Hearts & Minds Reviews
Let's see: at the end of WWII we (we being The United States of America) dropped two Atomic Weapons on Japan:
upon impact, the Nagasaki Bomb killed 40,000 civilians (8/9/1945)
upon impact, the Hiroshima Bomb killed 80,000 civilians (8/6/1945)
so, within three days my country killed One Hundred Twenty Thousand Civilians with two bombs
Since the two weapons were ATOMIC, Fat Man and Little Boy, radiation was released from both devices poisoning and genetically altering approximately an additional 100,000 civilians. In Total, the two atomic weapons caused the deaths of around two hundred and fifty-thousand unarmed civilians.
In Vietnam, my country financed the French Occupation of Vietnam and then began invading Vietnam as early as 1955, we dropped CLUSTER BOMBS, NAPALM, (sprayed) AGENT ORANGE upon civilian villages constantly especially after OPERATION MENU began that included incessantly bombing CAMBODIA. we killed approximately 242,000 civilians in Vietnam.
Apparently since commencing our involvement in IRAQ, an estimated 151,000 to 600,000 civilian deaths have occurred.
The United States of America seems to target civilians from what I'm hearing.
Then my fellow Americans say "Its "All" propaganda and manipulation. . .
How can "it" be propaganda and manipulation when we have the actual films of the Atomic Weapons actually exploding over Civilian-populated Japanese cities and Footage of the bombings in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan . . .
There's overwhelming evidence that The United States of America targets Civilians in its war schema.
Don't get me wrong I AM TOTALLY NOT ANTI-WAR; if were weren't in Afghanistan, people with axes to grind with The United States of America would be exploding Nuclear Weapons in our major cities left and right for REVENGE over what some of my fellow Americans DID to their people.
Its just very difficult to maintain my country as being The Good Guy in every War Theater since WORLD WAR II.
and HEARTS AND MINDS crystallized my suspicions about The United States of America harboring genocidal tendencies inherent in its Foreign Policy Agenda.
Genocide: when one race kills an exorbitant amount of people of another race.
---Unfortunately war is necessary, especially now because I suspect a lot of cultures probably resent my country's antics during wartime.
how about: war is not unnecessary these days . . . (note the double-negative)
[i]Hearts and Minds[/i] seems sane and rational, though I'm told the filmmaker, Peter Davis, read a message from the North Vietnamese government as part of his acceptance speech. So there's that. And it's certainly a biased film--the contrast of General Westmoreland explaining that "Orientals" don't place the same value on human life as Americans being intercut with a Vietnamese funeral and the grief connected to it kind of shows that, I think. Most of the film is intended to show the problems of our occupation of Vietnam. Many of those interviewed are veterans, but mostly the kind of veterans who were protesting the war. The few others are primarily used as contrast.
Now, Westmoreland claimed to have been quoted out of context, and there are those who say that Davis trapped him into making the statement. However, I have to say that I can't think of any context that would have made that statement less reprehensible. I also can't see how anything Davis said would have forced Westmoreland to make that kind of statement. Likewise George Coker, a former American POW, declares that Vietnam would be a very pretty country were it not for the people. Now, I can understand Coker's not being the most happy with the Vietnamese people, especially of course the North Vietnamese. On the other hand, he is committing the falacy of tarring the entire population of the country with the same brush.
It is also true, of course, that the film shows only the American atrocities. We see Phan Thị Kim Phúc, the famous girl photographed running naked down the street, horribly burned by napalm. (Richard Nixon, apparently, believed the photo, and presumably the film of the same event, to be faked.) We see that funeral. We hear veterans talk about the horrible things they saw. But we never actually hear Coker talk about what happened to him. We don't get told how either side treated their prisoners, really. We hear a lot about napalm, but nothing about the Hanoi Hilton. It is a biased film, though I'm kind of curious as to how much of popular culture at the time was biased the other way.
I will admit that I do not much approve of the Vietnam War in retrospect. To be fair, I wasn't there for it. The war is considered to have ended in 1975, more than a year before I was born. I'm not best thrilled with the current war, either, though I'm sure none of you are surprised by that. I like to think that we've gotten better at presenting an unbiased view of things, but I know that we haven't. Then again, hardly anyone in history ever has. We consider our current reporting of World War II to be unbiased, but how often do we consider the perspective of anyone but ourselves and Hitler?