GIVING BRAINLIEST PLEASE HELP!! -if you answer correctly ill give you brainliest which will give you 35pts-

Which strategy do you think would have worked best if the United States had stayed in the war: training the South Vietnamese to fight the war or continuing to bomb North Vietnamese strongholds? Respond in at least three complete sentences.

t's best to step back and take a big view to understand U.S. involvement in Vietnam ... Southeast Asia had a long history of war and occupation dating back ... By 1893, French Indochina included what we now call Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. ... Vietnamese from Japanese control in the northern and southern parts of the ...

Explanation:American tactics in Vietnam can be summed up by the acronym BEAST - Bombing, Escalation, Air and artillery, Search and destroy and Technology.

Kennedy sent American soldiers to Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson ordered the first real combat by American troops, and Richard Nixon concluded the war. Despite the decades of resolve, billions and billions of dollars, nearly 60,000 American lives and many more injuries, the United States failed to achieve its objectives.

I think U.S. had stayed in the war. It is because the Vietnamization doesn't want the involvement of U.S. in war which is easier for them to win the fight.

EVIDENCE:

The United States sent more and more troops to Vietnam in the 1960s. The United States turned over defense of South Vietnam to the South Vietnamese army. The United States took over the defense of South Vietnam.

after losing to mckinley, bryan ran for president twice more.

hope this !

, mark me as brainiest : )

the articles of confederation only set up the continental congress at the federal level. there were no executive or judicial branches except within the states. the states were allowed to keep every right that was not specifically given to congress. the bonding of the states was through a 'firm league of friendship' that best served as a defense agreement against invasion. states were not allowed to use taxes as a way to discourage treaties, and states were extremely limited in their dealings with foreign nations.

not many historians today talk about the strengths of the articles of confederation, likely because of how unpopular the document quickly became. the articles did set the legislative body, congress, as the highest power in the nation because of the fear of monarchy. congress had the sole power to declare war, assign treaties, entertain foreign relations, and operate post offices. disputes between states and territorial issues were to be brought to congress. the document also stipulated that canada was allowed to enter the union if they desired.

there were more weaknesses than strengths under the articles of confederation. the lack of power given to the continental congress strangled the federal government. the articles gave congress the power to pass laws but no power to enforce those laws. if a state did not support a federal law, that state could simply ignore it. congress had no power to levy taxes or regulate trade. without a federal court system or executive leader, there would be no way to enforce these laws, either. amending the articles of confederation would also require a unanimous decision, which would be extremely difficult.