1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Lelechka [254]
3 years ago
13

"The Issue is the future of southeast Asia as a whole. A threat to any nation in the region is a threat to all, and a threat to

us..."
I don't know how I am supposed to explain this as it gives little information.

Can anybody help me?
History
1 answer:
Black_prince [1.1K]3 years ago
7 0

Answer: The Tonkin Gulf Incident, 1964

Explanation: President Johnson's Message to Congress August 5, 1964

The previous evening I reported to the American individuals that the North Vietnamese system had led further purposeful assaults against U.S. maritime vessels working in worldwide waters, and I had thusly coordinated air activity against gunboats and supporting offices utilized in these unfriendly tasks. This air activity has now been done with generous harm to the vessels and offices. Two U.S. airplane were lost in the activity.

After interview with the pioneers of the two players in the Congress, I further reported a choice to approach the Congress for a goal communicating the solidarity and assurance of the United States in supporting opportunity and in ensuring harmony in southeast Asia.

These most recent activities of the North Vietnamese system has given another and grave go to the effectively difficult circumstance in southeast Asia. Our responsibilities around there are notable to the Congress. They were originally made in 1954 by President Eisenhower. They were additionally characterized in the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty endorsed by the Senate in February 1955.

This bargain with its going with convention commits the United States and different individuals to act as per their sacred procedures to meet Communist animosity against any of the gatherings or convention states.

Our approach in southeast Asia has been predictable and unaltered since 1954. I summed up it on June 2 out of four basic suggestions:

America keeps her assertion. Here as somewhere else, we should and will respect our responsibilities.

The issue is the eventual fate of southeast Asia all in all. A danger to any country in that locale is a danger to all, and a danger to us.

Our motivation is harmony. We have no military, political, or regional desire in the zone.

This isn't only a wilderness war, yet a battle for opportunity on each front of human movement. Our military and monetary help to South Vietnam and Laos specifically has the motivation behind helping these nations to repulse animosity and fortify their autonomy.

The danger to the free countries of southeast Asia has for some time been clear. The North Vietnamese system has continually looked to assume control over South Vietnam and Laos. This Communist system has abused the Geneva concurs for Vietnam. It has methodicallly led a battle of disruption, which incorporates the course, preparing, and gracefully of work force and arms for the lead of guerrilla fighting in A south Vietnamese area. In Laos, the North Vietnamese system has kept up military powers, an utilized Laotian area for penetration into South Vietnam, and most as of late completed battle tasks - all in direct infringement of the Geneva Agreements of 1962.

As of late, the activities of the North Vietnamese system have gotten consistently all the more undermining...

As President of the United States I have inferred that I should now ask the Congress, on its part, to join in insisting the national assurance that every such assault will be met, and that the United States will proceed in its essential arrangement of helping the free countries of the region to guard their opportunity.

As I have more than once clarified, the United States plans no carelessness, and looks for no more extensive war. We should make it understood to all that the United States is joined in its assurance to realize the finish of Communist disruption and hostility in the region. We look for the full and compelling reclamation of the worldwide understandings marked in Geneva in 1954, concerning South Vietnam, and again in Geneva in 1962, as for Laos.

You might be interested in
How successful were the revolutionary uprisings that occurred throughout Europe in the 1830's and 1840's
amm1812

Answer: They were not every succesful

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
What did Christopher Columbus use to fill up the ships?
stich3 [128]

Explanation:

Food Aboard Ships Was Dry and Often Filled With Maggots

Staples included dried and salted anchovies and cod, pickled or salted beef and pork, dried grains like chickpeas, lentils and beans, and, of course, hardtack biscuits

8 0
3 years ago
How did jihadists continue their mission after Osama bin Laden’s death? How did the United States respond?
alekssr [168]

U.S. military officials said that after the raid U.S. forces took the body of bin Laden to Afghanistan for identification, then buried it at sea within 24 hours of his death in accordance with Islamic tradition. Al-Qaeda confirmed the death on May 6 with posts made on militant websites, vowing to avenge the killing.

7 0
3 years ago
True or false Six States had to approve the Constitution before it was affected​
Nikitich [7]

False. It was 9 states.

7 0
3 years ago
Which of these actions is most similar to the covenant Abraham formed with God?
anygoal [31]

Choice B

First, men by nature are depraved. Second, God is perfect. God does not <em>need </em>us nor did he <em>need </em>Abraham. Abraham could not trade anything with God that God had already given him. So, Choice A is wholly incorrect.

God is omnipresent. God also does not make covenants with the wicked. If God made a covenant with Abraham, then there will be interaction between the two parties. God does not interact with the wicked, therefore there is no covenant between him and the unrighteous. So, Choice C is inaccurate.

God does not attack his friends. (Yes, I said "friend". You may think it is callous of me, but read your Bible. In James 2:23 Abraham is called a "friend of God.") God does not conquer or take advantage of us, nor did he to Abraham. Choice D is erroneous.  

That leaves us with Choice B, which is the correct answer. In Psalm 91, God is referred to as a "refuge" and "protection" as He is with everyone he is in covenant with. Abraham agreed to abide by God's laws in exchange for an eternity in Heaven -- or, if you'd rather me say, "protection."

Answer: Choice B

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • President John F. Kennedy's cabinet earned the nickname
    9·2 answers
  • What was the telephone used for in the industrial revolution?
    8·1 answer
  • Essays wriiten about adolf Eichmann
    12·1 answer
  • Summarize the goals of Botswana’s “Treatment, Prevention, Testing” policy to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS.
    8·2 answers
  • What best describes the economy of the North in the early 1800s?
    6·1 answer
  • What principles of the revolution would appeal to Salomon and other Jewish people
    9·2 answers
  • How would the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire benefit traders in Africa?
    9·1 answer
  • What is the purpose of this paragraph from a speech about solar enargy
    15·1 answer
  • What mood is the song "You'll be Back" setting?
    7·1 answer
  • Which of the following did not lead to the high death tolls of World War I?
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!