Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems fairly and evenly presented to me. I can reason with both sides arguing here.
I don't know what the answer is. There probably isn't one.
Tonight's episode seemed to hammer home that in 1968 the world was seemingly collapsing...funny how it feels exactly the same to me here in 2017.
Sigh.
"Seems fairly and evenly presented to me"
I disagree.
I am 1/2 way through the 1st episode and have noticed while ken is telling "his" version of the facts going back in time, EVERY time he goes forward and shows someone who served or knows someone who served it is ALWAYS a negative remark.
As I stated a while back, I know ken and he is very liberal and donates to dems ONLY.
P.S. I did 2 tours in NAM.
I don't know if I can stand much more of his very slanted documentary.
I am 1/2 way through the 1st episode and have noticed while ken is telling "his" version of the facts going back in time, EVERY time he goes forward and shows someone who served or knows someone who served it is ALWAYS a negative remark.
As I stated a while back, I know ken and he is very liberal and donates to dems ONLY.
P.S. I did 2 tours in NAM.
I don't know if I can stand much more of his very slanted documentary.
It's a documentary and he is well respected, I was hoping that this thread won't turn into a liberal/conservative thread but some seem hell bent on politics. Some were already dismissing the entire series after a mere two parts in based on some nuance. Sit back and enjoy the extensive work that went into this and save your political bend for the end.
I served one year in the infantry, that doesn't give me the right to claim politics any more than you. I only saw the first two segments and found them interesting, I would expect most front line soldiers would find the same. You have options if you don't like it, I look forward to viewing the entire series.
Last edited by Goodnight; 09-25-2017 at 07:04 AM..
I couldn't disagree more. What could be possibly more American than the unvarnished truth?
I have more respect than ever for all those young men and gratefully cherish my hard-earned freedom.
Same here. It is hard to believe some people are offended by it, and even think it is anti-American.
It's a documentary and he is well respected, I was hoping that this thread won't turn into a liberal/conservative thread but some seem hell bent on politics. Some were already dismissing the entire series after a mere two parts in based on some nuance. Sit back and enjoy the extensive work that went into this and save your political bend for the end.
He said he saw only the first half of the 1st episode, before dismissing it.
Location: San Diego CA>Tijuana, BC>San Antonio, TX
6,496 posts, read 7,525,332 times
Reputation: 6873
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraPagan
I believe I asked you this already -
What was My Lai if it was wasn't our soldiers raping women and killing them and their children???????
Not fair, this statement is almost the exact opposite of the folks on here who think the film is one sided, anti American and won't watch it simply because Burns is a democrat...you, however, are taking this to the other extreme.
Seems fairly and evenly presented to me. I can reason with both sides arguing here.
I don't know what the answer is. There probably isn't one.
Tonight's episode seemed to hammer home that in 1968 the world was seemingly collapsing...funny how it feels exactly the same to me here in 2017.
Sigh.
I can see both sides, too. It's complicated. If you served, you would be driven to believe it meant something when you were there and still when you came back and now. It did mean something and still does. Lots of courage and bravery in fighting a war. It's more than 99.9 % of people probably ever have.
But, it's not mutually exclusive to know it meant something and still does, yet some of the politics of the war, in the way it was fought.. were not congruent in what they wanted the outcome to be or to achieve there. You can have the "right" ideals and vision and still the thing can go wrong or when you look back could be "wrong" now, in retrospect--at least part of it maybe.
I saw that about 1968, MLK and Bobby Kennedy assassinated, along w/a lot of racial tensions and some one said the "most divisive America" since the Civil War. The year w/ the most casualties, too, I think?
It's a documentary and he is well respected, I was hoping that this thread won't turn into a liberal/conservative thread but some seem hell bent on politics. Some were already dismissing the entire series after a mere two parts in based on some nuance. Sit back and enjoy the extensive work that went into this and save your political bend for the end.
I served one year in the infantry, that doesn't give me the right to claim politics any more than you. I only saw the first two segments and found them interesting, I would expect most front line soldiers would find the same. You have options if you don't like it, I look forward to viewing the entire series.
Agreed. Attempting to get past the emotions that are obviously clouding judgement and even preventing some from hearing/seeing things in this documentary is making objective consideration more and more difficult. Preventing and/or hearing/seeing things that aren't really there. Another common problem throughout history I think...
Just done with E3 last night (still with the analogy about getting punched in the face on my mind and what "must necessarily" follow) I've got a few questions or observations I'd appreciate some feedback about:
1) Clearly the issue of communist aggression was altogether taunting in American politics as Goldwater was making lots of political hay about Johnson not doing enough, as they competed for the White House. Clearly this issue tended to define who was tough and who was not in the eyes of the public that didn't want America to look weak in any way (restrained seemed to equate to weakness back then). Question I found myself asking as I watched all that political theater is how much of that game of quien es mas macho was real rather than just another way to push for political power? What was real and what was game?
2) The above question persists as early in the show as well, we watch how the South Vietnamese bombed two North Vietnamese islands "under American direction," then the whole mess transpiring as an American warship was "gathering intelligence" off the coast, leading to more shelling but now between N.V. and us directly. Just who is "punching who in the face" at this early phase of establishing further hostilities that no doubt are going to lead to more "need" to fight. Back to that point of no return when maybe things could have been handled differently? What if we had not felt the need to be "gathering intelligence" right there off the coast of NV? Right then immediately after their islands were shelled? Earlier on, who smacked who first when those North Vietnam islands were shelled? Who REALLY needed to do what?
3) Given the overriding fear and many comments in this thread about how the threat from China and the Soviets was all the justification America needed to fight the Vietnam war as it did, why do I see so many Americans and Vietnamese on the ground getting obliterated and no Chinese or Russian soldiers along with? Why/how did the Chinese/Soviet communist menace feel they could keep to the back lines at most and for the most part leave the fighting to the Vietnamese and Americans? While we felt we needed to get in with both knees instead?
I ask because I really would like to learn what I'd like to learn here, and I admit I don't know as much about some of these particulars like I would like. Not even sure I caught all the details provided in the show like I would like on first pass, but with a focus on just where and when the Vietnam war may have been avoided for America or more likely lessened in terms of cost of America's treasure, I continue to question to what extent the threats were real and how differently we might have been able to address them in the early going, contain them, without having to endure the horrible history of the Vietnam war, that Hell beyond measure from which EVENTUALLY there seemed no return...
Agreed. Attempting to get past the emotions that are obviously clouding judgement and even preventing some from hearing/seeing things in this documentary is making objective consideration more and more difficult. Preventing and/or hearing/seeing things that aren't really there. Another common problem throughout history I think...
Just done with E3 last night (still with the analogy about getting punched in the face on my mind and what "must necessarily" follow) I've got a few questions or observations I'd appreciate some feedback about:
1) Clearly the issue of communist aggression was altogether taunting in American politics as Goldwater was making lots of political hay about Johnson not doing enough, as they competed for the White House. Clearly this issue tended to define who was tough and who was not in the eyes of the public that didn't want America to look weak in any way (restrained seemed to equate to weakness back then). Question I found myself asking as I watched all that political theater is how much of that game of quien es mas macho was real rather than just another way to push for political power? What was real and what was game?
2) The above question persists as early in the show as well, we watch how the South Vietnamese bombed two North Vietnamese islands "under American direction," then the whole mess transpiring as an American warship was "gathering intelligence" off the coast, leading to more shelling but now between N.V. and us directly. Just who is "punching who in the face" at this early phase of establishing further hostilities that no doubt are going to lead to more "need" to fight. Back to that point of no return when maybe things could have been handled differently? What if we had not felt the need to be "gathering intelligence" right there off the coast of NV? Right then immediately after their islands were shelled? Earlier on, who smacked who first when those North Vietnam islands were shelled? Who REALLY needed to do what?
3) Given the overriding fear and many comments in this thread about how the threat from China and the Soviets was all the justification America needed to fight the Vietnam war as it did, why do I see so many Americans and Vietnamese on the ground getting obliterated and no Chinese or Russian soldiers along with? Why/how did the Chinese/Soviet communist menace feel they could keep to the back lines at most and for the most part leave the fighting to the Vietnamese and Americans? While we felt we needed to get in with both knees instead?
I ask because I really would like to learn what I'd like to learn here, and I admit I don't know as much about some of these particulars like I would like. Not even sure I caught all the details provided in the show like I would like on first pass, but with a focus on just where and when the Vietnam war may have been avoided for America or more likely lessened in terms of cost of America's treasure, I continue to question to what extent the threats were real and how differently we might have been able to address them in the early going, contain them, without having to endure the horrible history of the Vietnam war, that Hell beyond measure from which EVENTUALLY there seemed no return...
Addressing your second point.......... those two islands were not Bombed. The south Vietnamese were conducting a Commando raid on those islands. The only involvement by US forces was surveillance.
If you are that interested,here is a good in detail explanation about the "Maddox" incident by navy personel aboard said vessel.......... http://jimtranr.com/Whats_Wrong_with...nt_History.pdf
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
? 
