What did the government gain from the Vietnam war does anybody know?

Sorry I am here again but have any of you guys been to the Vietnam War Memorial? The Wall?

They have a website virtualwall.org and whenever I'm particularly down, I visit the virtual wall and just think about how much worse it really could be.

Looking at all these men who like a lot of times young as hell, you click on their name and some of them got killed within 2 days of getting deployed it is the most heartbreaking thing. Guys there for just a little while days to a few months just.....dead.

It really puts things into perspective and this is why I respect the military so much especially people who got drafted. I mean these young dudes out here just living life, having a great time prime of their life and all of a sudden you hit the whammy! And have to go do this thing that's extremely hard and also you're probably going to die pretty quickly and all for what?

What did the government actually gain from sending all these boys over there just to die? I really don't get it maybe I'm just too young to get it. But seeing the wall in person really hits you right in the chest so if you haven't been I recommend it highly.

a reply to: Shoshanna

What did the government gain?
Nothing...

The people in the government on the other hand made loads of money from all the stocks they owned in military suppliers.

That's how so many politicians get rich in office

a reply to: Shoshanna


I would think Nothing

Good Read
How did the vietnam war change american society? - LINK

More than 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam and more than 150,000 were wounded. Basing on the current dollar value, the Vietnam War cost the equivalent of about $1 trillion. The United States pays $22 billion a year in war compensations to Vietnam veterans and their families

a reply to: Shoshanna

It could be argued the US gained military experience, leading to advancements in tactics and technology.

But the fact is America fought the Vietnam war with one hand tied behind their backs.

And were never allowed to really hit the NV and VC forces where it hurt.

Down to the cold war dynamics behind the proxy conflict.

a reply to: andy06shake

It could be argued the US gained military experience, leading to advancements in tactics and technology.

I actually agree with this statement even though I disagree with the necessity of the war though I was born a decade later. It kind of cancels out due to the price that had to be paid. Some may put that statement on par with the statement that "the skills slaves learned benefited them after they earned their freedom"

Although factually correct, it just does not land very well.

a reply to: Shoshanna

The war itself lasted 19 years 5 months. My dad was there from 1971 - 1974 I was just born when he joined. My dad said that the gov gained nothing.

My dad gained being poisoned.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Interesting about OIL back then.....

Shell Oil had over $100,000,000 invested in South Vietnam !! (around $1 Billion in today's $$$).

Also some evidence Shell was indirectly selling oil to North Vietnam at the time!!!!

(April 27, 1975) Oil Companies Abandon Operations in Vietnam

The American oil industry, whose investment in South Vietnam is estimated at more than $100‐million, pulled out of Saigon last week.

The withdrawal was completed Friday when a marketing official of Esso Eastern, Inc., a subsidiary of Exxon Corpora tion, left the country.

American exploration and production experts left earlier in April as the two offshore rigs active in Vietnamese waters moved on to more secure spots.

Industry analysts indicated that American oil companies might be back even under Communist government.

OIL! 💥

a reply to: Shoshanna

There's a point that nobody ever seems to consider :
Keep all of your alpha males busy, in highly disciplined areas, such as big-sports, military, MIC, rock-and-roll, academia, etc... , so that they won't be a part of any grass-roots movement against how screwed-over we all are by TPTSB.

Drug Addicts?

Mary Jane and Hero-in users?

$$$ for the rich man...

a reply to: Shoshanna

For a partial answer to your question, one needs to go back to the period prior to World War 2. Before Germany decimated Europe and Japan controlled much of Southeast Asia.

At that time, European nations maintained their economies in part from having colonies abroad. These colonies helped to keep trade going and providing the ''master'' nation with low coat goods and resources. The nation of France controlled the country of Vietnam.

Japan and Germany had an alliance with Italy. Japan took over South East Asia which included Vietnam and Germany conquered France. In the conquest of France and the ensuing liberation of France from Germany the infrastructure of the nation along with it's entire capacity to produce anything was left in ruin.

When that war ended there was only one nation that had fought in the war that remained intact, the United States.
In re-establishing a new world, the US decided to help nations to regain their economic capacity. But in order to do that it was deemed that France needed to have their colony again. So by several agreements, France was given Vietnam back to control as a colony again. This was not an agreement that much of Vietnam agreed with. They revolted.

France could not keep control of Vietnam by themselves so they called on the US to help them keep order and keep the resources flowing back to France. 'At first the US only sent ''advisors'' and military resources to help the French but even that was not enough. Eventually, way before Kennedy, the US needed to step in and help the puppet regime of Vietnam to stay in power. Vietnam split in two with part, the puppet regime aligning with the West and the other part ended up aligning with Russia for protection.

So the issue was not so much about what our government got out of that war but more, how the one world economy progressed, corporations in the US as well as corporations in other major countries that were beginning to rebuild after the Second World War.

By establishing the Bretton/Woods Accord, nations agreed to economic development and to not fight with one another. This part about not fighting with one another was enforced by the US military power around the world. So, when part of Vietnam decided to not go along with this plan, the US had to step in and enforce it's part of the bargain established under that Accord.

PTSD, and lots of it... Mentally disturbed individuals are a steady stream of income...

agent orange just but the cherry on top.

I have no idea what the US government gained, but the cost to my family was heavy. MITCHELL WILLIAM STOUT, was my cousin. War mongers be damned.

www.cmohs.org...

LBJ got re-elected.
LBJ had little interest in the war but Republicans often criticized Democrats for being 'soft on communism' (which they were). so LBJ poured resources so he could say he was too fighting the communists, but not enough resources to really win.
LBJ got his re-election in 1964 but the war was so unpopular he dropped out in 1968.

Nixon got us out but it took a few years. tragically, shortly after we left the North Vietnamese broke their treaty and went back in. South Vietnam has suffered ever since.

there's a point of view that by assisting South Vietnam we held back the 'dominos' as there was a fear that if VN went communist their neighbors would follow. Cambodia did go red (huge loss of life) but the region stabilized.

today Vietnam has mostly forsaken doctrinaire Marxism to make money and enjoy some freedom. I understand it's no paradise but much better than it was. the original Marxist fanatics died out and the younger ones want tvs and refrigerators.

a reply to: Shoshanna

Dead, drafted teenagers...right outta high school. For nothing.....✌️

a reply to: BingoMcGoof

For a partial answer to your question

I like that.
What did France get? Not their colony back.

So if the resources and manpower had been given as direct aid to France, chances are France and U.S. would have been much better off.

Vietnam, which lost 1 - 3 million people surely would have been better off.

a reply to: FullHeathen

just think how much better off we ALL would be if.....
that $800 billlion u.s. military money was spent HELPING PEOPLE

instead of coming up with newer, ever more expensive ways to kill people

only takes a 50 cent bullet ... instead of a $1trillion f-35, plus
fuel, and minimum of $30,000 per flight hour, and flying b-2 bombers
from usa army base 72 hours nonstop to iraq and back to drop 1 bomb
at $30,000 plus per hour.. and that dont incude the 50,000% price markup
in the supply chain as EVERY STEP charges maximum profits plus
a premium for defense industry... and charging $15 per gallon for jet fuel
because its 100% bio-fuel..

fully HALF the defense budget is spent on fuel,,,
tanks get 2gallons per mile.. 1000's of trucks, transporting EVERYTHING

all governmints are fassscists that enslave their populations
SO THEY DONT GOTTA WORK A REAL JOB.....LIKE YOU DO

a reply to: Shoshanna

20 million more taxpaying SLAVES.....
they used to be farmers in villages working on THEIR
farms and houses,... now work to earn DOLLARS
building the bankers'es farms and mansions
while you FREEZE AND STARVE

a reply to: confuzedcitizen

just think how much better off we ALL would be if.....
that $800 billlion u.s. military money was spent HELPING PEOPLE

I am conflicted. Idealism vs Realism sort of thing.
But I'm looking at this chart that shows 1967 Military spending was a bit over 50% of Federal Funds, compared to 2020 being a bit over 20%.

So is that progress? Is it enough? Is it fast enough?
Maybe, maybe not, maybe

Sometimes boondoggles aren't recognized for what they are right away. It's sad.