presidents deal with secret and even illegal affairs - it just so happened that Nixon was caught. The Watergate Scandal does not ruin Nixon's great Presidency, but it does ruin the public's consideration of him as a good President.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Nixon -- Ruby, Monday, April 07, 06:53:26pm [1]

I think that even though Nixon certainly messed up with the Watergate scandal, he can still be looked back on a s a useful president. He laid very important groundwork for peaceful relations with China in a time when such a relationship seemed nearly impossible. That working relationship is still incredibly important today as China rises ever faster in the global market. This, coupled with his work with Russia and the Arab oil crisis, points to him being a useful - though far from perfect - president.

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

Replies:

[> Re: LBJ -- Kristen Fassbender, Wednesday, March 05, 02:44:23pm [1]

2. The war in Vietnam affected United States' involvement in the current dealing with Iraq. In Vietnam, the US was shown that increasing American force is not necessarily the best method for the US to use. They realized that they must use diplomacy in Iraq and work on building the government to help them gain some independence instead of just sending more troops and taking control of the nation. The naive belief that the war could be won with limited casualties was also destroyed. Overall, Vietnam gave the US a lot more experience in dealing with Iraq and provided them with a much more realistic mentality with which to base their operations. (Regardless of whether or not they used the experience.)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Nick Giori, Thursday, March 06, 04:10:27pm [1]

Kristen is right when she says that we've realized that we need to use different diplomatic tactics in Iraq than in any other war we have waged except the Vietnam War, so we can use what we learned there in this instance. But also, the fighting environments are also similar to eachother, but not to other wars we've fought. The Vietnam War really gave US troops a sense of how bitter and ruthless the pain of war can be. In Vietnam, US troops had to fight in unfamiliar terrain where anyone could have been their enemy, an enemy who could stand next to you without your knowing. There, the horrors of war were many. Similarly in Iraq, US troops must fight in blistering heat where enemy troops can pop up out of no where and ambush troops, employing gorrilla warfare tactics which were also used in Vietnam. Vietnam gave us an idea of how bad things can be, so now it isn't as much of a shock to the system when troops muct fight in such terrible conditions.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: LBJ -- Margaret Huey, Saturday, March 08, 12:34:53pm [1]

I agree with Kristen and Nick in the ways that Vietnam could have prepared US militarily for the current war in Iraq. However, I think that the US would have done well to not only analyze the conditions of the actual fighting but with the outcome as well. If they had done this, they would have seen that getting involved with a country where we have very little reason to be invovled has previously ended rather messily.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Emily Rosier, Wednesday, March 05, 03:37:22pm [1]

1. I think that Johnson's strategy of war in Vietnam was unsuccessful because no matter how many American soldiers were placed in Vietnam, the fighting tactics that the Viet Cong used were so extreme that numbers were unimportant. Also, because of the Viet Cong guerrillas doing things such as have 14-year-olds pop out of no where from the dense forest and pull out a gun on an American soldier, "minimal loss of life on both sides" was inescapable. As more American soldiers came into Vietnam, more guerrilla fighters of the Viet Cong appeared to fight back.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Steve Hunt, Thursday, March 06, 03:57:45pm [1]

I agree with Emily here because the Viet Cong and North Vietnam soldiers used tactics that were never seen or used before in the USA. It was also a bit of a problem that the young kids from Vietnam would shoot us also. We would not know whether or not to try and kill them or if they were going to try and kill us. There was no safe people in Vietnam. We were unable to defend the onslaught of guerilla warfare from these groups and it eventually led to our defeat in the Vietnam conflict.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Nick Giori, Wednesday, March 05, 06:10:40pm [1]


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Erin Sullivan, Sunday, March 09, 09:06:17pm [1]

I agree with Nick. The United States was fighting in unfamiliar territory and was not even really aware of the real enemy. The American soldiers were killing innocent women and children which defeated Johnsons plan of a fine tuned battle with a minimum life loss on both sides. Death was clearly not a minimum if villages were being invaded and children were being killed. Another good point that Nick brings up is the loss of support from the Americans at home. They could see the war at first hand with the new television technology and seeing what was going on. The lack of support from home did not help the soldiers when fighting.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Nick Giori, Wednesday, March 05, 06:32:18pm [1]

I think that Johnson's strategy was unsuccessful for a couple reasons. First, American soldiers were fighting in extremely dense jungles and forest regions, and to top it off, the land was completely unfamiliar to them. The idea of "Who is the enemy?" was ever present because not only was vision limited to a few feet in front of you, if even that much, but there were so many people fighting against America employing whomever they please, including children. Essentially, it was an extremely challenging and dangerous terrain where they were fighting. Also, after the Tet Offensive, Johnson lost virtually all support from the American people for the war. This surely demoralized the troops and further weakened their ability to fight.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Kyle Frost, Saturday, March 08, 05:40:49pm [1]

Nick brings up a good point. It is important for an army to be backed up by its country, and eventually, the United States lost support from home. This weakened the US army's morale and the overall reputation of the United States. The country was fighting a war that many of its own people did not support.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: LBJ -- John Sember, Sunday, March 09, 09:14:56pm [1]

I agree with Nick and Kyle. It is not good/doesn't look good when your country is involved in a war that it's citizens do not support. Especially when the country is supposed to be a strong country with a good army, but is losing to a bunch of little guerrilla fighters.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Steve Hunt, Thursday, March 06, 03:55:05pm [1]

I do not think that this policy was effective because it does not matter how many troops that you put into Vietnam. The forest was too dense to see anything and the North Vietman soliders knew their way around it and we didn't. They were able to strategically place their men and they knew what they were doing and they were able to trap us into spots that would be difficult to get out of. Also, the North had something to fight for. They were fighting for freedom and they were going to take no prisoners and die instead of being taken prisoners by us. The American troops had nothing to fight for besides our own safety.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Dylan RoyDavis, Saturday, March 08, 09:41:31am [1]

Yes that is a good point to why it failed. By steadily sending in more troops, the president was basically just feeding lives to the jungle. It only made it so now more troops feared for their safety. A smaller force of more elite troops built for this kind of warfare would have fared better.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Emily Rosier, Saturday, March 08, 04:48:20pm [1]

I agree with Steve's point that the Vietnamese guerrilla soldiers knew their way through the dense jungles better than the American soldiers did. Along with strategically placing Viet Cong soldiers in the jungle, they seemed to have an actual reason to be fighting for, as opposed to the American soldiers who only were concerned with their own safety.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Alex Alexiades, Sunday, March 09, 09:46:50pm [1]

Steve made a good point in saying that the Vietnamese knew their way around the jungle and for the US it was just a foreign territory that we wandered around in. It was difficult to fight a war in such jungle conditions and the fact that the troops did not know where they were going just added to the list of problems. More importantly it made the situation more dangerous for the Americans.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Dylan RoyDavis, Saturday, March 08, 09:38:51am [1]

I believe it failed because this wasn't a war that you would be able to win through brute force. The dense jungle and multitude of different enemies made making advancements very difficult, and guerilla warfare was constantly picking off American troops as they were unfamiliar with the land. Strategy and caution were what the United States needed, not a steady increase in soldiers.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Leanne Bilo, Sunday, March 09, 04:30:18pm [1]

I completely agree with Dylan. Because we had more than just one group of enemies that made it even harder and the jungle was so terrible the Americans could barely see. They also couldn't trust anyone because anyone could have been a part of the Viet Cong. They definitely should have tried thinking of some better plans and stategies instead of just sending in more people to die.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Margaret Huey, Saturday, March 08, 12:31:12pm [1]

Johnson's plan for a policy of “a fine-tuned, step-by-step increase in American force [that] would drive the enemy to defeat with a minimum loss of life on both sides” was most likely unsuccessful because the type of fighting invovled with Vietnam was so different than any other kind of fighting that the US had ever been involved with before. The soldiers were forced to traverse through extremely dense and foreign jungles and it was also impossible to tell who was a friend and who was an enemy. Such conditions increased the normal stress level of war for the soldiers so that they sometimes made poor desicions. With such factors, it was impossible for any sort of warfare involving Vietnam to be successful and this is why Johnson's plan failed.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Marc DeMattie, Sunday, March 09, 05:37:59pm [1]

Margaret obviously President Johnson's policy was unsuccessful. It's not a most likely and it's because of the reasons that you stated about the terrain and how you did not know who you were fighting. Johnson said that there would be minimum death on both sides but in the end a total of about 5.4 million people were killed as a result of the Vietnam War. This plan seems like a complete failure to me.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Kristen Fassbender, Sunday, March 09, 06:34:30pm [1]

I think Margaret makes some very good points, especially when she discusses the terrain. The enemy fighters know the dense jungles and can use them as an advantage and kill many US soldiers. An increase in troops would only increase the targets and the death toll. His plan was doomed to fail because he does not mention any new methods of fighting, and that was really the thing needed.

PS: Marc, I think you misinterpretted Margaret's use of "most likely." She was just saying that the reason for failure was most likely what she went on to say.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: LBJ -- Allison Barwise, Monday, March 10, 12:02:53am [1]

I agree with Margaret, it must have been extremely stressful for the American soldiers, they were confused most of the time and didn’t know what quite else to do but kill everyone in sight which got them into some trouble. I could never imagine being in their position and having to kill a child that was coming at you with a gun. I think they became paranoid and terrorized by the things they saw and therefore killed the innocent people.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Kyle Frost, Saturday, March 08, 05:34:12pm [1]

1. President Johnson's policy of gradually increasing American forces for minimal losses was unsuccessful for a number of reasons. In Vietnam, much of the war was fought by guerilla forces, and often, the American soldiers had no idea who they were fighting. Any young kid could pull out a gun and start shooting. However all the Vietnamese people knew who was an American, so any members of the VietCong could easily pick off a US soldier. Also, members of the US army were not trained to fight in the dense forest of Vietnam. As Johnson sent more soldiers to Vietnam, more were killed, and the war dragged on.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Leanne Bilo, Sunday, March 09, 04:18:03pm [1]

1. The method of step by step increase of the American troops didn't keep the deaths at a minimum, and wasn't sucessful because of the way people were fighting. There was a lot of guerilla warfare going on and the Americans were in the jungle and weren't used to that kind of fighting. There was the Viet Cong that we were always looking for and there was the North Vietnamese army. I don't see how there could ever be a minimum loss of life when people were ordering soldiers to just go into villages and kill everyone they saw. It didn't matter how many soldiers were sent into Vietnam because we didn't know exactly who we were fighting. People that the Americans would never expect would turn around and shoot them.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Amanda MacAvoy, Sunday, March 09, 06:02:16pm [1]

I agree with Leanne in the sense that Johnson's method of winning the war by increasing the amount of American soldiers sent to Vietnam was flawed. Rather than sending more young Americans to their deaths, Johnson and his advisors should have considered alternate fighting strategies; they were up against butal guerilla warfare and should have acted in accordance with the situation.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Samantha Samuelson, Tuesday, March 11, 09:58:37pm [1]

I also agree, in that slowly increasing the number of troops was simply a bad idea. The main problem we faced in Vietnam was guerrilla warfare, and US's morality would not allow us to fight back with equal levels of terrorism. One solution would have been to send in more troops at the very begining, or to simply avoid the war completely.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Marc DeMattie, Sunday, March 09, 05:27:39pm [1]

1. There were many reasons as to why President Johnson's policy was unsuccessful in the Vietnam War. There was no way as to keeping the war “with a minimum loss of life on both sides” anywhere remotely possible. I mean the Vietnam War was like no other. The terrain was different as the U.S. had not been involved in forest fighting before. The NVA and the Viet Cong also used guerilla tactics and other surprise tactics that the U.S. was not ready for. Also, the Viet Cong and the NVA also had better suited weapons for the jungle war instead of the U.S. The U.S. also did not know who to fight and kill and who to be friendly with as young , women, and old civilians would greet them one day and then try and kill them the next day. Plus with the war lasting for basically forever, the amount of deaths and the attitude towards the war got worse and worse by the day.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Amanda MacAvoy, Sunday, March 09, 06:09:20pm [1]

1)President Johnson’s Vietnam policy of “a fine-tuned, step-by-step increase in American force [that] would drive the enemy to defeat with a minimum loss of life on both sides” was unsuccessful because it was not the right strategy for the situation. While in regular warfare sending more troops would help, in this case, it just resulted in more lives being lost in Vietnam. American soldiers were fighting an unseen enemy in unfamiliar territory, and they were unprepared. Johnson should have focused on strategies to combat guerilla warfare instead of responding to the crisis in Vietnam as he would to combating an enemy which adhered to the rules of warfare. The strategy employed by Johnson did the exact opposite of defeating the enemy "with a minimum loss of life on both sides;” by increasing the troops sent to Vietnam, he was just increasing the number of American soldiers that would be killed.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Maria Yorgakaros, Sunday, March 09, 10:28:41pm [1]

Amanda brings up a very good point. The U.S. soliders were both unprepared and unfamiliar with the area, which made many American deaths inevitable. She is very correct in saying Johsnon's policy was not only unsuccessful, but it did the exact opposite of what he was intending it to do.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Erin Sullivan, Sunday, March 09, 09:00:04pm [1]

1) President Johnson's Vietnam policy was unsuccessful for many reasons. A major reason was that this was a war unlike any other. Due to the extremely dense jungle, unarmored helicopters, and unfamiliar enemy there was no way to prevent a major loss of life on either side. The United States was not familiar with fighting in a forest and was also unfamiliar with the guerilla tactics that the Viet Cong and NVA planned to us. The United States was a makor disadvantage with being unfamilar to the strategies of the enemy. PResident Johnson's plan of a fine tuned defeat with minimum death from both sides was not realistic because he with the US did not know the tactics of the enemy.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- John Sember, Sunday, March 09, 09:05:25pm [1]

1. It was unsuccessful because of the guerrilla warfare and the dense jungle. The US wasn't prepared for that type of fighting. Who was the enemy? -Sometimes they did not know who was good or bad. Also, they were at a disadvantage being in a dense jungle. Where is the enemy? It's a little challenging to successfully win a fight when you don't know where you are, where to go, or who to fight. The US soldiers were probably very lost and confused which is why it was unsuccessful.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Sean, Monday, March 10, 08:23:52pm [1]

John is correct when he talks about how dangerous it was to not only not know where the enemy was going to attack from but also who the enemy was. Another danger was the risk of disease. A large percentage of people on the Ho Chi Mihn Trail died of disease not enemy attacks. This made survival extremely difficut as each soldier was fighting to survive in so many ways.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Alex Alexiades, Sunday, March 09, 10:20:44pm [1]

President Johnson's policy in Vietnam was unsuccessful for a couple of reasons. Slowly increasing the amount of American troops sent to Vietnam wouldn't automatically have a positive effect on the situation. It is a great risk to send any amount of troops into this war especially given such extreme and dangerous conditions. This is a controversial policy because not everyone agrees that the US should be sending more troops into a country where we are already failing to get our job done and help defeat the enemy. It puts many more lives at risk to send more troops in and there were so many people dying and that had died already that it would only make it worse if more lives were lost. It also costs money to fight war, and the more people you have fighting on your side, the more you have to pay, not only in money but it lives and well being of the people in our home country as well.

It also isn't fair for President Johnson to say that this will create a minimum loss of life on obth sides of the war. He cannot guarantee such a thing because obviously people are going to die because of the jungle and the nepalm used and agent orange that was used, which was killing people, and the fighting was killing people. So many people had already died, so by sending more troops in, even though the intention might be that it will help fight the war and defeat the enemy, it is basically an automatic death sentence because we clearly failed in this battle. The more people you put in the war, the more that there are to die. So, Johnson's policy with Vietnam was unsuccessful because it was not logical and could not work given the situation in Vietnam and what had already happened in the war so far.

The war in Vietnam effected the US in the current dealings with Iraq because it seems that our country is following the same policy as Johnson set for Vietnam. We are sending in more and more troops in hopes that it will eventually help defeat the enemy. But that is so unclear in the war against terrorism in Iraq because there isnt exactly one side against the other in my opinion, but i could be wrong. There clearly is a failure going on in Iraq tho because we are sending more troops in and they are getting killed or severely injured and there is a very little success rate. It is tallying up this huge bill for the US and costing so much money to be in the Middle East fighting the war against terrorism which is even worse because it has created a huge debt for our country. That is how the war in Vietnam is in connection with the situation in Iraq.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Casey Modderno, Monday, March 10, 07:41:50pm [1]

I agree with what you're saying about the number of troops, and why the strategy was flawed, but I think no matter how many troops they sent in, regardless of when or how frequently, there would be oppositiong. The people in opposition to the SV government felt THAT strongly about overthrowing it.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Maria Yorgakaros, Sunday, March 09, 10:23:38pm [1]

1. I think that this strategy was unsuccessful for two main reasons;location, and the opponent's strategies. Firstly, this war took place in the forest-like terrain. For this reason, it was very difficult to safely navigate in this unfamiliar, dense jungle. Also, the opponents were very tricky in that they snuck up on U.S. soldiers in the most unexpected places. These two components made Johnson's policy impossible to achieve.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Melissa Anderson, Sunday, March 09, 10:39:42pm [1]

I agree with Maria that President Johnson's policy was unsuccessful because of the unfamiliarity with the terrain and the opponent's tactics. The dense jungle and guerilla warfare made it near impossible for the US to come out on top. However, not knowing who the enemy was also contributed to the US's loss. Since any common person walking around could have a weapon, the American soldiers were easily attacked.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Melissa Anderson, Sunday, March 09, 10:33:47pm [1]

President Johnson’s Vietnam policy of “a fine-tuned, step-by-step increase in American force [that] would drive the enemy to defeat with a minimum loss of life on both sides” was unsuccessful for various reasons. First off, the United States soldiers were completely unfamiliar with the Vietnamese terrain. They were fighting in a jungle that was so dense, it was impossible to see a few feet forward. This made it easy for the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army to hide and attack the US, since they were familiar with the area. Additionally, the American soldiers were not used to fighthing against guerilla tactics. Not knowing who the enemy was made it even more difficult to defend themselves. Each new soldier sent into vietnam was another soldier dead, therefore, President Johnson's policy did not work.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Sean Lilley, Wednesday, March 12, 09:41:18pm [1]

I agree completely. Compared to the North Vietnamese troops who had extensive experience fighting in the jungle, we had none. The whole inexperience factor made it nearly impossible for the statistics of the war to match up to Johnson's claims.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Sean Lilley, Sunday, March 09, 11:30:28pm [1]

1. Johnson's "step by step" tactic in Vietnam was largely unsuccessful because we had never fought in such unique conditions as in Vietnam. Were we had in previous wars fought in cities or on flat land, the Vietnam jungle was a bane on even the most strategic and "fine tuned" plans. The enemy that we were facing was also unlike never before. They were guerrillas who had lived and trained in the jungle (no pun intended), and their methods were arbitrary and unpredictable. Johnson was probably just trying to keep America's hopes up when he said this because we could not easily win the war in Vietnam under any circumstances except a nuclear bomb.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: LBJ -- Sean Lilley, Sunday, March 09, 11:35:13pm [1]

I agree completely. Compared to the North Vietnamese troops who had extensive experience fighting in the jungle, we had none. The whole inexperience factor made it nearly impossible for the statistics of the war to match up to Johnson's claims.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: LBJ -- Sean Lilley, Wednesday, March 12, 09:40:27pm [1]

Sorry, this was meant to go to Melissa...

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Allison Barwise, Sunday, March 09, 11:55:33pm [1]

I think Johnson’s strategy was unsuccessful for of many reasons. Primarily, the soldiers in Vietnam didn’t know who they were fighting, they could not tell the difference between a towns person and a towns person that was about to kill them. They were also on very unfamiliar territory, “It was a war unlike any other.” The dense jungle made it even more difficult for the soldiers to find and successfully kill the already hard to detect Viet Cong. By having Johnson sent in more and more troops it only added to the number of deaths instead of reducing them because whatever we sent the guerrillas would kill. Finally, when the American soldiers didn’t know what else to do they started killing innocent villagers which made the people at home rethink their support for the war.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Casey Modderno, Monday, March 10, 07:37:14pm [1]

1. It was unsuccessful because of the South Vietnamese government and how it was viewed by those in Vietnam. After the assasination of Diem, the government was hectic and was never successful in reastablishing itself. This made it unclear what the country's intentions were and made many of the locals uneasy. Also, due to a huge dislike of the SV government, the Vietcong provided internal pressure and caused us to have to fend from all sides. It also accounted for the "madness" during the war; we were never certain who was who.
2. It seems as though many people are labeling Iraq as another Vietnam, meaning that we're just using up weapons, funds, and lives and not acheiving anything. Because of this, many are demanding the withdrawl of our troops, saying that we won't be successful. (Also, many feel like this is a pointless war, which is similar to many feelings during Vietnam)

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Sean Sullivan, Monday, March 10, 08:20:46pm [1]

This was unsuccessful because of all the dangers of Vietnam. United States troops were plauged by guerrilla warfare, disease and not knowing who was their enemy. Not being able to realize who was friend or foe made United States troops fearful of everyone. Everyone who came across their path had the potential to be an enemy. This made survival very difficult and made LBJ's plan unsuccessful.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Ruby, Tuesday, March 11, 01:06:00am [1]

After Vietnam, public support for military action was quite low, and the similarities between the conflict in Iraq and Vietnam has impacted the way people look at the war in Iraq.Because of Vietnam, many people became very resentful of the draft, meaning reinstating it will be avoided as much as possible. With voluntary resistant constantly dropping, there is little we can do to keep troop numbers up. Also, as the war in Vietnam became more and more unpopular, many US people became adverse to the idea of trying to fix a foreign government.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Saman, Tuesday, March 11, 09:42:45pm [1]


[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: LBJ -- Samantha Samuelson, Tuesday, March 11, 09:50:57pm [1]

2. The Vietnam war effected the current situation in Iraq in several ways. Firstly, it taught the US about guerrilla warfare, which we first encountered in the Phillipino rebellion, but still didn't fully understand untill Vietnam. The war also shows us that the most important aspect of a war where we are helping another country in what is basically a civil war is to establish a government, so that the US is not left holding the country togeth both politically and militarily. However, I think some people in the US government feel compeled to succeed in Iraq, to compensate for our failure in Vietnam.

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

Replies:

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Amanda MacAvoy, Friday, February 08, 11:42:53am [1]

President Eisenhower promised to end the Korean War, and the way he went about doing this was the most significant foreign policy event of his career. He made a secret trip to Korea to try and make peace. Once there, he not only revived peace talks, but also visited American soldiers near the front lines. Eight months after Eisenhower returned to America, in July 1953, an Armistice was signed which identified the 38th parallel as the official border between North and South Korea, and it was made a demilitarized zone.
Eisenhower's expert handling of this situation not only showed that America, along with other countries in the UN, was capable of effectively ending a war without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons, but also spared thousands of American lives, as soldiers were able to return home one the war was over.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Dylan RoyDavis, Monday, February 11, 12:54:46pm [1]

Yes you make some very good points in supporting why ending the Korean War was Eisenhower's most important decision. He handled it very professionally and efficiently. Coming to the battlefront yourself is an amazing act of courage, which inspired peace on both sides.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Alli Barwise, Wednesday, February 13, 11:38:56pm [1]

You make a good point Amanda, ending the Korean War was key and he handled it all very well. Many Presidents would have resorted to atomic bombs but he negotiated his way to peace and like you said saved countless numbers of lifes.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Emily Rosier, Thursday, February 14, 04:34:54pm [1]

I agree with Amanda. By ending the Korean War peacefully, Eisenhower gave the US and the rest of the world confidence in him as a president. In not resorting to nuclear warfare, Eisenhower showed the world his maturity and diplomacy.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Dylan RoyDavis, Monday, February 11, 12:56:45pm [1]


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Dylan RoyDavis, Monday, February 11, 01:02:38pm [1]

Eisenhower's most important foreign policy was probably when he chose to try and end the Korean War. He even went so far as to show up at the actual place of battle, supporting the troops and peace movements in Korea. Eisenhower showed his ability to handle things with the pen rather then the sword, which had not been demonstrated by the United States in a long time. Eventually due to his efforts the 38th parallel was made a demilitarized zone.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- John Sember, Wednesday, February 13, 07:48:31pm [1]

I agree too, that Eisenhower doing what he did to end the Korean War was very significant and successful. If he had not ended the war, Korea could be all communist and thats no good. Eisenhower ending the Korean War, kept communism contained and created peace.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Margaret Huey, Thursday, February 14, 05:08:14pm [1]

I agree that one Eisenhower's most important desicions that he made in the white house was the desicion to end the Korean war. He handled this situation extremely well and took the best steps possible.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- John Sember, Wednesday, February 13, 07:44:42pm [1]

I think one of the most successful foreign policy things Eisenhower did was create NASA. Many people may disagree and some may say NASA is a waste of time and money but I believe it is successful because NASA keeps the United States in the future. Space research is what will shape the future. Space research back then is the same as now. It is a competition. NASA being a United States administration puts the US in as one of the top space leaders among other countries. So NASA was one of the more successful foreign policies made by Eisenhower because it is still around today and it has accomplished many things, things that have put the United States ahead of other countries.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Sean Sullivan, Thursday, February 14, 10:14:24pm [1]

I believe that NASA was not significant foreign policy issue during Eisenhower's administration. Although important, the creation of NASA had no major positive or major negative impact on daily life in America. I believe the U-2 spy plane incident was more significant because it had a major negative impact on Soviet and America relations. After the incident occurred tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States intensified and the fear of the America people began to grow. As a result of how poorly Eisenhower handled this situation relations between the two giant powers in the world were severely strained. This in my opinion makes the biggest foreign policy issue during Eisenhower's tenure.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Alli Barwise, Wednesday, February 13, 11:30:06pm [1]

I believe that Eisenhower’s most significant foreign policy was the creation of NASA. The Soviets were three artificial satellites and on dog ahead of us when President Eisenhower told the army team that we needed to launch our own. He later created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in hopes to beat the Soviets to the moon since we had already lost in the race to space. The creation of NASA was critical because it occurred in the middle of the Cold War and at the time anything that could be done to outdo the Soviets was well appreciated at home and to the government. If we had not created NASA and just let the Russians win it would have seemed as if the U.S. was weaker and that we would not have been able to stand up to the more power Soviets. I believe that Eisenhower needed to create NASA to keep the people hopes up and fears down.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Steve Hunt, Thursday, February 14, 10:41:55am [1]

I agree with Alli in this case because the Space Race was a major factor in the Cold War. NASA created a non-violent space program that gave us the benefit of looking good and gaining more intelligence about our own solar system. If the Soviets had defeated us here and we had just given up, we would look very weak and the people of the United States would not look very highly on the leadership of our country. By creating NASA, we created a highly intelligent base of people to launch us into history. This historic program made us a super power among other countries and gave our own country something to be proud of.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Ray Huang, Thursday, February 14, 09:09:37pm [1]

I think that NASA's creation was important, but in a different way. The US and USSR were both so concentrated in the space race that some of the friction and hostility stemming from nuclear weapons were subdued. If these two nations weren't so busy building space shuttles, then they probably would have spent that time developing better ways to attack each other, and there might have actually been a nuclear war.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Steve Hunt, Thursday, February 14, 10:33:38am [1]

I believe that Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower’s most important policy that achieved was his Eisenhower Doctrine established in January 1957. Eisenhower protected countries in the Middle East that were in trouble or that were under the threat of communism. It proposed “to use armed force to counter aggression from any country controlled by international communism.” The Middle East was a huge part of the oil production and still is today. By trying to protect this area, he made us look good to those countries and they would be more likely to trade with us for oil. Eisenhower saw that oil was a major factor that would eventually control the way Americans lived their lives

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Marc DeMattie, Thursday, February 14, 11:11:37am [1]

I believe that President Eisenhower's most successful foreign policy was the Eisenhower Doctrine. It was the most successful because it stated that the U.S. would go to war with the communist countries if they tried to spread their ways into the Middle East. He also feared the Domino theory like Truman and because of this he wanted to make sure that the Middle East was free of communism. If the Middle East was free of communism then the U.S. can negotiate with the Middle East as regards to oil without their being any concern of it. Mr. Kuzma thinks you are stupid Mr. Davis.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Emily Rosier, Thursday, February 14, 04:31:25pm [1]

I think that Eisenhower's most successful foreign policy was ending the Korean War. He did so even before his inauguration, because that's what he promised to do during the campaigns. Already, it showed that he was going to be an efficient president by fulfilling his promises. Also, putting an end to the Korean War helped contain communism, which was a huge concern for Americans during the Cold War. Although North Korea remained communist, South Korea was "saved" by Eisenhower's peace treaty. Eisenhower's end to the Korean War paved the way for him being able to focus on other aspects of the Cold War, such as the space race, and the upcoming Vietnam War. His immediate response to the Korean War gave hope to the public, and preserved the image of the US as thought of by other countries.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Erin Sullivan, Thursday, February 14, 09:10:35pm [1]

I agree with Marc in that the Eisenhower Doctrine was a very successful foreign policy of President Eisenhower. The US did not want a domino theory of communism to occur and so the US stated they would enter war with communist countries that tried to spread communism into the Middle East. I agree with Marc's points that if the Middle East were to be free of communism, then the US could negotiate issues such as oil with the Middle East, without being concerned of them as a communist country.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Ruby Rodell, Thursday, February 14, 11:27:10pm [1]

I agree, and I also think it is important to think about what would have happened had Eisenhower not ended the Korean war when he did. The violence could have continued for decades, and though the relationship between North and South Korea are far from friendly, the threat of a full out war is now highly unlikely.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Margaret Huey, Thursday, February 14, 04:47:08pm [1]

Dwight D. Eisenhower had to handle many different foreign policy events during his presidency. One of the most important situations that he handled was the U-2 plan incident in which the United States had a plane spying on the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union discovered this and shot the plane down and confronted the United States about this. When the US was confronted by the Soviet Union about the fact that they had a spy plane, the US denied it until the Soviet Union revealed that they had found the plane and shot it down. This situation was handled extremely poorly. During the Cold War, tensions were already extremely high between the US and the Soviet Union and Eisenhower should have been more careful with what he chose to do regarding the Soviet Union. The United States is lucky that all the Soviet Union did was confront us; they could have used it as an excuse to attack. The world was on the brink of war, Eisenhower nearly tipped it over the edge with this desicion. Although he did make some very good and beneficial desicions, this was one area in which he could have made some improvement.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Sean Lilley, Thursday, February 14, 08:09:12pm [1]

Very good point. I hadn't even thought about the U-2 incident. What's interesting about your take on this week's forum is that you disagree with a foreign policy issue rather than support one. I agree with your point that Eisenhower's administration should have been more careful, especially at such a tense time in US and Soviet relations. In fact, the U-2 incident could have almost started a war if we weren't so lucky.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Samantha Samuelson, Thursday, February 14, 08:39:38pm [1]

I think you're right that this was a critical decision, and was poorly made. Had Eisenhower handled the decision defferently, the cold war may have ended much sooner. This also helped strengthen the trend of deception on the part of the US government, instead of helping to ease the tensions of the cold war.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Sean Lilley, Thursday, February 14, 08:02:36pm [1]

The Hungarian Revolution was an extremely important issue for Eisenhower's administration. Though the Soviet Union did invade Hungary and the people were rebelling back, Eisenhower chose not to intervene with direct military force. This move seemingly went against the principles of containment and the Domino Theory, but it was the right decision. Eisenhower realized that aiding the Hungarian Revolution, a relatively minor conflict on the world scale, could turn to a conflict between the US and the USSR, the world's two greatest powers. The reason this event was so significant to Eisenhower's foreign policy is that it established the limits of containment and recognized the extreme danger of going directly against the Soviet Union.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Casey Modderno, Friday, February 15, 07:48:26am [1]

I disagree with you Sean, we did have some role in the Hungarian role. Through the project of Radio Free Europe, we provided the Hungarians with anticommunist radio broadcasts which constantly assured the military aid of the US. From the beginning we were NEVER planing on intervening, yet we still built up the hopes of the Hungarians. Many Hungarians from that point on have felt betrayed by the US and held it against us. Also, the USSR had intercepted these broadcasts and the anti-Soviet message we were spreading to the boarder nations of the USSR created some hostilities between us. Although these were mostly CIA actions, they must be approved by the president before being put into effect. I don't think we were being honest in regards to our dealing in Hungary, and therefore I disagree that he handled the situation perfectly.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Samantha Samuelson, Thursday, February 14, 08:32:13pm [1]

I think Eisenhower's most important decision was interfering in Iran. When the CIA became involved in Iran's politics, it marked the begining of several CIA intervenions in other countries. It also indicated that the US had lost sight of all other goals or values, and focused solely on defeating communism, using any means necessary, without consideration of the morality of it's actions. From this point on Eisenhower, and many of his successors, saw matters as black and white, either for or against communisn, and failed to take any other considerations into account.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Kyle Frost, Thursday, February 14, 09:37:37pm [1]

Sam makes a really good point. The US probably should have focused on matters beyond containing communism and looked at issues from all angles. Although Eisenhower's major goal was to contain communism, he should have considered all the aspects of such a large issue.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Ray Huang, Thursday, February 14, 09:05:44pm [1]

President Eisenhower's most significant foreign policy action, in my opinion, was participating in the Geneva Conference in 1954 by sending John Dulles. It ended the Indochina war and split Vietnam into North and South. This was important because if he hadn't agreed to this, the war would have dragged on for a long time probably costing many lives and resources without getting much done. He also provided the Pro-Western South Vietnam with money and weapons, which helped established the US' presence in Indochina.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Marc DeMattie, Thursday, February 14, 09:36:35pm [1]

I agree with Ray in that sending John Dulls to the Geneva Conferece was a great idea because it saved many lives, resources and a ton of money like Ray said. All of this happened because of the treaty they signed that would make sure that the South Vietnam would be a seperate country and safe from the North. This was extremely important and greatly benefited Presisent Eisenhower's popularity with the people.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Maria Yorgakaros, Thursday, February 14, 10:06:17pm [1]

I agree with Ray. I think that this was another very important event during Eisenhower's presidency. Had he not sent Dulles, the lives of many Americans and American success altogether most definately could have been jepordized.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Erin Sullivan, Thursday, February 14, 09:19:40pm [1]

President Eisenhower's most significant action was when he created NASA. I believe this because NASA has led us to discover so many things that help our country and entire world today. The Soviet Union had launched satellites and the US worried that they could use this against us, therefore Eisenhower knew the United States had to launch a satellite to keep up with the space race. Eisenhower probably did not know at the time that his creation of NASA would be so successful and useful at that time, and in the future.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Kyle Frost, Thursday, February 14, 09:29:43pm [1]

I think that Eisenhower's decision not to aid the Hungarian rebels in the Hungarian Revolution was one of his most significant foreign policy events. It was so important because it contradicted many of Eisenhower's other decisions as well as the Domino Theory and the Containment theory. Even though the Hungarians begged the United States for help, Eisenhower chose not to intervene on the side of the Hungarians. Although many Hungarians were killed in the revolt, I think Eisenhower made the right decision. Aiding Hungary could have caused a major conflict between the US and the USSR, which was something that Eisenhower wanted to avoid. Also, instead of acting as the world police, the US put itself before other countries, which, at some point, had to be done.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Kristen Fassbender, Thursday, February 14, 09:48:15pm [1]

I agree that it was a good idea for the US to put itself before other countries during the Hungarian Revolution. Hungary was under direct Soviet control and if the US helped the rebels they would have been showing their blatant opposal to the Soviets. That could have provoked a much more serious war in which the theory of MAD would come into play. Soviet relations were important and Eisenhower proved his understanding of this even though it was against his anti-communist goals.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Kristen Fassbender, Thursday, February 14, 09:33:22pm [1]

The most significant foreign policy move Eisenhower made involved the U-2 plane over the Soviet Union. This spy plane was discovered in the USSR which revealed US' dishonesty (in flying the plane and later fabricating the pilot's mission-Khrushchev saw right through the lie). It ended any hopes for holding a conference between the leaders of the US and USSR as was planned. The major problem in the mission was that the plane was unprepared for the trip and the engines blew before it was safe due to low hydrogen levels. If it had been equipped properly this wouldn't have happened and Eisenhower should have made sure that nothing went wrong in such a high security mission. Eisenhower gave the USSR every reason to attack the US, luckily, they didn't.
(www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/SAP.html)

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Maria Yorgakaros, Thursday, February 14, 10:02:50pm [1]

I think one of Eisenhower's most important decision was not to help the Hungarians during the Hungarian Revolution. Eisenhower knew that in helping the Hungarians, relations with the U.S. and the Soviet Union could be greatly jepordized and this was not a risk he wanted to take to help the Hungarians. If Eisenhower decided to allow the U.S. to aid Hungary, I predict a more drastic event would have occured, like war with the U.S. and the Soviet Union, which would have made matters much worse.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Melissa Anderson, Thursday, February 14, 10:23:45pm [1]

Maria Yorgakaros makes an excellent point and I completely agree with her fine insight! Eisenhower's decision to remain out of Hungary was crucial to developing better relations with the Soviets. Eisenhower handled this issue very well.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Sean Sullivan, Thursday, February 14, 10:03:35pm [1]

I believe the most significant foreign affair in which Eisenhower handled during his term in office was the U-2 Spy Plane incident. This incident was handled very poorly by Eisenhower and reflects negatively on his time in office. When a U-2 Spy Plane which the United States was using to Spy on The Soviet Union was shot down, the Soviet Union confronted the United States. At first the United States lied and denied the situation. However, when the Soviets provided proof in the form of the plane which was still largely intact and the pilot of the plane, the United States was forced to admit to attempting to spy on their fierce rival. The way this problem was handled by Eisenhower and the rest of the United States government was very poor and intensified the Cold War. By lying to the Soviets, all trust between both sides was lost. I believe if Eisenhower were to admit that the plane belonged to the United States and admitted the purpose of the plane that the issue wouldn't have impacted the relationship on Soviets and Americans as heavily as it ended up doing.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Melissa Anderson, Thursday, February 14, 10:17:29pm [1]

I believe Eisenhower's most significant foreign policy decision involved the Hungarian Revolution. By not directly intervening in Hungary, the United States avoided further conflict with the Soviet Union. Although this action disagreed with the United States' policy of containment, it was beneficial to its relations with the Soviet Union. If the US had gotten involved militarily, the Soviets may have take more drastic action towards the United States and Hungary.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Mr. Davis -- Michaela Katz, Tuesday, February 19, 05:32:08pm [1]

I agree with Melissa. It was definatly a sucessful decision not to get involved in the Hungarian Revolution. By staying out it reserved some relation towards the Soviet Union. I we had gotten involved war could have broken out and this was definatly not what we wanted.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Ruby Rodell, Thursday, February 14, 11:22:39pm [1]

Truman left Eisenhower in a very difficult situation when he left office. The confrontation in Korea looked like it could have drawn on for a very long time, Eisenhower, using in part nuclear threat, was able to effectively deescalate the situation, creating the still standing demilitarized zone around the 38th parallel. Yes, the Korean war was horrible, as is any war, but had it not been ended when it was, the war could be dragging on even now. President Eisenhower's action effected the US and the world for the long term.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Casey Modderno, Friday, February 15, 07:28:13am [1]


[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Casey Modderno, Friday, February 15, 07:35:55am [1]

I believe that the most important move he made was the decision to support a third party in Vietnam. Rather than the French and Minh in Vietnam, he supported the Western supporter, South-Vietnamese Ngo Dinh Diem. He promised any financial and military aid to the Diem regim, as long as Diem made some social reforms. This decision was the reason for creating the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization in 1954, and eventually dragged us into the widely regretted Vietnam war on the side of the South Vietnamese (even though Diem was hated by many for being too tyranical)

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Leanne Bilo, Friday, February 15, 11:03:47am [1]

I think the most significant foreign policy event that happened during Eisenhower's terms was the Hungarian Revolution. I think Eisenhower should have helped them out at little. I don't really understand why he didn't, because everything Truman and Eisenhower have been doing up to this point, was to help get European coutries away from communism. During WWII the Russians came into Hungary to help free them from Nazi control; but instead, ended up taking control themselves. But then people started to revolt against Russian Communism. Then on October 24, 1956 Imre Nagy, the new prime misister, asked Khrushchev to remove Russian troops, and she did. But less than two weeks later she sent in 1000 tanks and captured Hungary agian. She made Janos Kadar the new Prime Minister who was a supporter of Russia(http://www.johndclare.net/cold_war14.htm).
America didn't send any help, and I'm not sure why. Maybe Eisenhower did want to create more problems with the soviets, or maybe the Hungarians weren't trying to get away from communism, only get away from the Russians. But we were fighting against communism, so if the Hungarians were trying to get away from commuisim, then I don't see how this situation was different, and why we didn't help.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Mr. Davis -- Michaela Katz, Tuesday, February 19, 05:22:30pm [1]

I believe that the Eisenhower Doctrine was the most successful policy of the Unites States during Ike’s presidency. Like Truman this policy was meant to contain communism however it was more directed towards Arab nations like Egypt and Syria. He stated that he would provide assistance and aid to these countries to combat communism. This was created when these countries became increasingly anti-western and moving more towards communism. He took the situation as it came once he saw the Arab countries following the domino theory. He handled this the right way because as a result relations were maintained and oil becomes a major factor between us and these countries.

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

Replies:

[> Re: Eisenhower -- Maria Yorgakaros, Wednesday, February 06, 10:12:58pm [1]

Eisenhower's most successful foreign policy while president was putting an end to the Korean War. Firstly, this was important because promising to end the war was partly what got him elected into office. Also, he was seaking peace in Korea, and in 1953, he signed an armistice which seperated the two Koreas at the 38th parallel. In doing this, Eisenhower also helped contain communism.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Melissa Anderson, Wednesday, February 06, 11:02:46pm [1]

I agree with Maria completely. Eisenhow made a good decision to end the Korean War and move on.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Steve Hunt, Thursday, February 07, 03:28:21pm [1]

I like the point that Maria made about Eisenhower containing communism with his actions. He ended this war and made it obvious that the United States would stop at nothing to gain peace and democracy for the world.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Eisenhower -- Melissa Anderson, Wednesday, February 06, 10:56:35pm [1]

I believe Eisenhower's most successful foreign policy was ending the war in Korea. By signing an armistice with Korea, Eisenhower fulfilled his campaign promise and also proved to the American people that he had the ability to lead.
Since the Korean War was over, Eisenhower was able to focus on other foreign and domestic concerns.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Maria Yorgakaros, Wednesday, February 06, 10:59:36pm [1]

I agree with Melissa in that after the war was over, Eisenhower could now focus on other things to help the United States with other foreign and domestic issues that could also benefit the people.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Casey Modderno, Thursday, February 07, 05:11:35pm [1]

Yeah, he was definitely successful in winning people over in fulfilling his promise to end the war in 1953. This support would benefit him in the future when he needed it while developing other policies in regards to the Cold War.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- John Sember, Thursday, February 07, 05:44:54pm [1]

President Eisenhower created the Eisenhower Doctrine, improved civil rights, made Hawaii and Alaska states, created the Interstate Highway System, etc. So I too believe that ending the war was very successful because he no longer needed to worry about the war, he was able focus more on other issues, domestic and foreign.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Eisenhower -- Steve Hunt, Thursday, February 07, 03:26:11pm [1]

I believe that the most successful thing that Eisenhower did while he was President was to put a stop to the Korean War. He threatened to bring nuclear weapons into the war which made most want an armistice. He signed that armistice in 1953 and he was able to focus on more important things while he was in office.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Marc DeMattie, Thursday, February 07, 04:22:35pm [1]

I like what Steve said in his post how President Eisenhower threatened North Korea with Nuclear bombs in order to get what we want in a timely fashion. Thus, like Steve said, the U.S. was able to worry about more important things like the Soviet Union, the biggest threat of communism.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Emily Rosier, Thursday, February 07, 04:37:08pm [1]

I agree with Steve about Eisenhower being able to focus on more important things while in office. By tackling the Korean War issue even before his inauguration, Eisenhower got rid of a problem that had been unnecessarily drawn out and made more time for other issues to be solved.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Eisenhower -- Marc DeMattie, Thursday, February 07, 04:18:18pm [1]

I believe that President Eisenhower's most successful foreign policy that he made was putting the end to the Korean War. He did a great job with this war as he did what the people wanted him too which was end the war and he contained communism a lot better than Truman ever did. When Eisenhower signed the armistice, it showed that he's not looking to fight a lot of wars/long wars, but he's doing his best at containing communism to the best of his ability.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Eisenhower -- Emily Rosier, Thursday, February 07, 04:41:28pm [1]

I think that Eisenhower's most successful foreign policy was ending the Korean War. He did so even before his inauguration, because that's what he promised to do during the campaigns. Already, it showed that he was going to be an efficient president by fulfilling his promises. Also, putting an end to the Korean War helped contain communism, which was a huge concern for Americans during the Cold War. Although North Korea remained communist, South Korea was "saved" by Eisenhower's peace treaty.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Kyle Frost, Thursday, February 07, 06:45:32pm [1]

Emily brings up a good point. Ending the Korean War was not only good on foreign terms but also on domestic terms. It proved to the American people that their president could be trusted to act on his word and that he could get things done.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Nick Giori, Thursday, February 07, 10:53:55pm [1]

Being able to stick to his own word was indeed a very good thing for Eisenhower to do because it secured the trust of the American people and gave them confidence in their government. But another important reason why it was good for him to get the ordeal with North Korea out of the way was so he could focus on the many other important issues at hand, such as the war brewing in Vietnam, which would consume America for the subsequent twenty years.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Amanda MacAvoy, Friday, February 08, 11:46:56am [1]

It was also good that Eisenhower was able to end the war in a peaceful manner. It made other countries look positively upon America, which was especially important after America had dropped the nuclear bombs in Japan, making other countries fear The United States.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Eisenhower -- Casey Modderno, Thursday, February 07, 05:04:27pm [1]

It seems like everyone so far has said this, but his most successful and immediate actions in regard to foreign policy was putting an end to the Korean war. It was eating up a lot of US funding, and killing way too many people in all parties invovled (without showing results). We had already successfully push the North Koreans back, therefore fulfilling the demands of our "containment policy," and If we had dragged the war out much longer, it could've escalated into something much worse. It's unlikely that with China's help we could've gotten much done in terms of taking down the North Korean government. Eisenhower made a smart move.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Michaela Katz, Thursday, February 07, 06:18:51pm [1]

Casey is defiantly right Ike truly made a smart move. He did it at the perfect time right when the North Koreans were pushed back to where they belonged. Also, it was smart that he didn’t try to push any more knowing China had North Korea’s back. So, as a president this was certainly a smart move.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Eisenhower -- John Sember, Thursday, February 07, 05:32:51pm [1]

Creating SAC and using SAC against Korea was his most successful foreign policy action. As a result of using SAC and threatening to use nuclear bombs Eisenhower ended the Korean War, made the US look stronger, and kept the communism from growing in Korea.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Jacob Zonderman, Thursday, February 07, 06:25:01pm [1]

What a lot of people don't think about is what if North Korea didn't think we would SAC on them? Would Eisenhower really have attacked with nuclear weapons? The US attacking North Korea like that could have posed many problems, including a possible nuclear conflict with China or even the Soviet Union.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Eisenhower -- Michaela Katz, Thursday, February 07, 06:13:08pm [1]

I believe that when Eisenhower signed the armistice with North Korea to end the war, this was his most important foreign policy decision. First, communism was farther contained because the 38th parallel split up North and South Korea. Also, our country now looked stronger because of the threat to use nuclear weapons, and felt stronger because there was no more excessive military spending. Most importantly it ended the Korean War on “somewhat peaceful”, and without sending over more of our troops.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Erin Sullivan, Thursday, February 07, 09:00:21pm [1]

I agree with Micheala. With Eisenhower's threat of nuclear weapons the United States would look strong and have the upper hand. This made the Americans feel a sense of security and made Eisenhower a successful, well liked President.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Kristen Fassbender, Thursday, February 07, 09:46:33pm [1]

I agree that the Korean cease-fire was successful and Eisenhower's usage of the nuclear threat did help produce this armistice, but it also had its problems. Many nations had possession of nuclear weapons at this point in time and the use of nuclear weapons as a threat complicated foreign politics even more than previously.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Eisenhower -- Jacob Zonderman, Thursday, February 07, 06:15:04pm [1]

I think one of Eisenhower's best foreign affairs was the Lebanon incident of 1958. Eisenhower did a very good job of quelling a potentially explosive conflict. He used American military troops to help retain a pro-Western government in Lebanon in only 3 weeks, while only losing 1 soldier in the process. Eisenhower responded to a cry for help and succeeded in a short amount of time without international conflict.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Margaret Huey, Thursday, February 07, 09:00:21pm [1]

I agree with Jake, in that, Eisenhower was very successful in the Lebanon crisis. Although many have mentioned the end to the Korean War (myself included) this was an important situation as well. Eisenhower continued to show that he could handle a variety of dangerous situations and save as many lives as possible.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Eisenhower -- Kyle Frost, Thursday, February 07, 06:39:34pm [1]

I think Eisenhower's most successful foreign policy was his ending the Korean War (not to be repetitive...). During his campaign he promised to do so, and he saw his promise through by threatening nuclear attack and signing an armistice. Ending the war was largely a preventative measure - although the U.S. didn't achieve victory, ending the war prevented further casualties and spread of communism. Dividing Korea once again at the 38th parallel kept communism out of South Korea, which a major goal of the U.S.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Eisenhower -- Margaret Huey, Thursday, February 07, 08:55:20pm [1]

During his presidential campaign, Eisenhower made the promise to end the Korean War, and unlike some of his predecessors he followed through with this promise. The same year that he took office, he created a truce with Korea, and although the war did not end in a victory, his gracious actions saved the lives of many American soldiers. This was his greatest foreign policy action for several reasons. First, not only did he make a commitment to end the war but he followed through with this. Next, he was not obsessively competitive and he understood that getting the soldiers home safely was more important than the US winning the war. His actions were intelligent and wise; one can only hope that future presidents will be able to make similarly sensible decisions.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Samantha Samuelson, Thursday, February 07, 10:02:13pm [1]

I think you're right in saying that one of the most important considerations in Eisenhower's ending the Korean war was that he had promised to do so, and then carried through with his promise. I also agree that he was right to end the war, even if it meant leaving N. Korea, a communist country, in controll of their part of Korea.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Eisenhower -- Erin Sullivan, Thursday, February 07, 08:56:59pm [1]

In 1953, Eisenhower threatened a nuclear attack on North Korea after the stalemate and signed the armistice. I think this was his greatest success because with the end of the war,communism was contained within Korea which was a goal of the United States, the US no longer suffered large amounts of deaths, large amounts of money would no longer be spent and much turmoil and suffering would be ended.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Eisenhower -- Kristen Fassbender, Thursday, February 07, 09:28:42pm [1]

Eisenhower's most successful foreign action during his presidential terms was the cease-fire agreement in Korea. He came into office with a war that was draining the US treasury and killing many American soldiers. In his first year as president, he resolved the problem by making the Northern and Southern Koreans agree to stay on their respective sides of the 38th parallel. He understood US' limitations when enforcing containment and took action accordingly which freed US resources for use in different programs.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Eisenhower -- Nicole Delbuono, Thursday, February 07, 10:20:54pm [1]

He did not only convince them to stay on thier own sides but he also Signed an armistice that would establish a buffer area between the North and South were all troops and weapons,involved with use of violence, are banished inorder to keep peace, but it is heavily militerized inorder to keep everything safe.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Eisenhower -- Samantha Samuelson, Thursday, February 07, 09:57:38pm [1]

In my opinion, Eisenhower's most succesfull foreing policy was ending the war in Korea. Not only did he finally bring the U.S. out of this long war, costly in both muney and lives, but he was smart enough to realize that this action was in the best interest of the US, even though the war was never really "won". Unlike others, who would have prolonged the Korean war even when it was clearly innefectual, Eisenhower realized that it was no longer beneficial, and terminated it quickly and in a manner satisfactory to most parties.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Eisenhower -- Nicole Delbuono, Thursday, February 07, 10:13:13pm [1]

The most important and world changing foreign action Eisenhower enforced was helping to end the Korean War. This not only showing the strong will the U.S. has but it was the smartest move we could have taken. We were able to do this peacefully by convincing Rhee that we would back South Korea 100% if the North ever invades. We would later pick up the peices by promising South korea one billion dollars in aid to help thier economy so they would be able to survive. Eisenhower held his ground. Hes first year, he was the man that kept the South and North on thier respected sides.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Eisenhower -- Nick Giori, Thursday, February 07, 10:40:17pm [1]

I believe that Eisenhower's most successful foreign policy action was his threat against North Korea that he would use nuclear weapons if they didn't cease hostility. He did this in accordance with the doctrine of conatainment. It was highly successful because shortly after dispensing this ultimatum to the North Koreans, they signed a cese-fire treaty. This effectively ended hostilities between North and South Korea, leaving between them a dividing border along the 38th parallel. Furthermore, shortly after the institution of the Eisenhower Doctrine, the United States' martial control in Vietnam superseded that of France, totally immersing the United States into a long, harsh war with the Vietnamese; few might call this engagement "successful". Therefore, it seems to me that Eisenhower's ultimatum is most successful.

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

Replies:

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Margaret Huey, Wednesday, January 30, 08:58:43pm [1]

The American decision-makers probably believed that the Marshall plan was a good use of American funds because it funded European countries so that they would no longer be in economic chaos. By doing this, the European countries would be able to fight off the Soviet Union if it ever tried to make them into a communist government. Therefore, the United States was protecting its own interests because it wanted a world in which democracy was a strong government. If the many of the Europeans countries became communist, then the people in the American government believed that the United States might have fallen victim as well.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- John Sember, Monday, February 04, 05:18:17pm [1]

I agree! They did believe it was a good use of funds in the way it would ease the economic chaos and help democracy win over communism. I wonder though, what would have happened if the plan was not working and if communism kept growing. Would the US waste money on something that is not working or would they have do something drastic?

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- John Sember, Wednesday, January 30, 09:02:22pm [1]

I think they believed that the Marshall Plan was a good use of funds because doing so would benefit the US. It helped created a stronger alliance which could help the US in the future. Also, they thought it would help international trade.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Sean Sullivan, Tuesday, February 05, 12:20:12pm [1]

The Marshall Plan was also used to obtain a stronger influence on the world. This was crucial because of the growing threat of communism. I believe the Marshall Plan's main objective was to stifle communism by gaining allies in countries where communist leaders could potentially take control of the government.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Kyle Frost, Thursday, January 31, 01:20:07pm [1]

American decision-makers probably thought that the Marshall Plan was a good use of funds because if we could stabilize the European economy, we could increase foreign trade and boost our own economy. Also by helping to rebuild Europe, we could be on good terms with European countries and hopefully prevent further conflicts that could damage our country.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Jacob Zonderman, Monday, February 04, 03:36:11pm [1]

A big thing, though, was the threat of the Soviets trying to take over any more of Europe. The US gov. was afraid of communism spreading past its boarders. By strengthening the rest of Europe, this would hopefully ensure a good defense against the Soviets.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Nicole Delbuono, Monday, February 04, 06:55:35pm [1]

Basically, we grabed the good real estate in a good game of monopoly before the Soviets could. We grabed the countries and gave them cash and put them on our good side to later protect them from communisim. we aquired allies from this smart move and out numberd the soviet powers. we won a very long game of monopoly

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Amanda MacAvoy, Monday, February 04, 07:51:55pm [1]

I agree with Kyle; I had not thought about the fact that by helping European countries get back on their feet, America could reduce the chance of conflict in the future.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Samantha Samuelson, Thursday, January 31, 01:53:49pm [1]

American decision makers probably thought the marshal plan was a good use of funds because it was a worthwhile investment. Once the Eastern European countries were rebuilt, the US could trade with them, making he money spend rebuilding them worthwhile. Also, this money was a type of insurance, for the Marshall plan was also meant to make sure these countries stayed democratic. IN addition, this would reinforce the popular idea that the US was responsible for the rest of he world.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Sean Lilley, Friday, February 01, 04:17:51pm [1]

The Marshall plan, though expensive, benefited America in several ways. It was apparent to American leaders that these benefits were worth the money:

First, America had learned its mistakes from World War 1. Hitler, for example, rose in power because of his rabble-rousing against the burdensome loans imposed on Germany after the war. By offering financial aid to European countries (Germany especially), the US avoided another similar uprising.

Second, America understood that their future relations with other countries would be influenced by the Marshall Plan. Undoubtedly, American help was well received and remembered.

And third, the Marshall plan was designed to confront the increasing Soviet Union hegemony over Europe. American decision makers knew that the USSR needed to be controlled in some way or another. By spreading American influence over all of Europe that they could, American leaders asserted their power over the USSR.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Margaret Huey, Monday, February 04, 07:21:34pm [1]

I agree with your last two points, however I think that the situation Germany was placed in after WWII was quite different than the countries the US was aiding with the Marshall Plan. Germany was in debt because reperations were placed on them, however the US was giving money so that the countries would be able to build up their militaries and defend themselves. Although the US was containing communism, their goal was not to prevent an uprising from countries in Europe.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Amanda MacAvoy, Saturday, February 02, 04:02:38pm [1]

After World War II, many European countries were war-ravaged and in need of repair. Thus, the United States came up with the Marshall Plan, which put billions of dollars towards rebuilding Europe. American decision-makers supported the Marshall plan because in rebuilding European nations, it opened up overseas markets to trade with, which would boost the United States economy. Also, if allies of the United Sates were strengthened, they could help to keep communism at bay, thus reinforcing democracy. Finally, American decision-makers knew that if the United Sates helped out other European nations, the United States would be seen as a strong, generous nation.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Michaela Katz, Monday, February 04, 06:48:34pm [1]

I agree with Amanda! The Marshall Plan would deffinatly boost our own economy and also help stop the spread of communism. Also, I think its a very good point when she mentions how the US would be seen as a strong generous nation. I never thought of this and it makes total sense.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Jacob Zonderman, Sunday, February 03, 01:37:28pm [1]

The American government saw the Soviets as a threat to not only Europe but also the US. If the the European countries that were not controlled by the Soviets could be rebuilt, they could defend themselves. This would keep the Soviets from expanding any more than they already had into Europe. And while this would help keep the rest of Europe free from Soviet rule, it would also help with the economy of the US.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Sean Lilley, Monday, February 04, 04:47:27pm [1]

You make a good point that the Marshall plan was not just for European countries but us as well. Really, the Marshall Plan was a long term goal. First it involved rebuilding, and later, that work and money put into Europe would come back to help the US remain strong during the Cold War. In a way, we were spending millions indirectly towards our own survival.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Ray Huang, Monday, February 04, 10:22:49pm [1]

I think it's more a question of how the US would benefit from trade with these countries. Even if they received financial support and were rebuilt, a strong threat like the the USSR would just run right through them anyway. That was what Hitler did in WWII, anyway. Really the only way to fortify nations enough to protect from the USSR was to get them all to rival it in terms of firepower and influence, which is obviously an impossible task.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Leanne BIlo, Sunday, February 03, 02:20:21pm [1]

A lot of people didn't like the idea of helping out the European countries. They didn't want to spend American taxpayers' money to help other countires that couldn't even pay off their debts from World War I. However, others thought that the Marshall Plan was a good use of American money. People believed that only a flourishing Europe could stay away from, and resist communism. The U.S even offered the same aid to the USSR. But the U.S wanted Russia to make some political reforms and let there be some outside control.(They refused) People wanted European countries to not be communist because they were afraid that America could fall to communism too. Americans also thought that the Marshll Plan was good because they wanted to expand markets for the U.S, and only when Europe was doing well, could they help give us new markets.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Samantha Samuelson, Monday, February 04, 06:39:41pm [1]

I think you're right that the U.S. wanted to prevent the spread of communism, and and also that others were afraid of the amount of money this project would need. I also think many people were hoping that this would create European markets in the future. Some objectors feared not only the expense, but also that this would take the US farther from its policy of isolationism.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Cathy Tinker, Tuesday, February 05, 04:27:23pm [1]

While some American people didn't approve of the Marshall plan, I think a majority of the people understood the good possibilities it set up for us. It created a good alliance with Europe like the saying, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Also, there were several countries still rebuilding after WWI. Everyone could have used a little help after this and why not spend a great deal on money that could also greatly benefit us. I don't think the American's were scared about spending the money, I think we were ready to potentially improve our way of life along with aiding other countries.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Erin Sullivan, Monday, February 04, 06:30:41am [1]

The United States probably felt that helping the European countries was a good use of funds because it would help them gain strength again so that they would not fall into communism. It would have strengthed our alliances with them as well which the US knew would be helpful for the future.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Melissa Anderson, Monday, February 04, 10:18:32pm [1]

I agree that the Marshall Plan fended off communism but i belive it was also designed to bolster the American economy by giving the US other countries to trade with.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Nick Giori, Monday, February 04, 10:31:56am [1]

I think this was a good idea because there was a large threat of communism expanding throughout Europe. The United states saw that appeasement never helped control tyrants, such as Stalin, but rather it merely fueled them. Also, they knew that if this tyranny spread throughout Europe, there would be little hope in bringing down the despotic government. So it was worth all the money they'd have to spend in order to prevent Stalin from expanding and taking too much of Europe over.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Steve Hunt, Monday, February 04, 04:47:14pm [1]

I agree with Nick in that the United States was trying to contain the communist threat, but this also helped our econcomy as well. While we were building up these countries, they would be more likely to turn to us when they wanted to trade. All these countries would become major factors in the economy flow of the United States.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Emily Rosier, Monday, February 04, 03:19:40pm [1]

The Americans probably thought that the Marshall Plan was a good investment because if the countries damaged by war were rebuilt, the US, as well as other countries, could trade with them again. Also, if the US helped rebuild the European nations, we could help rebuild their governments, as well, and make them into democratic nation. This, in turn, helped to stop the spread of communism throughout the world.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Nck Giori, Monday, February 04, 07:16:45pm [1]

I think Emily is right in that the U.S. was ultimately trying to contain the spread of communism in addition to the economic benifets.. America had learned that giving in to despotic governments yielded no long term solutions,but rather quite the opposite: a reason for the communist leaders to keep striving for dominance. America saw a grave threat on the horizon and decided to trim it at the bud by spending billions of dollars now in stead of being walked over until WWIII erupts.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Kristen Fassbender, Monday, February 04, 04:10:37pm [1]

American decision makers probably decided that this was a good use of American funds because the European nations were greatly weakened by the war and were vulnerable. Had the United States not decided to help rebuild then it would have been easier for the Soviets and communism to spread into Europe. Also, a better European economy would translate to increased trade and a healthier global economy.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Erin Sullivan, Monday, February 04, 04:39:57pm [1]

I agree with what Kristen said about how a better European economy would benefit the United states and the global economy. By helping the European countries regain strength trade would increase improving the world's economy. Helping these countries would also prevent European countries from falling into communism which would be good since the United States did not want any countries to fall into communism.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Kyle Frost, Monday, February 04, 09:36:29pm [1]

Agreed. In short, the United States was looking after its own interests by helping others. It strengthened the world economy which would boost foreign trade and it put us on good terms with other European countries.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Steve Hunt, Monday, February 04, 04:42:56pm [1]

I believe that decision makers felt that this was a good idea because we would help the other countries now, but in 20 years, they can give us something in return. It is almsot as if we were sucking up to them so that they would become our friends and help us later on down the road. I also believe that the sooner we rebuild these countries, the sooner we will be able to trade with them and gain more money.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Ruby Rodell, Monday, February 04, 06:46:37pm [1]

This is true, but it was also seen as very important to strengthen democracy (and it's reputation). The U.S. was adamant that no knew communist countries spring up in Europe. By accepting aide form the U.S., the country had to formally agree with the ideas of democracy. This also fairly effectively cut out the Soviet Union from getting U.S. aid.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Ruby Rodell, Monday, February 04, 05:58:52pm [1]

I imagine Congress, the president, and all those other responsible people thought the Marshall Plan was useful for a number of reasons. One, good world economy is good for the American economy, as a huge amount depends on exports. Also, it encouraged democracy in the newly unstable Europe. In order to receive aid, the countries had to join in the Organization for European Economic Co-operation. The countries in the cooperation had to support the principles of democracy and free market trade. Because of this, it was highly unlikely that the Soviet Union would try to get aide. The Marshall Plan was thus supporting democracy and helping, in the long run, the U.S. environment.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Chris Flynn, Monday, February 04, 09:54:36pm [1]

I agree with most Ruby points, but along with the aid given to the countries helping the economy. It would also serve as a deterrent toward any future USSR aggression by creating a larger buffer zone between the USSR and the superpowers of Europe.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Michaela Katz, Monday, February 04, 06:44:15pm [1]

I think that American decision-makers believed that the Marshall Plan was a good use of American funds becasue of the effects it was predicted to have had. The Marshall Plan aided the ecomomics in Europe and as a result there was more foreign trade which eventually aided our economy. Also, by doing this we are becoming closer with Eurpoe and this can prevent any future conflict. Last, this plan puts us on better terms in Eurpoe and was aimed at trying to steer European conurties away from communism.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Nicole Delbuono, Monday, February 04, 07:27:42pm [1]

It is clear that american desison makers found it necessary to use the marshall plan because is would be an excellent tool to build up the worlds economy. This would creat countries to stay stroung and hold up themselves and also be there for us when we fall. also this will allow countries to stay stable even when it is tempted with communisim. A country will not follow communisim if it feels powerful when it is promised power in a new light. Also thsi was a great way the U.S. could manage all the worlds ecomony, It would know any secret behind the scenes and in the end of it all the Marshall plan would allow the U.S. to increase in allies.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Kristen Fassbender, Monday, February 04, 08:39:30pm [1]

I don't believe that it is the temptation of communism that is the problem. The problem is that when the nation is weak, the government is an easy target to blame. This allows radical parties such as the communists to spread propaganda and overthrow governments. The US, in aiding the nations, was helping the current democratic (or at least not communist) governments stay strong enough to resist radical movements.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Leanne, Tuesday, February 05, 03:22:19pm [1]

I agree with you. As long as the other European countries felt that they had a good government or that they could take care of themsleves, and that their own economy was fine, it would help decrease the chance that they would fall to communism. Another country could take over and force it into communism, but it would still help to prevent it.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Chris Flynn, Monday, February 04, 07:30:05pm [1]

The reason why we believed that this was smart use of American funds is because it not only helped rebuild the those countries wrecked by the war. It also made it so we also created more allies in Europe that would help us fight communist aggression. Also the countries that we helped rebuild would be more likely to trade with us when we finish helping rebuild them

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Dylan RoyDavis, Monday, February 04, 11:39:47pm [1]

Yes exactly my thoughts Chris. The key points here are they gain more alliances and trade in the future. I wonder how Europe would have done without our aid, but im pretty sure the state of the United States would be much more secluded then we are today if we did not help them.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Melissa Anderson, Monday, February 04, 10:13:28pm [1]

The United States invested billions of dollars in The Marshall Plan to bring the European economy back and also help our own economy. By helping the European countries, the United States could increase their foreign trade and also reduce communist influence in Europe. The US hoped, by aiding these countries, they would in turn help the US by fighting off communism.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Marshall Plan -- Emily Rosier, Tuesday, February 05, 07:40:17am [1]

I agree with Melissa. The Marshall Plan was thought to help bring the economy back up by increasing foreign trade. Also, it helped to contain the spread of communism.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Dylan RoyDavis, Monday, February 04, 11:35:26pm [1]

It was a good decision because you cannot run a world by yourself, you need other people to trade with and negotiate with. They also knew these European countries would be in their debt so they would have more free reign in what goes on over there. It even gains a lot of alliances for the United States if the need ever arises. There is a lot of positives to the Marshall Plan and it was the right thing to do, Europe was in economical chaos.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Sean Sullivan, Tuesday, February 05, 12:13:43pm [1]

By lending out money across Europe the United States gained many valuable allies. The United States knew these allies would become crucial in containing communism. By basically paying off countries to be on the side of the United States, the American Government stifled the spread of communism and ensured their influence on rebuilding nations would be greater than the Soviet Union's influence.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Ray Huang, Tuesday, February 05, 04:10:50pm [1]

I think that the US was more concerned with establishing a strong defense by allying itself with large and more influential countries against a possible eventual Soviet attack than it was with rebuilding small, less powerful nations. Although getting the support of smaller nations in an attempt to prevent Communism from extending to them was definitely a motive, the US spent much more money on rebuilding the bigger powers (France, Britain, Germany, Italy), and size/population was not the major cause because the amounts spent would still be disproportionate.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Cathy Tinker, Tuesday, February 05, 04:19:40pm [1]

The Marshall Plan greatly benefited the United States as well as Europe. It was a good way for the US to give back and help out other countries, which could set up a good relationship between the two nations. It helped Europe get on their feet again to help with trade which would improve our economy as well. Not only that but it promoted a democratic government because aiding Europe could prevent the government from turning communist.

[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Marshall Plan -- Casey M, Tuesday, February 05, 08:38:20pm [1]

Well, many of the European nations were our allies and countries that we would trade a lot with. By rebuilding them financially, we are assuring future military and economic assistance from these countries. Also it set a precedent; because we helped them out in a time of need, they might help us out in the years to come.

[ Edit | View ]