Why were we (USA People) told we had to win in Vietnam?

Question:The main arguments were that all Communists were working together and if the Communists took over South Vietnam, they would take over the rest of southeast Asia as well, and proceed from there. (I actually remember hearing the slogan "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here").

The other main argument was that the US couldn't abandon an ally, and if we left South Vietnam the people who had been supporting us there would be killed. (The "avoiding a bloodbath" argument.)

As you can see, both these arguments have been resurrected to support Amreica's involvement in Iraq.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: The main arguments were that all Communists were working together and if the Communists took over South Vietnam, they would take over the rest of southeast Asia as well, and proceed from there. (I actually remember hearing the slogan "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here").

The other main argument was that the US couldn't abandon an ally, and if we left South Vietnam the people who had been supporting us there would be killed. (The "avoiding a bloodbath" argument.)

As you can see, both these arguments have been resurrected to support Amreica's involvement in Iraq.

Because at the time Communism was considered a little more evil than it is today and the US felt it was obligated to stop the spread of communism from a country that was asking for our help.

The propaganda of the time was the "domino effect;" it was said that if South Vietnam was taken over by communists, then the other countries in the region such as Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia and Indonesia would follow.

the ironic thing is they are one of our trading partners. At that time (the 60's and early 70's) the policy of "containment" was being pursued. We wanted to contain Communism from spreading furthur. The Soviet Union with all it's satellite counrtries had this iron hard philosophy of never giving back anything, once they were in, so the policy of containment was to keep them from acquiring any more countries under their "iron curtain"

Never heard of the Truman Doctrine or the Domino theory ? Something like "support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures".
USA had to win to stop the communist advance in South East Asia.

Broadly speaking, the main reason we were told--or, to be fair, also genuinely believed without governmental prompting--that we had to "win" in Vietnam was what has become known as the domino effect.

Which is: If Vietnam falls to the Communists, than, like dominoes in a row, other countries in Asia and other parts of the world, would fall toward Communism.

After a while, as the Vietnam War dragged on, it also became a matter of: Let's win this thing already, and get the hell out of there.

Nowadays, with the Communist threat, i.e., Russia, over, this seems provincial and quaint. But, think of it this way to see how it gripped us: Substitute today's extremists and fanaticals of Islam for Russia, and the fear is the same, justified or not.

There is a major difference, which may make the concern in the 1960s even more understandable: Today, we know what countries we're battling, and their total is not likely to grow, at least not significantly. Back then, we concluded that they were adding countries by the domino effect, and, of course, land, people, cultures and histories.

When you think of it in those terms, it doesn't seem so quaint. Hope this helps you.