President Eisenhower's Speech During The Vietnam War

In the 1940’s a series of propaganda films titled Why We Fight were produced for the purpose of defining the enemies of World War 2 to justify the necessity of America’s involvement in war. Hitler needed to be defeated, Nazism had to be destroyed, and tyranny had to be stopped for the sake of the American way of life by any means necessary. How could society argue against America’s role in the world war when freedom was being threatened? As Martin Luther King Jr. said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to everywhere.” No questions asked, Americans mobilized in the name of liberty and freedom. However the 2005 documentary film Why We Fight directed by Eugene Jarecki is not a sequel or war propaganda. The film informs the audience and questions America 's military industrial complex that has since dictated policy since the victory of World War 2. With the help of narration, soundbites, and credible speakers Jarecki shines light on the pernicious impact of the armed industry on our government, army, and citizens.

Ronald Reagan’s Fortieth Anniversary of D-Day Speech became known as the “Boys of Pointe Du Hoc Speech” written by Peggy Noonan. The speech was delivered on June 6, 1984 in Normandy, France: the site where the Allied forces invaded the cliffs just forty years before Reagan had delivered this memorable speech (Stepman). The forum itself was an important aspect of the speech. The delivery of the speech there, on the windy shore cliffs of northern France, enhanced the visualization as well as the nostalgia for the Veteran audience as a backdrop for some of the many examples Reagan had used in his speech. The purpose of this speech was to not only commemorate the American Ranger Veterans for their valiant efforts in taking this Nazi stronghold, but to also address the world, and the Soviets, that conquest and tyranny will not stand in the way of peace and liberty. Through the use of effective rhetorical devices, Ronald Reagan encompassed his theme that there is something worth fighting for when someone uses “force for conquest” rather than “the use of force for liberation” (12). With his examples of the brave soldiers forty years before, he discussed how their efforts back then affected the world at the time.

Renowned historian and classicist scholar Victor Davis Hanson’s January 11, 2012 commentary entitled “Heavy Price of Defense Spending Cuts: Nations That Choose Butter over Guns Atrophy and Die” warrants a thoughtful analysis of its merits and shortcomings by U.S. military officers entrusted with leading this nation’s youth while implementing our national strategy.

When you hear the quote “old soldiers never die they just fade away” you'll think of him and all of the good things he did for us and what a hero he really is. He served in both of the wars and ran for presidency.

What were Eugene McCarthy’s motives for going against the Vietnam War? From the early 1960s up until the year 1973, America was going through the Anti-War Movement. The movement had many leaders, supporters, and followers, including Martin Luther King Jr., Eugene McCarthy, and Robert F. Kennedy. The Anti-War Movement took place in order to demand the government put an end to U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia and to stop the escalation of the Vietnam War. On December 2 of 1967, Eugene McCarthy gave his “Denouncing the Vietnam War” speech in the state of Chicago, in front of the Democratic Party. He speaks out against the war in order to point out what an immoral and pointless battle that the United States were fighting. In Eugene

Throughout history, the United States Government and Armed Forces have learned from devastating mistakes and decisive victories making the US Armed Forces superior to most, if not all, other militaries; however, the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia throughout Operation Restore Hope, Operation Provide Relief, and the Joint Special Operations Task Force missed the mark on such “lessons learned”. The inadequate intelligence; the ignorance of tactics, techniques, and procedures; and absence of reinforcements cost needless loss of US troops, and crippling a sophisticated, well-equipped military at the hands of an under-equipped militia using irregular warfare tactics. Even 24 years later, the impact resonating still weighs heavily on minds of key leaders in the government along with all echelons of military commanders.

On June 26, 1963, the famous words “Ich bin ein Berliner” changed the world. These words, which in English mean “I am a Berliner,” were delivered by John F. Kennedy in West Berlin. His speech was viewed worldwide and brought national attention to the Berlin Crisis and the Cold War. Today, most people have heard about the speech, but may not know a whole lot about it. They may ask themselves the following questions:

Deceased philosopher Bertrand Russell once said, “War does not determine who is right- only who is left”. Those left are the soldiers of the 1-502nd, specifically Bravo Company 1st plt, and the Janabi family and to a greater extent, the ever-changing global world we all live in today. The tragic events that conspired in a small Iraqi village became a microcosm of how leadership failures at every level shaped the actions of a few soldiers who committed atrocious acts. One can also see how a high operational tempo, along with prolonged violence and death, has on a person’s psyche. It is the ugly side of war that the average American citizen may not want to hear or talk about. For a soldier, it is inevitably what they train their

Huey P. Long’s speech was judged based on his practices as a Louisiana senator and governor, however it had the potential to be so much more had he lived to continue his legacy. People appeared to be afraid of how Governor Long operated within the legislative system of Louisiana because of the fact that, he tended to find his way around legal statutes that hindered his agenda. Some could argue that he stepped out of the bounds of power that reigns in a representative of a democratic nation, however he wound up being one of the most effective public servants in the country. Amidst the Great Depression, Governor Long gave Louisiana 's economy a huge lift with the vast construction of bridges, schools, and roads. In fact the state of Louisiana has not had anything close to such an economic boost as to what Huey p. Long offered since that time. As time has passed, Louisiana has become infamous for its lack of proper public education, especially regarding grades one through twelve. This lack of proper education has become constantly associated with the state since Huey Long’s assassination. Despite the controversy over how Long executed his political agenda, it cannot be refuted on how productive and beneficial his reign was for the state.

Lyndon Baines Johnson, became President in 1963 after John F Kennedy was assassinated. President Johnson went right in and wanted to polish off the reform what John F Kennedy started, the Civil Right Act. The Civil Right Act was to outlaw discrimination, based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in July 2, 1964. Johnson was given many credits during his presidency and after his presidency. Johnson was partly responsible for the first man to land on the moon (ushistory.org, 2015).In 1969 the United States became the first nation to land a man on the moon. J F Kennedy had this vision of the space programmed. Nevertheless, Johnson also helped with Kennedy vision that it would come to reality, but it didn’t come reality until Johnson left office. Johnson supported a legislative program the ‘Great Society” was the most motivated and an important domestic program that end helping the nation’s (ushistory.org, 2015).

On the 7th of April 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave one historic press conference [1]. In that conference, he announced his so called “Domino Theory”. It was a substantial aspect of the US involvement in the Vietnam War, involvement in terms of its military support and methods used in Vietnam. Even though it was greatly enhanced by other factors, such as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, it was the trigger, and therefore the source of all US involvement in the Vietnam War. The main rationale of the theory was that if one country fell down to communism, all the surrounding countries would do the same, hence why it was called the ‘Domino’ Theory. Eisenhower thought that Vietnam’s fall to communism would lead to consequential communist uprisings in neighboring countries, such as Laos, Cambodia and Thailand. He also that that it could possibly extend as far as India, Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Australia and New Zealand -[1]. This gave The US enough motivation, and more importantly, justification as to why they greatly increased military presence in Vietnam. Eisenhower said, “The possible consequences of the loss [of Indochina] are just incalculable to the free world.” [2]. Even though the theory was imprecise, and only Laos and Cambodia joined communism after the US lost the war, it was significant as the foundation of the US involvement in the conflict.

Huey P. Long was a governor of Louisiana, during his national radio address of 1934, he proposed his plan “Every Man a King,” and “Share our Wealth.” Long’s plan was designed to provide every american a decent standard of living by sharing the nation’s wealth. It limited the amount of money a person can have. In his speech, he addressed the wage gaps between people and the fact that some of these made so much money that they controlled our nation’s wealth. Therefore, Long believed that if Americans share their wealth, then American can have enough money for everyone to live in comfort, and this way poverty will be limited.

In the two hundred years since 1775, there has been thirty-five years of fighting in what we consider major conflicts or wars. This averages out to about one year of war to every almost 6 years of our existence as a nation and during that time, we have not been without formal military organizations. Over the course of history, the United States has engaged in many battles that were a crucial phase in developing who and what we have become. Throughout this assessment, we will analyze what were some of the true tipping points that shaped (1) America’s paradoxical love-hate relationship with war and, (2) How this relationship influences American warfare.

In his acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention on June 27, 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt mentioned many challenges and concerns facing the United States during that time period. In his speech the President used short-hand phrases, brief references, and pejorative naming to make his larger, political and ideological points. FDR used terms like ‘economic royalists’, along with phrases like ‘new despotism wrapped in the robes of legal sanctions’, to identify the large corporations, investors and employers, who according to him are trying to influence policies and control the government for their own personal benefits. The President also uses phrases like ‘Necessitous men are not free men’, to reiterate his concerns and to point out how the working people of America are being deprived from their rights by these very same privileged employers. FDR compares 1936 to 1776, referring to the American Revolution and its significance in putting the power back in the hands of the average Americans, and how it is necessary to check the power of the corporations in order to protect the interests of the American people and restore the power back in the hands of the people.

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.