Why does Hollywood now eulogise the Vietnam fiasco?

[Serb]

Why does Hollywood now eulogise the Vietnam fiasco?

May be because the Hollywood is just a bunch of lairs?

[Serb]

Originally posted by nationalist

Translation: "Evil Americans! Why don't they understand that people love to live in the free, peace loving environments that are supported in Communist rule?

Evil Americans! Why don't they understand that people have right to choose their fate without US interventions.

Just look at how the Russians support he glorious Soviet Union, and you'll see how truly great it is to live in a Communist wonderland!"

I wouldn't call it wonderland, but it was not even a close as horrible as your movies portray it.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Hollywood rewrite history for their own conveniance : Money.
And Americans wanna buy stuff who make them fell stronger !

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Serb
Evil Americans! Why don't they understand that people have right to choose their fate without US interventions.

Serious ?

When they don't interfer they are isoliasionist, when they do they are imperialist.

[Sprayber]

Why do foerigners take Hollywood seriously? We don't.

In case the concept has escaped all of you. It it is fantasy and entertainment. Asking this question is about as good as asking why they made Han Solo a smuggler. Cause they thought it added background. It wouldn't do to make the supposedly tough guys a vet of WWII or Korea since that would push their ages beyond what they needed. I mean really guys. It's Hollywood.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Why do foerigners take Hollywood seriously? We don't.

In case the concept has escaped all of you. It it is fantasy and entertainment. Asking this question is about as good as asking why they made Han Solo a smuggler. Cause they thought it added background. It wouldn't do to make the supposedly tough guys a vet of WWII or Korea since that would push their ages beyond what they needed. I mean really guys. It's Hollywood.

Finally a good answer.

But I think you doth protest too much

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Finally a good answer.

But I think you doth protest too much

That happens when you spend too much time here.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Why do foerigners take Hollywood seriously? We don't.

You maybe, but your youngest generation not sure. If they don't have a potent hisorical education after, their only reference will be those film.

And maybe lot of 'adult' people are will be more sensitive to the false view of those movies. Have you heard about propaganda ?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by monkspider




The main reason it is being brought back is because it makes good sense, propaganda wise. The Vietnam War is the war that most similarly resembles the current "war on terror", with the "heroic" united states military facing a technologically-inferior, but determined, enemy.

Yeah, right.

It's not like 5 months of sitting on your ass in the sand and 100 hours of rock and roll in the KTO makes for a badass character background.

As for the latest Vietnam movie, We were soldiers, Ia Drang was an epic modern battle, the first large scale test of using airmobile forces in combat, and the book by Hal Moore and Joe Galloway is an exceptional account of the battle and what led to it, with input from both sides via a large number of interviews with participants. I haven't seen the movie to see if / how much they've butchered the book, but the book is an excellent read.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Why do foerigners take Hollywood seriously? We don't.

In case the concept has escaped all of you. It it is fantasy and entertainment. Asking this question is about as good as asking why they made Han Solo a smuggler. Cause they thought it added background. It wouldn't do to make the supposedly tough guys a vet of WWII or Korea since that would push their ages beyond what they needed. I mean really guys. It's Hollywood.

But AH still has an interesting question about why did Hollywood movies change in their depiction of Vietnam.

Movies have gone from depicting vets as psychopaths to depicting them as heros.

When did this change take place? Was there a watershed movie that marked the changing depiction of the Vietnam War? Did Hollywood lead the change or did it simply follow changing opinions in the States?

[chequita guevara]

According to the review from Salon, they butchered the book.

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So democracy is only for those who vote the way the Americans want? It doesn't matter what you think would have been better for them. What nmatters is the right of people to determine their own destiny. In this they were thwarted by the United States and the dictatorship[ of South Vietnam.

That's absolutely correct. I don't care about democracy for other people. There, I said it. I would prefer it if liberal democracies were the norm, but sadly we have to accept the realities of the world. In some cases people are better off not being able to vote, especially when illiteracy and regionalism are rampant, and ignorance of the world is the norm.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I am not a pacifist, I am a revolutionist. I am opposed to imperialist war, not wars of revolution or national liberation. We were the bad guys in Vietnam, the North and the NLF were the good guys. The North was right to invade the South, because it was the legitimate government of Vietnam. The only reason it didn't rule the whole of the country after Dien Bien Phu was because the US stepped in and decided that it knew better than the Vietnamese.

The bad guys are the ones who start wars. Although I am aware of how firm your beliefs are, I doubt you would be such a fervent revolutionist if you knew the horrific costs of these so-called wars of national liberation.

The North was wrong to invade the South, because of the 1973 peace talks. I would prefer a bloodless violation of peace talks, such as in 1956, than a costly and imperializing invasion, such as the 1975 takeover. Keep in mind that after 1975 most government positions in the south were taken by Northerners, and there was widespread resentment at the Communist treatment of the southerners. I would hardly call post-1975 Vietnam a legitimate government.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You know, maybe if our government stopped deciding for other people what would be best, people wouldn't be flying planes into our buildings.

Post Cold-War, I agree. During the Cold War however, we had to combat the aggresive expansion of Soviet and the competing Chinese Communism. Besides, we were right. The People of South Vietnam were better fed and living more comfortable lives (mostly in the cities which were safer from Communist attacks) than the people in the North. Compare the living conditions of someone in Hanoi to someone in Saigon, and you'll see what I mean. Both were repressive, but at least Saigon was a fun place to be.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, the Vietnamese weren't a lot better, but then they inherited a country destroyed by the United States, and had a lot of pay back to do for the 18 years of corrupt, repressive rule of the Southern dictatorship. I may not like the way they handled it, but maybe if the US hadn't renegged on their treaty obligations to Vietnam, and paid them the ten billion, they could have done a lot better.

The amount was three billion dollars, and it was never formallized. It was simply put on the table. I don't understand the "pay back," especially since many of the people persecuted by the victorious Communists were school teachers and other professionals. Even people who wanted to peacefully reform South Vietnam were persecuted. As far as destroyed by the United States, that was almost two decades ago, and the average Saigon resident isn't much better off now than under the repressive rule of the Southern dictatorship. By the way, Che, I haven't heard any mention from you of the repressive rule of the Northern dictatorship. Were they just a bunch of peachy nice guys trying to be neighborly when they poured their divisions into the South?

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


It was reported by an American journalist.

Actually it was in Micheal Herr's book "Dispatches", probably among other places, and I believe it was:

"In order to save Bein Tre we had to destroy it."

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Felch X

Post Cold-War, I agree. During the Cold War however, we had to combat the aggresive expansion of Soviet and the competing Chinese Communism. Besides, we were right. The People of South Vietnam were better fed and living more comfortable lives (mostly in the cities which were safer from Communist attacks) than the people in the North. Compare the living conditions of someone in Hanoi to someone in Saigon, and you'll see what I mean. Both were repressive, but at least Saigon was a fun place to be.

That's one hell of an arguement? As long as they were more comfortable and having fun, eh? Couldn't the same be said for slavery of the 1700's and slavery of the 1800's? Certainly slaves of the 1800's were living more comfortable lives that those of the 1700's, so what's all the fuss?

[Felch]

Hey, if they aren't going to be politically free either way, they might as well have economic freedom.

And the same can't really be said about slavery. Slavery kept people from being able to leave. As long as you had money, you could leave South Vietnam. The same can't really be said of the North.