Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Tigers Johnson

Ken Burns Vietnam War documentary

Recommended Posts

Has anyone been watching this? It is the most thorough one I have seen yet and I have learned a lot I did not know... I ended up just buying it on Amazon for 50 bucks...

 

Seems from my perspective you can draw a lot of parallels between what was going on back then and what is going on in our country now..... in fact it seems as though Trump may have as much if not more in common with Lyndon Johnson than Nixon....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having to watch it via bootlegged uploads to YouTube since we're no longer in the States but agree that it is exceptionally well done. I'm sure some historians would quibble with parts of it but I've enjoyed it. 

 

As to your Trump/Johnson comparison, I couldn't see Trump signing the Civil Rights Act, but that's a discussion for another topic... :13_upside_down:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Elflocko said:

Having to watch it via bootlegged uploads to YouTube since we're no longer in the States but agree that it is exceptionally well done. I'm sure some historians would quibble with parts of it but I've enjoyed it. 

 

As to your Trump/Johnson comparison, I couldn't see Trump signing the Civil Rights Act, but that's a discussion for another topic... :13_upside_down:

I agree on the civil rights... I guess I was going more on temperament.... that and his attack on Morley Safer and CBS

 

Disclaimer: I don’t believe there is any immoral equivalency to Trump in Presidential history...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great documentary, but 20 hours just wore me out.  The first couipl[e of episodes were very informative, and each episode contained a few pieces of interesting history, but there was just too much repeating of the combat deaths.  I know that is what war is about, but this show did not need to be 20 hours long.  I got the point that lots of innocent young people died after about the first 12 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been watching slowly but surely after work in the mornings. Finally finished it the other day. It's comprehensive but not very sharp in many ways. Of course, this is what Burns is known for: in depth narratives which tell an interesting story within the bounds of acceptable discourse. So, like the Civil War doc, this is a fine place for a start, but by no means a definitive or fundamentally truthful exposition of that war.

 

I will say this: it has provoked a lot of thought for me, both good and bad. So, in this respect, I'm glad I watched it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have actually watched his Civil War doc. several times... and like you said a good starting point but no where near tells the entire story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say this documentary gives a lot more of the Vietnamese side of the story than I have ever seen... I have always wanted a world war 1 and 2 doc. that gave the other side of the story more in depth as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tigers Johnson said:

I agree on the civil rights... I guess I was going more on temperament.... that and his attack on Morley Safer and CBS

Yeah, LBJ was a hothead, but he was also cunning and calculating. Neither of which describes that wretch in the WH. 

 

Quote

Disclaimer: I don’t believe there is any immoral equivalency to Trump in Presidential history...

Andrew Jackson... ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Homer_Rice said:

 this is a fine place for a start, but by no means a definitive or fundamentally truthful exposition of that war.

 

I found fundamentally truthful.  It explained the motives of all sides and also discussed the mistakes that both sides made.

 

What made you think it was not truthful?  Was was left out or deceitful?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

slightly edited version of an email convo I've been having:

 

Quote
Okay, so, the Burns doc is what I would describe as “the officially approved” version of the history. It’s a story, well done, but constrained by the bounds of what we might call “acceptable discourse.” So, you get many sides to the conflict, but also avoidance (maybe reluctance is a better term) of real controversy. Like his CW doc, and like so much of modern reporting for that matter, you get a lot of sides to the story. But you don’t really get any serious statements about these sides which “take a side.” That’s kind of what I mean by sanitized. Note how the Gulf of Tonkin incident is treated, for example. Also, watch how the discussion about civilian casualties plays out. And important lessons, like how JFK was likely killed in part because of his reluctance to fully commit to a military-industrial complex war, or how McNamara is really a war criminal are avoided.
 
That’s not to say that Burns doesn’t creep up to these conclusions. He just doesn’t make them. Which has it’s benefits as it forces people to draw their own conclusions. It’s just that my view is a bit cynical—I think a lot of Americans who are currently placidly swimming in the ocean of shit we call modern society and culture aren’t capable of drawing the right conclusions. For example, how many people do you know are truly upset about the fact that we have been perpetrating war for really bad reason for almost 16 years now? I sometimes ask folks: “Aren’t you tired of war?” And generally, they are not, mostly because all that stuff is on the periphery of their lives as lived. And that’s a Vietnam lesson learned by the elites who runs these criminal, unjust, dustups all over the globe. Keep the population from really thinking about the deeper implications of these wars and how they distort the republic and you can pretty much do anything you want. We certainly are still murdering civilians at a great rate. But where is the outcry?
 
And I wholeheartedly agree with you about Vietnam causing people to lose trust in government in general. The problem is that instead of usefully working to change government to better represent the genuine interests of the people, a lot of fluff and chaff is thrown into the air which makes it hard for people to remember that, in our form of government, the form of government that Lincoln fought for, the idea that we govern ourselves, is lost in the static. And, it follows that if we can’t trust government to do anything, that outside of government is where we’ll find solutions, then those with power will grasp that power for themselves, and spew a bunch of horseshit about market solutions and liberty and freedom “from.” But very little freedom “to.” In fact, a lot of people I know can’t really distinguish between liberty and freedom. You see where that has gotten us. The worm may be turning in this respect, but that battle will be fought for years to come.
 
Among all the worthwhile notions to take from the Burns doc—and even though I’m critical, there are a number of them, the most important one from my perspective comes at the 26 minute mark of episode 4. It’s an idea so succinctly expressed that if one isn’t paying attention it might just glide right by. But it is really worth pondering over. It’s an concept that explains so much about our modern world and its dysfunction. I quote from one of the interviewees/commentators, who is talking about the shift to body counts but which idea really applies to all kinds of aspects of our society.
 
“If you can’t count what is important, you make what you can count, important.” McNamara’s Fog of War indeed!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2017 at 9:03 AM, Homer_Rice said:

 

 

In fact, a lot of people I know can’t really distinguish between liberty and freedom. You see where that has gotten us.

Actually I don't see the difference and I don't see where that has gotten us.

 

We have a lot of problems in this country, but nit picking over the definition of two words that most dictionaries call "synonymous" is not the basis for any of them as far as I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll never understand my avatar, either.

 

I'm guessing your main interest here is not to pursue any truths, but rather to pick a fight. Are you sure you want to do that?

 

With me?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, fredtoast said:

Actually I don't see the difference and I don't see where that has gotten us.

 

We have a lot of problems in this country, but nit picking over the definition of two words that most dictionaries call "synonymous" is not the basis for any of them as far as I can tell.

 

8 hours ago, Homer_Rice said:

You'll never understand my avatar, either.

 

I'm guessing your main interest here is not to pursue any truths, but rather to pick a fight. Are you sure you want to do that?

 

With me?

:popcorn:

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 8:56 PM, Homer_Rice said:

You'll never understand my avatar, either.

 

I'm guessing your main interest here is not to pursue any truths, but rather to pick a fight. Are you sure you want to do that?

 

With me?

 

 

I always say exactly what I mean.  I am secure enough in my beliefs to share them openly.  I don't feel the need to play games like "I am smarter than you because I have a secret."

 

How about you?  If the truth is so important to you then why don't you share it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 10/4/2017 at 9:03 AM, Homer_Rice said:

slightly edited version of an email convo I've been having:

 

I sometimes ask folks: “Aren’t you tired of war?” And generally, they are not, mostly because all that stuff is on the periphery of their lives as lived. And that’s a Vietnam lesson learned by the elites who runs these criminal, unjust, dustups all over the globe. Keep the population from really thinking about the deeper implications of these wars and how they distort the republic and you can pretty much do anything you want. 

 

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that over the last 2 full years ('15-'16) there have only been 36 U.S. military casualties in Afghanistan.  Over that same time period more US military personnel died in car wrecks.

 

But when you say "do anything you want" what exactly do you mean.  What actions have been covered up by the war in Afghanistan?  How has the republic been distorted by these actions.

 

Personally I am tired of the war in Afghanistan.  It is a huge waste of money and lives.  But I don't see it as being some sort of shield for secret actions that are "distorting the republic".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You kind of remind me of my first girlfriend, Toast. She was pretty, but shallow. Used to spend a lot of time talking, but not too much time saying anything. We've both been on these boards for a long time and for anyone who has been paying attention, our respective manner of carrying ourselves is pretty clear to people.

 

This is how this is going to go. First, you'll need to admit that your purpose is to pick a fight with me. Notice, I'm not saying you have to admit that being a troll is your essential function on this board. I'm just saying that our dialogue ought to begin with at least some modicum of truth. If you truly say what you mean, then acknowledging your general method should be no difficulty.

 

If you do that, then we'll be on our way to having a fine discussion about Vietnam, wars at large, and the decline of the American republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Homer_Rice said:

You kind of remind me of my first girlfriend, Toast. She was pretty, but shallow. Used to spend a lot of time talking, but not too much time saying anything. We've both been on these boards for a long time and for anyone who has been paying attention, our respective manner of carrying ourselves is pretty clear to people.

 

This is how this is going to go. First, you'll need to admit that your purpose is to pick a fight with me. Notice, I'm not saying you have to admit that being a troll is your essential function on this board. I'm just saying that our dialogue ought to begin with at least some modicum of truth. If you truly say what you mean, then acknowledging your general method should be no difficulty.

 

If you do that, then we'll be on our way to having a fine discussion about Vietnam, wars at large, and the decline of the American republic.

If I wanted to start a fight then I would insult you personally.  All I have done is ask legitimate questions about what exactly you mean.  Why would you claim that this is an attempt to start a fight?  And even if you do think I am trying to start a fight why can't you just answer my question and refuse to get in a fight?

 

Are you seriously going to refuse to answer any questions unless I say I am trying to start a fight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider it therapy. It's your M.O. I'd suggest that you openly acknowledging that might be liberating. It's also a community service; I'm pretty sure that plenty of folks on this board agree with me that you constantly pick fights. So, c'mon, man, just admit your basic nature. Nothing wrong with being ornery and contrary, so long as you are acting in good faith. Are you acting in good faith? I think that's the real question here, in this specific instance, as well as throughout your history on this board.

 

As for myself, I think my post history demonstrates my willingness to openly, freely, and often volubly engage in discussion. This isn't a matter of my reluctance to engage; all I'm asking it that the troll acknowledge that he is a troll before I do engage. That's not too much to ask, is it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2017 at 8:23 PM, Homer_Rice said:

 all I'm asking it that the troll acknowledge that he is a troll before I do engage. That's not too much to ask, is it?

 

 

I am not trolling.  All I have done is asked you to explain your position.  How is that trolling?

 

And even if I was trolling why would that stop you from explaining your position.  I have dealt with trolls before.  I don't let them get me worked up.  Instead I just answer their questions the best I can. 

 

Trolls want people to make a lot of posts that are just personal attacks and don't add anything to the conversation.  They make multiple posts refusing to discuss the topic.   And right now YOU are the only one doing that.  All I have done is asked you to explain your statements.  So who is the real troll here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only seeing one side of this, but let me guess:

 

Redirect/pressure flip "no you are"

 

changing the topic/non sequiturs

 

feigned innocence behind veiled insults

 

refusing to take a stance that can be refuted

 

low-effort statements/expects you to do the work

 

appeals to emotion

 

critical but lacks any meaningful content

 

adds nothing to original conversation or avoids it completely

 

 

 

How'd I do?  Being good at trolling doesn't make it not trolling.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Go-Bengals.com on Facebook

Go-Bengals.com on Twitter

×