@Benton12 said:

1. Like mostly all Vietnam war films this film loses nearly all of its meaning when you learn Ho Chi Minh was mass-murderer of landlords in the 1950's in a land reform (see my postings).

Not really. Because we can also learn how Ho Chi Minh had tried diplomacy for many years - the UN nodded their heads, patted him on the head, and demonstrated no intention to end French colonization of Vietnam. Had they taken him seriously, they could have saved not only those landlords, but everyone involved in the Vietnam War.

As the UN and France would not willingly leave, Ho Chi Minh set about pushing them out. Land reform was kicking out colonizers and returning the land to indigenous peasants. The cruelty with which he kicked out the colonizers over those few years pales before the decades of cruelty meted out by the colonizers.

Whenever oppressed people fight back (defend themselves), it's curious to me when people take more umbrage with the fight back than they do with the oppression in the first place. "Don't start nothing, won't be nothing." My parents always taught me, "don't start a fight, but damn sure end a fight," [edit] which is exactly what the Vietnamese did.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Benton12 said:

1. Like mostly all Vietnam war films this film loses nearly all of its meaning when you learn Ho Chi Minh was mass-murderer of landlords in the 1950's in a land reform (see my postings).

Not really. Because we can also learn how Ho Chi Minh had tried diplomacy for many years - the UN nodded their heads, patted him on the head, and demonstrated no intention to end French colonization of Vietnam. Had they taken him seriously, they could have saved not only those landlords, but everyone involved in the Vietnam War.

As the UN and France would not willingly leave, Ho Chi Minh set about pushing them out. Land reform was kicking out colonizers and returning the land to indigenous peasants. The cruelty with which he kicked out the colonizers over those few years pales before the decades of cruelty meted out by the colonizers.

Whenever oppressed people fight back (defend themselves), taking umbrage with the fight back without taking more umbrage with the oppression in the first place is curious, to me. "Don't start nothing, won't be nothing." My parents always taught me, "don't start a fight, but damn sure end a fight."

Yes, really!!!

And you actually very crazily think his attempts at diplomacy means it was A-OK for him to go and butcher many thousands of landlords and just landowners! I am also positive many peasants never owned land neither did their direct ancestors. Many of Ho's butchered victims were Vietnamese themselves like Nguyen Thi Nam!

Scenario analogy:

A burglar murders a God-given beautiful women who was defenseless! He really butchers her while he is at it! Later, he gets arrested and at his trial he says "I did not do anything bad. I called this lady up first by telephone and told her to get out of her house. If she had left I would not have slaughtered her as I robbed her." The jury is shocked at his ultra-lame attempt at a defense but they sentence him to hang all the same!

Scenario over.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Benton12 said:

1. Like mostly all Vietnam war films this film loses nearly all of its meaning when you learn Ho Chi Minh was mass-murderer of landlords in the 1950's in a land reform (see my postings).

Not really. Because we can also learn how Ho Chi Minh had tried diplomacy for many years - the UN nodded their heads, patted him on the head, and demonstrated no intention to end French colonization of Vietnam. Had they taken him seriously, they could have saved not only those landlords, but everyone involved in the Vietnam War.

As the UN and France would not willingly leave, Ho Chi Minh set about pushing them out. Land reform was kicking out colonizers and returning the land to indigenous peasants. The cruelty with which he kicked out the colonizers over those few years pales before the decades of cruelty meted out by the colonizers.

Whenever oppressed people fight back (defend themselves), taking umbrage with the fight back without taking more umbrage with the oppression in the first place is curious, to me. "Don't start nothing, won't be nothing." My parents always taught me, "don't start a fight, but damn sure end a fight."

This crazy put punctuation in on the wrong part of the first wrongly replied paragraph. They put a comma after the word landlords. Messed up punctuation fits totally messed up idea!

There was bitterness towards Ho that he did not have to really (and that is --not really in any way!)have to try to invade South Vietnam! True 100%! But him keeping an invasion militarily going paled in comparison to his unnecessary, inhuman landlord slaughter!

There was nothing whatsoever to stop Ho Chi Minh from merely stealing all those landlords land (mega-giant act of theft that would have been all by itself) and booting out all those Vietnamese-descended landlords and landowners alive and exiling them all to South Vietnam! As it was Ho slaughtered landlords, committed huge land theft to those legitimate landowners, and threw thousands of them in jail where many died fast of bad food and water and slave labor! A super triple tragedy --a lousy in human ruler was Ho and worthy of being stopped to get South Vietnam!

@Benton12 said:

Scenario analogy:

A burglar murders a God-given beautiful women who was defenseless! He really butchers her while he is at it! Later, he gets arrested and at his trial he says "I did not do anything bad. I called this lady up first by telephone and told her to get out of her house. If she had left I would not have slaughtered her as I robbed her." The jury is shocked at his ultra-lame attempt at a defense but they sentence him to hang all the same!

Scenario over.

Your scenario is fallacy. If there is any "burglar" (trespasser there to steal stuff that doesn't belong to them), it'd be the French colonizers in a country not called France.

Now, when a burglar (the French) enters YOUR home (Vietnam) and you warn them, "get out of my house", and they don't leave...now we have an appropriate "scenario"...

@Benton12 said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Benton12 said:

1. Like mostly all Vietnam war films this film loses nearly all of its meaning when you learn Ho Chi Minh was mass-murderer of landlords in the 1950's in a land reform (see my postings).

Not really. Because we can also learn how Ho Chi Minh had tried diplomacy for many years - the UN nodded their heads, patted him on the head, and demonstrated no intention to end French colonization of Vietnam. Had they taken him seriously, they could have saved not only those landlords, but everyone involved in the Vietnam War.

As the UN and France would not willingly leave, Ho Chi Minh set about pushing them out. Land reform was kicking out colonizers and returning the land to indigenous peasants. The cruelty with which he kicked out the colonizers over those few years pales before the decades of cruelty meted out by the colonizers.

Whenever oppressed people fight back (defend themselves), taking umbrage with the fight back without taking more umbrage with the oppression in the first place is curious, to me. "Don't start nothing, won't be nothing." My parents always taught me, "don't start a fight, but damn sure end a fight."

This crazy put punctuation in on the wrong part of the first wrongly replied paragraph. They put a comma after the word landlords. Messed up punctuation fits totally messed up idea!

My comma is fine, I am not crazy, the idea is well-documented out in the real world beyond me, and ad hominem is the desperate refuge of the meritless.

You posted, I replied to add some historical context for consideration, and your non-constructive ranting and personal attacks tell me this is no longer a rational conversation. If you can't engage discourse/dissent with civility, I'm not interested in conversing with you. I'm content to let what I've written speak for itself, and I hope you are, too (which is to say, you need not reply).

Other readers can take the cues, do their own research, and make up their own minds.

Cheers.

@Benton12 said:

1. Memorable creepy scene I recall is a couple of horses trained to look like they were dancing.
2. Like mostly all Vietnam war films this film loses nearly all of its meaning when you learn Ho Chi Minh was mass-murderer of landlords in the 1950's in a land reform (see my postings).

1) Horses dancing? Dressage. It's an American Olympic Sport! It's on the schedule this very year in Tokyo. _THAT_is your objection to this move? The less than 1 minute scene of the policeman on horses? Are you Anti-American? Pro-French? Are you a Vietnam-Era Vet? NO, you're not. You're s(NOT A VETERAN OF THE WAR) whose Granddaddy indoctrinated you in your misspent youth, and you never had the intellectual curiosity to investigate or challenge that ridiculous narrative. You're a silly boy.