 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.254.142.159
In Reply to: Re: First off, thanks for at least keeping part of YOUR vitriol in control posted by jamesgarvin on October 13, 2006 at 15:10:11:
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.
Follow Ups:
"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 can read, but not analyze. Nuremberg did not estalbish that a combatant may not commit crimes against civilians claiming they were ordered to do so any more than the state statute of fantasy land where you live estalblished that murder is wrong.
"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."
Once again, you are factually incorrect. The IMT tribunal (International Military Tribunal) tried 22 German war criminals, and Americans another 12 under the rubric of the IMT. They did not prosecute every guard at every concentration camp. Try again.
"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."
No doubt that American soldiers committed war crimes, I never insinuated otherwise, and should be punished accordingly. The problem is that you indict every member of the service because they served based upon the actions of a few bad soldiers. That is where we depart.
"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.)."
Maybe under the Nuremberg "rules", but not at Nuremberg, because, as you are probably aware, Nuremberg was specifically chartered to punish Nazi War Criminals. Not allied soldiers.
"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?"
I have never had my butt shot off. Have you? May explain a lot, as I think most of your brain is located in your posterior.
"Anyhow, if you don't know the difference between killers and murderers you should study the terms: they are not interchangeable."
I know the legal difference. Killing defenseless women and children is murder, which is how you characterized the actions of the American Soldier in Vietnam. Perhaps you can finally bring yourself to call the soldiers what you have been describing their actions to be, but have been unwilling to label. By your own description, the men who bombed Berlin would also be murderers.
"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."
Again, you read but do not understand. Have you called them baby killers? Not merely asked them whether they want bread with their soup.
"To return for a moment: you don't think SPR is anti-war?"
Man, you really are daft. Please re-read. I specifically wrote that I thought SPR was the greatest anti-war film, for the reasons I wrote. Time to check the meds.
"Of course, there is a vast difference between WWII and Vietnam: when one is attacked by an enemy that has murdered hundreds of thousands"
This is choice. Ever seen Animal House? Belushi screems "When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" Um, Tin, apparently your knowledge of history is as vast as your knowledge of Architectects. The Germans never attacked the U.S., and hundreds of thousands did not die at Pearl Harbor. If I need a mental image of you, I guess I need only watch Animal House. (I hope you got better grades)
"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?)"
Here is what happened. North and South Vietnam, agreed that they would have a nationwide vote in 1956. Previously France provided military and economic help to Vietnam. South Vietnam was formed from the former French compatriots. When it became evident that South Vietnam would loose the nationwide vote, they decided that they would not acquiesce ot the vote. France decided (probably prudently) that they were not willing to expend the troops necessary to defend South Vietnam. The U.S. then entered the fray for the French. committing troops in 1965, advisors in 1959.
When Diem canceled elections, North Vietnam began forming and funding the nice guys now known as the Vietcong to bring down the South Vietnamese government. Rather than attempt a political solution, using such things as world pressure, which we are seeing now with Korea, North Vietnam attempted a military solution. Oddly (or perhaps not) enough, you have no critism for North Vietnam for not seeking a diplomatic solution.
"INVARIABLY ends up making heroes of the killers: in the viewers' eyes."
You still have yet to provide the difference, in your estimation, between killers and murderers. Perhaps another try. The second part of your sentence displays your arrogance. You assume that because you interpreted a scene or a movie a certain way, then most of the other viewer's did so as well. I never took from the film that the Americans, on the whole, were heroes, or that the war was just. Perhaps you believe that unless the film depicts Vietnamese as you would like them depicted it there, de facto, means that the Americans are protrayed as heroes. That is your hang up, not the film's.
"One HAS to hope for his success if for no other reason to keep the film "going."
Completely incorrect. It could be a matter of not whether he will unsuccessful, but when. The WHEN is what keeps the film going, not the WHETHER. Which is why most bad guys die at the end of the film. You confuse success with morality.
"Anyhow, the Vietnamese largely are NOT portrayed."
Because, as nother poster accurately pointed out, it is not a Vietnam film per se, but only uses it as a backdrop, for the same reason that SPR could have taken place during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Korean War, or the Vietnamese War. But then, that salient fact does not comport with your political views.
"You seem unable to see the moral in-equivalency of German soldiers, Vietnamese soldiers."
You really are a dolt. Care to specify?
"Vietnamese were fighting to determine the fate of THEIR country."
South or North? They were two countries, both sovereign. Who fired first? Much like North and South Ireland. East and West Germany. North and South Korea. They all co-exist, to degrees, somewhat peacefully. North Vietnam decided a military solution was appropriate, rather than maintain two sovereign nations, and freely allowing people to decide on which side they wanted to live. Hardly commendable and deserving of accolades.
A war film about a failed war, wherein the aggressor...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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------I gather you must be a huge A Clockwork Orange fan.
Seriously, climb outside your box, or at least try.
Otherwise, if you're really looking for something to tell you right from wrong because you cant figure it out yourself, stay away from art and stick with fables, comic books, and polemics, and all the other pleasant guides for goodness.
Art demands critical participation.
Has Apocalypse got its problems? Sure.
But none of them have to do with its morality, its politics, or how closely its sketch of an insane war may or may not have mirrored an actual American conflict with the North Viet Namese.
To be candid, I cant understand how you can criticize the film
on moral grounds- Appocalypse Now! is no more a film about Viet Nam than The Godfather is a film about the Mafia.Both films are uncompromising meditations on the jungle that is morality itself.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
