29 Nov 09
I'm about to sit down and work my way through the 1983 PBS series "Vietnam - A Television History". What are its strengths and weaknesses? Am I in for a relatively impartial analysis and narrative? I know there are posters on here who know a lot about the War and have strong opinions about how the story should be told.
29 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Karnow
I'm about to sit down and work my way through the 1983 PBS series "Vietnam - A Television History". What are its strengths and weaknesses? Am I in for a relatively impartial analysis and narrative? I know there are posters on here who know a lot about the War and have strong opinions about how the story should be told.
He was chief correspondent for the PBS series Vietnam: A Television History, which won him six Emmy Awards, a Peabody Award, a George Polk Award and an DuPont-Columbia Award.
http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2000/04/27/revisionists/index.html
By Stanley Karnow
...
Recently, in an attempt to justify the U.S. commitment, a featherweight group of neoconservative think-tankers (few of whom have any firsthand experience of either the country or the war) has begun rattling 30-year-old sabers, alleging that America broke its "word of honor" to its ally, asserting that the war could have been won and reviving the dubious domino-theory thesis that the war was necessary to halt the Soviet Union's global aspirations. This revisionist wave has been successful in landing its exponents on talk shows. It has been far less successful at convincing most experts. This is not surprising, for it has little basis in fact.
...
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFI got the book here that he wrote."Vietnam a history".That was good . I imagine the movie would be as well.
I'm about to sit down and work my way through the 1983 PBS series "Vietnam - A Television History". What are its strengths and weaknesses? Am I in for a relatively impartial analysis and narrative? I know there are posters on here who know a lot about the War and have strong opinions about how the story should be told.
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonThanks for not fobbing me off with a cut & paste of someone else's opinion. You talking about Stanley Karnow's book. I studied History at university and read it way back then. I am actually interested in what you, smw6869, Sam The Sham and others think, or - at the other extreme - whether any "irrational Europeans" take any comfort from the way it lays it all out. smw6869, in particular, has made some very interesting and provocative assertions here about the War. Have you ever seen a documentary about it that you thought was distorting the truth?
I got the book here that he wrote."Vietnam a history".That was good . I imagine the movie would be as well.
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFit's odd you describe karnow's own words as a "cut & paste of someone else's opinion".
Thanks for not fobbing me off with a cut & paste of someone else's opinion. You talking about Stanley Karnow's book. I studied History at university and read it way back then. I am actually interested in what you, smw6869, Sam The Sham and others think, or - at the other extreme - whether any "irrational Europeans" take any comfort from the way it lays i ...[text shortened]... he War. Have you ever seen a documentary about it that you thought was distorting the truth?
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotYes I do. This OP clearly was soliciting the personal opinions of fellow posters. You're too self-obsessed with the spamming thing you do to even realize that. (several regular posters have already said that they don't read your posts). You are peripheral. And last time you and I "discussed" the Vietnam War, you used a cut & paste apparently to try to argue that the U.S. killed nobody during the conflict. You'd found a web site that seemed to suggest that. So you cut and paste from it, in bulk, post after psot after post. So I am not particularly interested in what you think even if you were ever to bother sharing what you actually think with us.
it's odd you describe karnow's own words as a "cut & paste of someone else's opinion".
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMF1, karnow's words speak for themselves. i have no opinion other than what i draw from the horse's mouth.
Yes I do. This OP clearly was soliciting the personal opinions of fellow posters. You're too self-obsessed with the spamming thing you do to even realize that. (several regular posters have already said that they don't read your posts). You are peripheral. And last time you and I "discussed" the Vietnam War, you used a cut & paste apparently to try to argue that ...[text shortened]... t you think even if you were ever to bother sharing what you actually think with us.
2. TFB. if a blogger has something good to say, and i copy it here, and all you can say is "who IS this blogger?", it reflects more on you than on me or the blogger.
3, only you argued that. not the website itself. it just didn't have the VN war listed on one particular bulleted list, and you made a big deal out of it (for how many pages of back and forth?), and extrapolated (or are extrapolating) that the site maintained the US killed nobody there.
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotPretty much sums you up.
karnow's words speak for themselves. i have no opinion other than what i draw from the horse's mouth.
Have you watched the TV series?
If no, why are you posting to this thread?
If yes, having "no opinion other than what i draw from" the author of the book it was based on, is bizarre.
Have you watched it?
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFIt's funny , but if you watched all the American Films , tv etc and you didn't know the out come of the war , you would be amazed to find that the Usa lost!!!
I'm about to sit down and work my way through the 1983 PBS series "Vietnam - A Television History". What are its strengths and weaknesses? Am I in for a relatively impartial analysis and narrative? I know there are posters on here who know a lot about the War and have strong opinions about how the story should be told.
During that war , the Americans dropped more bombs than the Allies and Axis did in the entirity of the 2nd WW.
Lets hope they have learn't the "Hearts and minds "lesson!!!!
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by phil3000First of all,The U.S. did not loose the war,as you put it.
It's funny , but if you watched all the American Films , tv etc and you didn't know the out come of the war , you would be amazed to find that the Usa lost!!!
During that war , the Americans dropped more bombs than the Allies and Axis did in the entirity of the 2nd WW.
Lets hope they have learn't the "Hearts and minds "lesson!!!!
It was not a war.It was a police action. The two are not the same.Rules of engagement,etc are all different than in a actual "war". Did the U.S. stop the spread of communisim there? No. The objective was not met thanks to politicians in Washington. Body counts,destruction,mayhem? Which army caused more? The U.S. won hands down.Even handcuffed the way they were.Fighting in a defensive posture in some one else back yard while the other is on full offensive.
In actual "war",the U.S. military is unbeatable and is far superior than any other.
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFwar was not declared. an army is handcuffed and micro managed back in the white house when in situations like police actions.
I suppose it helps if you can define "war" as a "war" where the U.S. "wins" and a "war" where the U.S. does not "win" as not a "war".
The u.s. "lost" by not fulfilling its obligation,thanks to all the resistance back home.If war was declared it would of been over swiftly.
The u.s. did not loose from getting its butt whupped or any non sense like that either.
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonYou advocate the U.S. military NOT being under the command of the civilian government?
war was not declared. an army is handcuffed and micro managed back in the white house when in situations like police actions.
The u.s. "lost" by not fulfilling its obligation,thanks to all the resistance back home.If war was declared it would of been over swiftly.
The u.s. did not loose from getting its butt whupped or any non sense like that either.
You are suggesting that if the U.S. military doesn't like its mission and doesn't like its orders, it is entitled to define its "loss" as a "police action"?
"If war was declared it would of been over swiftly".
With less casualties on the Vietnamese side than the "police action" caused"?