Posted on 10/18/2017 6:25:22 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
The only positive thing I can say about Ken Burns’ documentary on the Vietnam War is this — if it is the best the left has, we may blessedly have heard the last of them. The arguments Mr. Burns presents are weak, biased, and insulting. The documentary is scripted to evoke sorrow and moral indignation over what was presented as American error, ineptness, and lack of moral purpose.
The narrative counterposes happy and earnest winners (the communists) with sad and angst-ridden losers (America and the South Vietnamese). It deemed only such perspectives worthy of inclusion. Mr. Burns fails to find even one American or South Vietnamese veteran who wholly supported the war, was proud to have appeared in arms, and sickened by the United States’ abandonment its freedom-seeking ally.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of us.
No doubt, too, there were North Vietnamese who are critical of the brutality of the communist conduct of the war, but Mr. Burns can’t find them either. We have no way of knowing whether the happy and earnest communist veterans who did appear in the documentary participated in the war crimes — the execution of thousands of civilians — in Hue or any of the countless acts of North Vietnamese-sponsored terrorism.
The Burns documentary accepts without question five pillars of the liberal view of the war:
1. There was moral equivalency between the U.S. and Communist forces, and the goals and objectives of the respective governments.
No there wasn’t. Communist North Vietnam invaded a South Vietnam striving for democracy. The South Vietnamese posed no threat to the North other than by their example. The North had no inherent right to conquer South Vietnam, and the South Vietnamese had no obligation to “vote themselves communist” in 1955....
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
“I don’t think you know what a personal attack is. Clearly you don’t comprehend the meaning of a lie either.”
All I have to do is read your posts for examples ...
“Catholics in Vietnam had been oppressed for centuries before that.”
Perhaps the Buddhists didn’t like the Catholics bussing them?
I tell you what I’m gonna do for you, because I’m such a nice guy and I’m in a particularly good mood tonight. You show me specifically where I lied in any of my posts, and I will write an apology.
I apologize for not writing in a way that was more comprehensible to TexasGator. I should have included reference to the declarative sentences and inferences that were designed to illicit a reponse as to why TexasGator refuses to criticize the communists of Vietnam. I should have stated more clearly that not every single sentence I posted was in the form of a question.
Now are you willing to post a single derogatory comment about the communist government of Vietnam?
“I apologize for not writing in a way that was more comprehensible to TexasGator.”
Oh, I comprehended your writing easily enough. Just as now you can’t come up with a simple apology but start it with a statement belittling me.
” I should have stated more clearly that not every single sentence I posted was in the form of a question.”
Your lie could NOT have been more clearly written!
Are you willing now to post a single derogatory comment about the communist government of Vietnam?
So you have done nothing to fight the communists and you want a veteran whose wife lost family fighting communist to eat your crap? Bye.
When did I say I wanted you to eat crap?
“When did I say I wanted you to eat crap?”
I apologize for not writing more clearly.
I’m sure you must have a good reason why this has been so difficult. Is it that hard to acknowledge that communists are bad?
So you have done nothing to fight the communists and you want a veteran whose wife lost family fighting communist to eat your crap?
You should be thanking for helping to keep your partying ass safe.
There’s no need to be hostile. I am not being hostile. I am trying to understand you. If you are indeed a vet, I salute you. But that makes your initial attitude all the more puzzling. Why not just say “yes the north was worse but let’s not overlook Diem’s crimes” or something like that. Why the defensiveness?
“But that makes your initial attitude all the more puzzling. “
Attitude? You meat me defense when you call my wife and me commie lovers?
“If you are indeed a vet”
You are so insincere ...
Never wrote that.
It’s the internet. I take you at your word.
Did Burns mention that this was Johnson’s war or that Kennedy had the President of South Vietnam assassinated?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.