The two viewpoints in the book, Opposing Veiwpoints in American History were about the US actions in the Vietnam. Were they justified or not? According to LyndonB. Johnson U.S. actions were justified. Johnson became president after theassassination of John F. Kennedy. The conflict in Vietnam was already in Vietnamwhen Johnson took over. A professor of history at United States InternationalUniversity in San Diego, Young Hum Kim, has a different viewpoint about the war. Hefelt that US actions were not justified and were seriously flawed.According to President Johnson (1965), the U.S. fought for many reasons. Theobject of war is total conquest, and the outcome is the works of peace. (pg. 289) Hefelt war was necessary to help save many people from brutal assassinations andkidnappings. Many woman and children were victims because their men were loyal totheir government. Communism was taking over.We are there because we have a promise to keep. (pg290) Johnson felt thatthe United States had all the intention to help out the people of South Vietnam. Wewill help defend what we helped build. If not, it would look as if the U.S. was not reliable. If the United States breaks one promise, whos to say they wont breakanother. To break that promise is like putting this little nation in the hands of theirenemy. This would not show loyalty to other nations,especialy South Vietnam, and itwould be unforgivable.We are also there to strengthen world order. (pg290) If the U.S. were to backout on this war, other nations would see that their promise meant nothing, and theywould not have any confidence in the U.S. What would the value of their commitmentsbe to these other nations? President Johnson wanted to be trustworthy. If not, theresult would have been definitely a bigger war.We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance. (pg290) Johnson felt that another reason for fighting was he wanted the people in Vietnam to go...
