MovieChat Forums > Platoon (1987) Discussion > The Most Liberal Bias War Movie Ever?

The Most Liberal Bias War Movie Ever?


Let's see...

..all the cool likeable characters are weed smoking and are baby faces. All the mean a-hole jerk guys are hardcore soldiers fighting to survive. The protagonist is a college kid who join the army. Again, the protagonist left college because he is a rich kid trying to fight along the poor ghetto exploited black soldiers. The jerk mean looking soldiers listen to country music and don't do weed. The Vietnamese are mistreated and abuse by the soldiers. Mind you we never see the communist mistreat their own people.

...


Directed by Oliver Stone

reply

This film is just so biased when you look at the facts.50,000 Anericans died and 6 million vietnamese were killed.That isn't a war,it's a slaughter.I have always enjoyed this film but to think Oliver Stone is giving us a realistic potrayal of the vietnam war is ludicrous.This film is just too Pro-USA for my liking but it's still a good film as a work of fiction rather than actusl fact.If you want fact watch Full Metal Jacket or Deer Hunter,these truly show the effects of war on people.

reply

Platoon was flawed but I thought more realistic than the other two.

If you're interested, the following book is true and accurate. It's free. Plenty of photos.

(If you read it, I'm sure you'll see some of the similarities to Platoon.)

I heard Stone was stationed at Position Diamond (by the Cambodia border). I was there briefly. (after they were overrun- and I heard they were fighting hand-to-hand.)

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/467602

reply

How is the film "Pro-USA"? I took it very much like America was very much the misguided aggressor which resulted, as you mention, in a war with a ridiculously inordinate amount of needless deaths.

It's 40 years since Vietnam. I don't think Vietnamese Communism threatened American "freedom" then or now.

FMJ, Deer Hunter... It might portray an American story of Vietnam, but all the films being discussed do little to show the effects of war on the Vietnamese, beyond being psychotic black pajama wearing guerrillas.

reply

I don't think Vietnamese Communism threatened American "freedom" then or now.


America's freedom? Nah the NVA threatened The Republic of Vietnam's freedom; There USED to be a Republic of Vietnam, like there is a Republic of China and a Republic of Korea. But how it's gone. Al Malaki was almost gone when he got 'ditched' by the US, but he made 'alternative alliances' so he's still there.








Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

America's freedom? Nah the NVA threatened The Republic of Vietnam's freedom...


You illustrate my point perfectly. In a political sense "Freedom" does not mean free will. It's a euphemism politicians use to galvanise popular support at home for a strategic objective... Both Ukraine and Russia, right now, are fighting for freedom.

America picks its wars carefully (or not?) If it was genuinely fighting for free will and if it felt compelled to spread Western democracy they'd be in a constant state of war.

What about Saudi - does America support the free will of the people or strategic interests? I think it's only within the last few weeks that women are now officially allowed to drive?

America isn't especially concerned about the people and the free will of Vietnam, China... Korea beyond "It's a tragedy". They're simply making a judgement call on strategic interest. The spread of Communism was a threat to American ideology in the 50s and 60s, and arguably the 70s too. In the end Vietnam was a drag on the country and I would say the war / argument was lost at home before American boots left Saigon.

Why did it take so long for the US to become involved in WW2? Quite simply, in the beginning, it wasn't America's war.

American intervention in WW2 combined strategic interest with fighting for the free will of the people. In simple terms this is why it was a "good war". America, obviously a deeply patriotic country who holds all its service personnel in high regard, but do you ever notice how much the people who fought and died in the world wars are held in a slightly elevated degree of reverence.

Curiously WW2 set a precedent from then up until now on liberal interventionism. Owing to the blood and treasure Western countries have expended in trying to "spread freedom" to other countries and cultures, perhaps the results of their actions is a reason why there is a complete lack of consensus on a cohesive strategy on Isis. In short, will we add more fuel to the fire - is it worth it?

And as for spreading democracy in Iraq, well...

All this said I'm not doubting America's well meaning "good" intentions. The strategic "planning" is just horribly misguided and juvenile in its attempt to draw quick simple solutions to complex situations that have existed for decades if not centuries.

reply

Lets be clear, much like agitating the Japs into such a tizzy so they would attack us in 1941(and we have our best, most modern ships mysteriously not at Pearl Harbor), the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which imo was a American staged "event" to esculate the Vietnam conflict the US in the 20th century became a violent society despite surging GDP per capita and mass poverty majorly eliminated.

"Communism" to me, was a scam. When I was running with the Civilian Militia's as a very young man in the early 90's and having conservations with men like Robert K Brown. You get indoctrinated with a idealism. The idealism of anti-communism. Anti-Jewish Communism, anti-Asiatic Communism and Anti-Latino Communism. All the soldiers of fortune worked out of that ideal. But I came across a financial letter in my cell that contained the word "Permindex" in it. This was surprising to me. Well, what I found was a amazing. Not only was my "cell" getting corporate funding, but it was signed "David Rockefeller"..........how horrible!!!!

Basically it is this way. Communism started under Christian based European white men by the name of Owen,Weitling and Cabot. They were appalled by the treatment of workers in the rising industrial economy or the "social outrage". They tried to replace the market economy with early Christian communal practices and began setting up "communes" over Europe(Owen eventually left Christianity nominally due to disgust with its treatment of the poor and laborers). Who was interested in this? Christian taught and ethnically Jewish Karl Marx and his assistant Fred Engels. Their belief, as men of the enlightment, was that the ancient Christian practices of communal sharing was the future of the world and once you strip away the religious aspects of that, you get a materialistic "utopia" where all mass suffering and poverty are wiped out. Thus Marx and Engels give 40 years of work to supporting this goal. They at first, debate and being smart, highly educated men, defeat Owen,Weitling and Cabot in debates. Assuming the "Communist" mantel. At this point, more Jews start to get involved and the Frankfurt school is born.

How does this relate to 20th century communism? Marx like all "enlightment" followers, supported the developed of market economy. This is a HUGE difference from Owen,Weitling and Cabot. Because they accepted Capitalism as a positive feature of change, they supported its development as a path toward Communism. Right there was the large mistake. The whole nature of "Marxism" was to "perfect" market based economics into "Communism". The Capitalists must have secretly smiled and giggled at the same time.

Thus begins 20th century "communism". In the next article, we will discuss the origin of the Bolshevik party, Capitalism's role in the Russian Revolution, Nazism, Asiatic Communism and post-war NSC-68 created the groundwork for "Communism" as the money maker.

reply

Lets be clear, much like agitating the Japs into such a tizzy so they would attack us in 1941(and we have our best, most modern ships mysteriously not at Pearl Harbor),


How exactly did we 'agitate' the Japs so they'd attack us?

Yeah...a couple of carriers were on the East Coast enforcing 'Neutrality patrols' against the German UBoats; A couple were on the West Coast;
One was delivering marine fighters to wake island (within range of Japanese Land bases & also in the path of the IJN Sub net) and arrived at Pearl a few hours after the attack. SOME of it's planes actually arrived during the attack.


Check your facts more.





Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

I know that Oliver Stone is a crazed liberal but I never really saw this film as being political. It just showed the effects that war had on a persons morality. I don't think it was ever meant to be anti-American (I mean Stone himself dedicated the film to the men who fought and died in the Vietnam War) but it was more anti-war. And the Vietnamese were shown to be just as ruthless like having suicide runners, cutting people's throats and putting them on display, etc.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

reply

Not militarily.
We (and the UK) began to strangle them economically, mainly petroleum and steel.

reply

Ah the poor innocent little darlings; were they being naughty or something?




Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[deleted]

This "Libby, Lib, Lib" *beep* is moronic. Not everyone is out to get your stupid ass, don't flatter yourself.

reply

It is a perspective on war and a personal one at that from Stone. It is a very liberal film, with no in between. It is either good or evil. Bottom line you yanks had no business being there.

reply

Bottom line you yanks had no business being there.


And I thought we were supporting an Ally, The Republic of Vietnam; kind of like we supported the Republic of Korea & the Republic of China against their aggressive & expansionary neighbors.







Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

"And I thought we were supporting an Ally, The Republic of Vietnam; kind of like we supported the Republic of Korea & the Republic of China against their aggressive & expansionary neighbors. "

You guys have absolutely no idea how ridiculous/hilarious/stupid (and with some anger inside) this phrase sounds to outside-real world-nonAmerican people.

reply

Funny! They also say that about Taiwan & South Korea during the cold war:

"False Country"; "Corrupt Dictatorships"; "Puppet State"; "Illegitimate";


I think some people still fume with rage that Kim didn't get the whole shooting match, in spite of how NorKo turned out.


Anyway, there's no anger in my response; mostly rational





Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

So what is the OPs record of fighting in Vietnam.

Did he volunteer like Oliver Stone and saw the war first hand?

Its that man again!!

reply