continue spreading freedom across the globe eh?? ive been waiting for a comment like this, Hello Vietnam, totally illegal in every sense of the word. there was no viable threat to america, they wanted to stop the spread of communism, sorry but how is that freedom. america wouldnt like it if some one walked into the white house told obama to take a hike and said "your country is going to be ruled the way i want" vietnam was unfair, and america lost anyway, thats what you get for meddling where its not needed. i dont see why america seems to think its gods gift too the world, and has a right to tell everyone else what to do, or to tell them off like little children "naughty vietnam, you shouldnt do that, go to your room, or we will naplam you".

if someone can explain to me how vietnam was a legal war, which was generally acting in the worlds best intrests, then i will happily listen.

 

good day to you sir

Very well, I will hold you to your word that you will happily listen.  Failing that, I hope at least you will consider an alternate point of view.  First of all, you have to consider the geopolitical situation that existed at the time when studying the morality of the Vietnam War.  It may seem silly in 2010 to fear the global spread of Communism, but this was not the case in the 1950's, 60's, 70's, and well into the 80's.  Hundreds of millions of people took this threat very seriously, and recognized that it was the goal of the Soviet Union and China to spread Marxism around the globe.  Nearly every country in the world that bordered a Communist natioin soon found itself dealing with Communist insurgencies within its own borders, and almost all of those Communist insurgencies enjoyed the material and financial support of the Soviet Union and Red China.  This is where the "Domino Theory" came from.  The philosophy there was that the only way to stop the spread of Communism is to prevent it from taking root.  That took a variety of different forms.  In some countries this was done by providing support for a certain country's military and security forces, which could mean everything from weapons to logistical support to intelligence.  In other countries this meant supporting anti-Communist politicians or governmental officials, and yet in others it may have meant having actual American, Brit, French, Australian, et al, military boots on the ground. 

That brings us to Vietnam.  Remember that after 1954 or so Vietnam was divided into two countries.  The North was Communist, while the South was a Western-style democracy (though admittedly not always a good one).  Almost immediately North Vietnam began supporting a Communist insurgency in the South (the Viet Cong).  North Vietnam was supported by both the Soviet Union and Communist China.  There was no corresponding anti-Communist insurgency in the North.  The United States became concerned that the Communists could take over Vietnam, which could then further destabilize the region and threaten Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Indonesia, and eventually even Australia.  There was also proof that North Vietnam was sending troops from its regular army into the South, which was a clear violation of the South's national sovereignty.  The United States, along with several other countries in the region, recognized this threat and sent troops to assist South Vietnam in its fight against both the Viet Cong and regular North Vietnamese troops, both of which were being supported by billions of dollars in aid from the Soviet Union and Red China.  It should be noted that the deployment of United States troops to Vietnam was done in accordance with American law.  

You imply that by deploying troops to Vietnam the United States was meddling in the affairs of Vietnam, and while many South Vietnamese were completely indifferent to politics, there were a