Home Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Re: First off, thanks for at least keeping part of YOUR vitriol in control

At this rate, you can just transfer all your worth to me 'cause the tip is a growin'.
You mistake "purpose" of Nuremberg to the principle which it established: a combatant may not commit crimes against civilians or enemy soldiers and claim they were ordered to do so and therefore were only following orders. You seem unable to limit your arguments to germane issues. Uniforms, Nazis, etc. are not pertinent: btw, soldiers at any level found to have worked at the concentration camps WERE prosecuted.
The link here to our argument is that American soldiers were in uniform and carried out much violence against civilian personnel, you may wish to study up on the Phoenix program.
Of course Allied forces could have been tried under Nuremberg rules, too, but you know the saying about winners in war, right? (Your point about civilians being tried makes what point? Duh.).
Are you conscious of the fact that once you get your butt shot off on one of your major points you shift to another, unaware of the sudden breeze? Example: percentage of Vietnam troops that were draftees.
Anyhow, if you don't know the difference between killers and murderers you should study the terms: they are not interchangeable.
I told you I've spoken of the issues with Vietnam era vets, that personally I know many (it is my generation, after all) and some went to my military high school with me, and that I spoke to many when I ran a homeless shelter.
What that means to the veracity of my arguments only you know...
To return for a moment: you don't think SPR is anti-war? You may wish to return and listen a bit more closely to the words of the Tom Hanks character. Yes, there was much valor shown in the film but what a grand waste of humanity, what a horrific enterprise.
Apocalypse? Sheen carries right on.
Of course, there is a vast difference between WWII and Vietnam: when one is attacked by an enemy that has murdered hundreds of thousands and whose ally busily is swallowing Europe it is quite a different proposition than, 13,000 miles away, decide to intervene in a (your assertion) civil war between two factions that had been at war for decades and that had just thrown out its colonial power (France; you do know it was known as Indo-China, right?)?
Since (really) you seem uanble to grasp the cogent argument I twice previously made, I'll walk you through it:
A war film about a failed war, wherein the aggressor (you do concede Vietnam had not attacked the US [here again, I'm assuming also you know the Gulf of Tonkin "attack" was fictional?] is the only force portrayed INVARIABLY ends up making heroes of the killers: in the viewers' eyes.
It is a well-known effect in film.
As I pointed out, this occurs in "gangster" films, as well.
Sheen AGAINST GREAT ODDS is tasked with a terrible challenge. One HAS to hope for his success if for no other reason to keep the film "going."
Impossible for the viewer NOT to become supportive; as I pointed out, this collusion is similar to the Stockholm Syndrome.
Anyhow, the Vietnamese largely are NOT portrayed.
So, an American director attempting to portray Vietnam realistically, fairly... must have tremendous skill and take great care or his effort (even inadvertently) will be that of chest-thumping.
You seem unable to see the moral in-equivalency of German soldiers, Vietnamese soldiers.
Vietnamese were fighting to determine the fate of THEIR country.
Germans... to determine the fate of others'.
Since you cannot seem to discuss without creating myriad straw men and then standing back and admiring your work, I'll have to say "thanks" but "no, thanks" to a continuation of this.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Parts Connexion  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.