DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Religious Dick on May 26, 2010, 01:23:23 PM
-
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Was Rambo Right?
By Ron Unz
In the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign, I clicked an ambiguous link (http://amconmag.com/article/2010/jul/01/00010/) on an obscure website and stumbled into a parallel universe.
During the previous two years of that long election cycle, the media narrative surrounding Sen. John McCain had been one of unblemished heroism and selfless devotion to his fellow servicemen. Thousands of stories on television and in print had told of his brutal torture at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors, his steely refusal to crack, and his later political career aimed at serving the needs of fellow Vietnam veterans. This storyline had first reached the national stage during his 2000 campaign, then returned with even greater force as he successfully sought the 2008 Republican nomination. Seemingly accepted by all, this history became a centerpiece of his campaign. McCain?s supporters touted his heroism as proof that he possessed the character to be entrusted with America?s highest office, while his detractors merely sought to change the subject.
Once I clicked that link, I encountered a very different John McCain.
I read copious, detailed evidence that hundreds of American POWs had been condemned to death at enemy hands by top American leaders, apparently because their safe return home would have constituted a major political embarrassment. I found documentation that the cover-up of this betrayal had gone on for decades, eventually drawing in a certain Arizona senator. According to this remarkable reconstruction of events, the average teenage moviegoer of the 1980s watching mindless action films such as ?Rambo,? ?Missing in Action,? and ?Uncommon Valor? was seeing reality portrayed on screen, while the policy expert reading sober articles in the pages of The New Republic and The Atlantic was absorbing lies and propaganda. Since I had been believing those very articles, this was a stunning revelation.
But was this alternate description of reality correct? Could this one article be true and all the countless contrary pieces I had read in America?s most prestigious publications be false, merely the presentation of official propaganda endlessly repeated? I cannot say. I am not an expert on the history of the Vietnam War and its aftermath.
Yet consider the source. The author of that remarkable 8,000-word expos???McCain and the POW Cover-Up,? (http://amconmag.com/article/2010/jul/01/00010/) published on The Nation Institute?s website?was Sydney Schanberg, one of America?s foremost Vietnam War journalists. His reporting won him a Pulitzer Prize, and his subsequent book on Cambodia was made into ?The Killing Fields,? an Oscar-winning movie. Schanberg later served as one of the highest-ranking editors at the New York Times, with a third of the reporters at our national newspaper of record working under him. A case can be made that no living American journalist can write with greater credibility on Vietnam War matters. And he had labored for years researching and exhaustively documenting the story of American POWs abandoned in Indochina?a story that if true might easily represent the single greatest act of national dishonor ever committed by our political leaders.
He presented a mass of evidence with names, dates, and documentary detail. Many of the individuals mentioned are still alive and could be interviewed or called to testify. Sealed government records could be ordered unsealed. If America wishes to determine the truth, it can do so.
Yet what I found most remarkable about Schanberg?s essay were not its explosive historical claims but the absolute silence with which they were received in the mainstream media. In 2008, John McCain?s heroic war record and personal patriotism were central to his quest for supreme power?a goal he came very close to achieving. But when one of America?s most eminent journalists published an exhaustive report that the candidate had instead served as one of the leading figures in a monumental act of national treachery, our media took no notice. McCain?s public critics and the operatives of his Democratic opponent might eagerly seize upon every rumor that the senator had had a private lunch with a disreputable corporate lobbyist, but they ignored documented claims that he had covered up the killing of hundreds of American POWs. These allegations were serious enough and sufficiently documented to warrant national attention?yet they received none.
All of this might seem unimaginable except that it falls into a strong pattern of the press avoiding stories of overwhelming importance. Consider how many of the national disasters of the past few years have been caused by the unwillingness of our major media to question official truths or the widespread beliefs of our elites. The Iraq ?cakewalk? to eliminate Saddam?s WMDs, the nationwide housing bubble, and the Madoff swindle might have been prevented or would never have reached such massive proportions if reporters and editors had been willing to investigate and present claims contrary to the soothing blandishments of the powerful. Instead, it has become the norm for press outlets simply to repeat, with a few word substitutions, stories indistinguishable from those previously published by dozens of other press outlets, without ever examining any contrary evidence that might raise doubts about this perceived reality. Truth has come to mean the lies that everyone believes.
A couple of years ago, in one of my last exchanges with my late friend Lt. Gen. Bill Odom, who ran the National Security Agency for President Ronald Reagan, we agreed a case could be made that today?s major American media had become just as dishonest and unreliable as the old Soviet propaganda outlets of the late 1970s. At the time, we were discussing the coverage of our road to the Iraq War, but subsequent events have demonstrated that this national illness is far more advanced than either of us had suspected. Whether or not Schanberg is proven correct, the shameful cowardice of our mainstream media is already proven by the wall of silence surrounding his work.
In an attempt to breach that wall, we present Schanberg?s account of how his remarkable story was buried, as well as his explosive original article. TAC has also convened a symposium of critics drawn from military, political, and journalism backgrounds to explain how this report could have failed to reach a mass audience. A small political magazine does not have the resources to investigate the detailed evidence of Schanberg?s case, but we can hold a mirror up to America?s major media and force them to see what stories they now regard as completely non-newsworthy.
And if Schanberg?s claims are indeed correct, they reveal the lethal consequences of America?s overweening national pride. After all, his history is a simple one. Following the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the Vietnamese refused to return their French POWs unless Paris agreed to pay financial compensation for the war. The French leaders paid the money and got their men back. Similarly, the Vietnamese refused to return their American POWs unless the U.S. government agreed to pay reparations. Nixon signed a document promising to do exactly that, but the Vietnamese, being cautious, kept many of the POWs back until the money was delivered. Then Congress refused to authorize the funds because ?America doesn?t lose wars.? Nixon and later U.S. leaders never acknowledged the fate of these captives lest the American people become outraged. And as the years and decades went by, and various schemes to ransom or rescue the POWs were considered and rejected, their continued existence became a major liability to numerous powerful political figures, whose reputations would have been destroyed if any of the prisoners ever returned and told his story to the American people. So none of them ever came home.
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/elsewhere/was-rambo-right/ (http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/elsewhere/was-rambo-right/)
-
I wonder is any are still alive or all are dead by now
-
What was the benefit to the Vietnamese in having to house, feed and conceal the prisoners, especially since the American troop withdrawal had been predicated on the freeing of all American prisoners in captivity? For no political or other gain that I can see, it looks like they are gambling with the fait accompli of the American pull-out. If nothing happens, they break even (minus the cost of hiding, guarding and feeding the captives.) If the shit hits the fan, they either break even or the U.S. re-invades. Just makes no sense at all.
-
I agree. There might have been a few captives held by more independent groups in Laos or Cambodia. There may have been a few that went over to the enemy and stayed in Vietnam. But I really doubt that there are any held against their will now, or have been for at least the last 30 years.
We still have MIA-POW flags flying several places in Miami. It's silly and fruitless, but it can't really hurt anything.
Those Rambo films were really something: they made us wonder why in lieu of 500,000 troops we didn't just send a half dozen Rambos and let them win the entire war.
-
"Those Rambo films were really something: they made us wonder why in lieu of 500,000 troops we didn't just send a half dozen Rambos and let them win the entire war."
Because everything Democrats touch turns to shit - Nixon inherited a steaming pile of shit but unlike Obama he didn't complain or blame his predecessors.
-
I`m not sure you can keep POWs in those conditions alive that long. pretty sure some keel over at the very start. not all soldiers are made to handle that much punishment or at all
-
<<Those Rambo films were really something: they made us wonder why in lieu of 500,000 troops we didn't just send a half dozen Rambos and let them win the entire war. >>
The Rambo films (and I saw most of them, starting with First Blood) filled a very important propaganda purpose. They reinforced the "stab-in-the-back" myth which the US military needed in order to recoup the prestige lost in the Vietnam War. Defeated by a bunch of third-world, pyjama-clad peasants without even an air force to back them up, out-fought by courageous guerrillas willing to absorb enormous casualties, the US army was rightly reviled by the American people as losers, druggies and baby-killers, spat on and ridiculed, some not even daring to wear their uniform in public. Rambo revived (for some, the dumbest and most credulous) the Myth of the Heroic Warrior. In the Rambo films, it wasn't the Army that lost the war, it was the corrupt, weak, lying politicians on the home front who betrayed the Army, stabbed it in the back, so to speak. The Army, as the films clearly demonstrated, could and did out-fight the Vietnamese every time. One or two gallant Americans could mow down dozens or hundreds of the slant-eyed enemy, every shot the Americans fired found its mark, every shot the enemy fired went wide, high, low or short. Hundreds of "slopes" couldn't kill two or three combat-savvy Americans, but two or three combat-savvy Americans could kill hundreds of "slopes."
The explanation for the American defeat was simple - - not, God forbid, that the Army failed, but that the politicians back home - - corrupt, venal, weak, spineless - - failed the Army. The messages are unmistakable: the Army is worthy of respect; it is proud, dignified, courageous, loyal and dogged. Although nominally subject to civilian control, "good" army officers will look the other way, not "get the message," wink or otherwise do whatever's necessary to subvert the unworthy commands of unworthy public officials. "Bad" officers will advance their own careers, obeying the orders of corrupt civilians at the expense of good, loyal, trusting soldiers who never suspect that they are being sold out.
The left-wing answer to the Rambo movies, BTW, were the "Billy Joe" films. Billy Joe was a thoroughly disgusted Indian veteran of a genocidal and insane Vietnam war who returns to find the same capitalist forces that fucked over the Vietnamese people fucking over his tribal reservation. This time, Billy Joe picks up the gun on behalf of the oppressed and fights his own war on the home front - - him and his tribe (plus one lovely blonde and incredibly white-skinned and pale-blue-eyed fortyish Anglo babe) against The Man. Billy Joe had some moments, but it was a downer since you always knew he was going to lose, whereas the Rambo films were more uplifting because you always knew that Rambo was going to win.
-
<<Those Rambo films were really something: they made us wonder why in lieu of 500,000 troops we didn't just send a half dozen Rambos and let them win the entire war. >>
The Rambo films (and I saw most of them, starting with First Blood) filled a very important propaganda purpose. They reinforced the "stab-in-the-back" myth which the US military needed in order to recoup the prestige lost in the Vietnam War. Defeated by a bunch of third-world, pyjama-clad peasants without even an air force to back them up, out-fought by courageous guerrillas willing to absorb enormous casualties, the US army was rightly reviled by the American people as losers, druggies and baby-killers, spat on and ridiculed, some not even daring to wear their uniform in public. Rambo revived (for some, the dumbest and most credulous) the Myth of the Heroic Warrior. In the Rambo films, it wasn't the Army that lost the war, it was the corrupt, weak, lying politicians on the home front who betrayed the Army, stabbed it in the back, so to speak. The Army, as the films clearly demonstrated, could and did out-fight the Vietnamese every time. One or two gallant Americans could mow down dozens or hundreds of the slant-eyed enemy, every shot the Americans fired found its mark, every shot the enemy fired went wide, high, low or short. Hundreds of "slopes" couldn't kill two or three combat-savvy Americans, but two or three combat-savvy Americans could kill hundreds of "slopes."
The explanation for the American defeat was simple - - not, God forbid, that the Army failed, but that the politicians back home - - corrupt, venal, weak, spineless - - failed the Army. The messages are unmistakable: the Army is worthy of respect; it is proud, dignified, courageous, loyal and dogged. Although nominally subject to civilian control, "good" army officers will look the other way, not "get the message," wink or otherwise do whatever's necessary to subvert the unworthy commands of unworthy public officials. "Bad" officers will advance their own careers, obeying the orders of corrupt civilians at the expense of good, loyal, trusting soldiers who never suspect that they are being sold out.
The left-wing answer to the Rambo movies, BTW, were the "Billy Joe" films. Billy Joe was a thoroughly disgusted Indian veteran of a genocidal and insane Vietnam war who returns to find the same capitalist forces that fucked over the Vietnamese people fucking over his tribal reservation. This time, Billy Joe picks up the gun on behalf of the oppressed and fights his own war on the home front - - him and his tribe (plus one lovely blonde and incredibly white-skinned and pale-blue-eyed fortyish Anglo babe) against The Man. Billy Joe had some moments, but it was a downer since you always knew he was going to lose, whereas the Rambo films were more uplifting because you always knew that Rambo was going to win.
the problem with your conspiracy theory is the movie was directed by Ted Kotcheff (born April 7, 1931), sometimes credited as William Kotcheff or William T. Kotcheff, is a Canadian film and television director, who is well known for his work on several high-profile British television productions and as a director of films such as First Blood.
-
<<the problem with your conspiracy theory is the movie was directed by Ted Kotcheff (born April 7, 1931), sometimes credited as William Kotcheff or William T. Kotcheff, is a Canadian film and television director, who is well known for his work on several high-profile British television productions and as a director of films such as First Blood.>>
Canadians know what'll sell in the U.S., that's for God-damn sure. It wasn't just the director who was a Canadian, so was the guy who played Rambo's former superior officer in the films. I forget his name, but his sister was a student in a nearby nursing college who often baby-sat our kids.
BTW, I wasn't voicing any conspiracy theory. There was a huge loss of faith in the U.S. military at that time, and the Rambo films just filled a need in a lot of people for a reason to believe.
-
richard crenna is a canuck???
-
I saw the Billy Jack movies, loved them, and came no where to the same conclusion that our communist Canadian came to.
Fancy that.
And on that note, one of the best scenes in all of Hollywood:
Billy Jack in action (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v325wdgoFH4#)
-
What was the benefit to the Vietnamese in having to house, feed and conceal the prisoners, especially since the American troop withdrawal had been predicated on the freeing of all American prisoners in captivity? For no political or other gain that I can see, it looks like they are gambling with the fait accompli of the American pull-out. If nothing happens, they break even (minus the cost of hiding, guarding and feeding the captives.) If the shit hits the fan, they either break even or the U.S. re-invades. Just makes no sense at all.
The point the author is trying to make isn't whether the story is true or not. He admits he does not, and cannot know. The point he is making is that the evidence is substantial enough that the press should have at least investigated the matter, which they did not.
-
<<The point he is making is that the evidence is substantial enough that the press should have at least investigated the matter, which they did not.>>
A lot of stuff goes unreported/uninvestigated by the MSM. Often there are political reasons to bury a legitimate story and often it's just the "Elvis" factor - - the story is so improbable/loony that the hard-pressed story editors don't dare waste limited funds on it. I'm guessing that in this case, it was the "Elvis" factor - - there being no conceivable reason on earth why the Viets would want the responsibility of hiding and caring for secret prisoners.
-
<<richard crenna is a canuck???>>
My apologies. Richard Crenna is apparently NOT a Canuck. Born and raised in California to Italian-American parents. Jeeeziz, bad assumption on my part. His sister came from some small town in southwestern Ontario but she never said she was BORN there or even that she'd been there for any length of time - - I guess I just assumed she and her brother were born and raised where she said she was living before she came to Toronto. The other possibility is that she wasn't Richard Crenna's sister - - the last name wasn't the same, but that was none of my business, so I never asked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Crenna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Crenna)
-
Vietnameese Government has at its disposal something that would shame the US government beyond any bearing.
They keep the secret year after year for -Four- decades?
Ummm..
No.
-
I saw the Billy Jack movies, loved them, and came no where to the same conclusion that our communist Canadian came to.
Fancy that.
And on that note, one of the best scenes in all of Hollywood:
Billy Jack in action (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v325wdgoFH4#)
the was pretty good.
By the way Brian Dennehy faked being a Vietnam Vet but was caught being a phony lying sack of shit. He deserved to get whacked upside the head by Billy Jack.
-
Best Rambo Scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdlGFD14do#)
-
By the way Brian Dennehy faked being a Vietnam Vet but was caught being a phony lying sack of shit. He deserved to get whacked upside the head by Billy Jack.
Who?
-
By the way Brian Dennehy faked being a Vietnam Vet but was caught being a phony lying sack of shit. He deserved to get whacked upside the head by Billy Jack.
Who?
wasn't the actor that Billy Jack kicked Brian Dennehy?
-
Nope. Some fella named Bert Freed (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066832/fullcredits#cast)