40th Anniversary Watch Party

[Gorilla Mask]

Hi Ivan,

The crucial element is that Ed's wife reports that the landmine was not set by Vietcong.
That changes everything how we look at Ed. He killed the wrong person. That's not enough to think he might be insane? Doubtless he had PTSD but that cannot rule out insanity.

But in the end did he not kill a Viet Cong? Maybe not the man responsible for Ed's death but still an enemy who fought against him and Ed in the war. So not exactly an innocent person. I can't argue differences between PTSD and insanity so I'll leave it at that.

Dear Volodymyr,
In fact, if you re-watch the episode, Chung is not a Viet Cong but a former ARVN General... The drug trafficking becomes perfectly plausible...

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Hi Ivan,

The crucial element is that Ed's wife reports that the landmine was not set by Vietcong.
That changes everything how we look at Ed. He killed the wrong person. That's not enough to think he might be insane? Doubtless he had PTSD but that cannot rule out insanity.

But in the end did he not kill a Viet Cong? Maybe not the man responsible for Ed's death but still an enemy who fought against him and Ed in the war. So not exactly an innocent person. I can't argue differences between PTSD and insanity so I'll leave it at that.

Thanks for the post, Ivan. You make interesting commentary. Just for the sake of discussion, though, aren't you assuming that the General deserved to die, simply for being an enemy? Where would you draw the line as to who deserves death and who, not? Wouldn't you have difficulty proving that the US was in the right about the war? Isn't it fairly well discredited today? My observation of American culture is that people tend to overuse situational reasons for their ill-behavior. How many times have we heard people try to squirm out their responsibility for drunken driving using lame excuses (as an example)? People here want to say Taylor had PTSD so how could he help it? All that is not the issue because he killed an innocent man. Peace bro.

Clearly in his mind he saw the Viet Cong as the enemy. Because he fought against them. I didn't so I don't have much of a say in this. But let's say I ran across a Russian soldier who was an invader of Ukraine and possibly has the blood of Ukrainian soldiers and even civilians on his hands. Now it's a different story because that hits much closer to home for me. Would I consider this man an "innocent"? Certainly not. Even without knowing what atrocities he may or may not have committed I would still consider him an enemy. Was he simply following orders? Perhaps. But they were evil orders. Even if he doesn't see it that way.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Hi Ivan,

The crucial element is that Ed's wife reports that the landmine was not set by Vietcong.
That changes everything how we look at Ed. He killed the wrong person. That's not enough to think he might be insane? Doubtless he had PTSD but that cannot rule out insanity.

But in the end did he not kill a Viet Cong? Maybe not the man responsible for Ed's death but still an enemy who fought against him and Ed in the war. So not exactly an innocent person. I can't argue differences between PTSD and insanity so I'll leave it at that.

Dear Volodymyr,
In fact, if you re-watch the episode, Chung is not a Viet Cong but a former ARVN General... The drug trafficking becomes perfectly plausible...

Yep, I definitely need to rewatch it then. So if the general was ARVN then he was on our side, correct? South Vietnamese army. But then the fact still remains that Taylor thought the general was Viet Cong so in his mind he was the enemy. If he knew he was ARVN then he wouldn't have targeted him. So he didn't target an innocent person on purpose. That would definitely have made him insane. Such as a serial killer who targets people randomly. But then again the question arises... was the general really innocent? If he really was involved in drug trafficking and it's revealed that Ed was actually killed by drug traffickers' mine. Of course we would have to connect the general to those particular traffickers who placed that mine. He may not have been connected to that incident at all. I'm sure there were lots of drug traffickers. He wasn't the only one. So there's questions there I guess. But then just simply being a trafficker already places him in a bad light. Not a "good guy".

[Gorilla Mask]

Hi Ivan,

The crucial element is that Ed's wife reports that the landmine was not set by Vietcong.
That changes everything how we look at Ed. He killed the wrong person. That's not enough to think he might be insane? Doubtless he had PTSD but that cannot rule out insanity.

But in the end did he not kill a Viet Cong? Maybe not the man responsible for Ed's death but still an enemy who fought against him and Ed in the war. So not exactly an innocent person. I can't argue differences between PTSD and insanity so I'll leave it at that.

Dear Volodymyr,
In fact, if you re-watch the episode, Chung is not a Viet Cong but a former ARVN General... The drug trafficking becomes perfectly plausible...

Yep, I definitely need to rewatch it then. So if the general was ARVN then he was on our side, correct? South Vietnamese army. But then the fact still remains that Taylor thought the general was Viet Cong so in his mind he was the enemy. If he knew he was ARVN then he wouldn't have targeted him. So he didn't target an innocent person on purpose. That would definitely have made him insane. Such as a serial killer who targets people randomly. But then again the question arises... was the general really innocent? If he really was involved in drug trafficking and it's revealed that Ed was actually killed by drug traffickers' mine. Of course we would have to connect the general to those particular traffickers who placed that mine. He may not have been connected to that incident at all. I'm sure there were lots of drug traffickers. He wasn't the only one. So there's questions there I guess. But then just simply being a trafficker already places him in a bad light. Not a "good guy".

Hey Volodymyr,

If you watch the episode again you'll see that it's pretty clear that Taylor doesn't take Chung for a Viet Cong general but, as he seemed to him, (which is partly demonstrated in the episode): a drug monger who was involved in S. Vietnam (and probably Laos?) in 1971.

Maybe you should check my recent post about this:

http://magnum-mania.com/Forum/viewtopic ... 9&start=51

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Hi Ivan,

The crucial element is that Ed's wife reports that the landmine was not set by Vietcong.
That changes everything how we look at Ed. He killed the wrong person. That's not enough to think he might be insane? Doubtless he had PTSD but that cannot rule out insanity.

But in the end did he not kill a Viet Cong? Maybe not the man responsible for Ed's death but still an enemy who fought against him and Ed in the war. So not exactly an innocent person. I can't argue differences between PTSD and insanity so I'll leave it at that.

Dear Volodymyr,
In fact, if you re-watch the episode, Chung is not a Viet Cong but a former ARVN General... The drug trafficking becomes perfectly plausible...

Yep, I definitely need to rewatch it then. So if the general was ARVN then he was on our side, correct? South Vietnamese army. But then the fact still remains that Taylor thought the general was Viet Cong so in his mind he was the enemy. If he knew he was ARVN then he wouldn't have targeted him. So he didn't target an innocent person on purpose. That would definitely have made him insane. Such as a serial killer who targets people randomly. But then again the question arises... was the general really innocent? If he really was involved in drug trafficking and it's revealed that Ed was actually killed by drug traffickers' mine. Of course we would have to connect the general to those particular traffickers who placed that mine. He may not have been connected to that incident at all. I'm sure there were lots of drug traffickers. He wasn't the only one. So there's questions there I guess. But then just simply being a trafficker already places him in a bad light. Not a "good guy".

Hey Volodymyr,

If you watch the episode again you'll see that it's pretty clear that Taylor doesn't take Chung for a Viet Cong general but, as he seemed to him, (which is partly demonstrated in the episode): a drug monger who was involved in S. Vietnam (and probably Laos?) in 1971.

Maybe you should check my recent post about this:

http://magnum-mania.com/Forum/viewtopic ... 9&start=51

Thanks, Gorilla. I'll have to watch again at some point.

[Mark de Croix]

Hi Ivan,

The crucial element is that Ed's wife reports that the landmine was not set by Vietcong.
That changes everything how we look at Ed. He killed the wrong person. That's not enough to think he might be insane? Doubtless he had PTSD but that cannot rule out insanity.

But in the end did he not kill a Viet Cong? Maybe not the man responsible for Ed's death but still an enemy who fought against him and Ed in the war. So not exactly an innocent person. I can't argue differences between PTSD and insanity so I'll leave it at that.

Thanks for the post, Ivan. You make interesting commentary. Just for the sake of discussion, though, aren't you assuming that the General deserved to die, simply for being an enemy? Where would you draw the line as to who deserves death and who, not? Wouldn't you have difficulty proving that the US was in the right about the war? Isn't it fairly well discredited today? My observation of American culture is that people tend to overuse situational reasons for their ill-behavior. How many times have we heard people try to squirm out their responsibility for drunken driving using lame excuses (as an example)? People here want to say Taylor had PTSD so how could he help it? All that is not the issue because he killed an innocent man. Peace bro.

Clearly in his mind he saw the Viet Cong as the enemy. Because he fought against them. I didn't so I don't have much of a say in this. But let's say I ran across a Russian soldier who was an invader of Ukraine and possibly has the blood of Ukrainian soldiers and even civilians on his hands. Now it's a different story because that hits much closer to home for me. Would I consider this man an "innocent"? Certainly not. Even without knowing what atrocities he may or may not have committed I would still consider him an enemy. Was he simply following orders? Perhaps. But they were evil orders. Even if he doesn't see it that way.

The Russian vs. Ukrainian example doesn't follow because those two countries are presently at war; so killing each other would not be a crime. But the Vietnam War was long over, so Taylor had no right to kill that Vietnamese man. Thus the Vietnamese was an innocent man.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Hi Ivan,

The crucial element is that Ed's wife reports that the landmine was not set by Vietcong.
That changes everything how we look at Ed. He killed the wrong person. That's not enough to think he might be insane? Doubtless he had PTSD but that cannot rule out insanity.

But in the end did he not kill a Viet Cong? Maybe not the man responsible for Ed's death but still an enemy who fought against him and Ed in the war. So not exactly an innocent person. I can't argue differences between PTSD and insanity so I'll leave it at that.

Thanks for the post, Ivan. You make interesting commentary. Just for the sake of discussion, though, aren't you assuming that the General deserved to die, simply for being an enemy? Where would you draw the line as to who deserves death and who, not? Wouldn't you have difficulty proving that the US was in the right about the war? Isn't it fairly well discredited today? My observation of American culture is that people tend to overuse situational reasons for their ill-behavior. How many times have we heard people try to squirm out their responsibility for drunken driving using lame excuses (as an example)? People here want to say Taylor had PTSD so how could he help it? All that is not the issue because he killed an innocent man. Peace bro.

Clearly in his mind he saw the Viet Cong as the enemy. Because he fought against them. I didn't so I don't have much of a say in this. But let's say I ran across a Russian soldier who was an invader of Ukraine and possibly has the blood of Ukrainian soldiers and even civilians on his hands. Now it's a different story because that hits much closer to home for me. Would I consider this man an "innocent"? Certainly not. Even without knowing what atrocities he may or may not have committed I would still consider him an enemy. Was he simply following orders? Perhaps. But they were evil orders. Even if he doesn't see it that way.

The Russian vs. Ukrainian example doesn't follow because those two countries are presently at war; so killing each other would not be a crime. But the Vietnam War was long over, so Taylor had no right to kill that Vietnamese man. Thus the Vietnamese was an innocent man.

I'm talking about if I ran into a Russian soldier here in the states. Even long after the war ended. I would still consider him an enemy. He would not be an innocent in my eyes, even if it's peace time.

[ConchRepublican]

But in the end did he not kill a Viet Cong? Maybe not the man responsible for Ed's death but still an enemy who fought against him and Ed in the war. So not exactly an innocent person. I can't argue differences between PTSD and insanity so I'll leave it at that.

Thanks for the post, Ivan. You make interesting commentary. Just for the sake of discussion, though, aren't you assuming that the General deserved to die, simply for being an enemy? Where would you draw the line as to who deserves death and who, not? Wouldn't you have difficulty proving that the US was in the right about the war? Isn't it fairly well discredited today? My observation of American culture is that people tend to overuse situational reasons for their ill-behavior. How many times have we heard people try to squirm out their responsibility for drunken driving using lame excuses (as an example)? People here want to say Taylor had PTSD so how could he help it? All that is not the issue because he killed an innocent man. Peace bro.

Clearly in his mind he saw the Viet Cong as the enemy. Because he fought against them. I didn't so I don't have much of a say in this. But let's say I ran across a Russian soldier who was an invader of Ukraine and possibly has the blood of Ukrainian soldiers and even civilians on his hands. Now it's a different story because that hits much closer to home for me. Would I consider this man an "innocent"? Certainly not. Even without knowing what atrocities he may or may not have committed I would still consider him an enemy. Was he simply following orders? Perhaps. But they were evil orders. Even if he doesn't see it that way.

The Russian vs. Ukrainian example doesn't follow because those two countries are presently at war; so killing each other would not be a crime. But the Vietnam War was long over, so Taylor had no right to kill that Vietnamese man. Thus the Vietnamese was an innocent man.

I'm talking about if I ran into a Russian soldier here in the states. Even long after the war ended. I would still consider him an enemy. He would not be an innocent in my eyes, even if it's peace time.

That's a bad path. I understand many felt that way about the Japanese in America long after WW II but a soldier is a soldier. I think Higgins made that point a few times. Even Rick, in No Need to Know at the end when consoling Magnum after the IRA agent (terrorist?) Mandy was killed, said it wasn't very different for them in 'Nam, and they each had a job to do. I get the emotional feeling but soldiers are soldiers, it's their leaders mostly to blame.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

I get the emotional feeling but soldiers are soldiers, it's their leaders mostly to blame.

I disagree. Soldiers are soldiers when they engage other soldiers. But when they shoot artillery into residential areas and purposely target civilians they are no longer soldiers. They are war criminals. And if these are the orders that they receive from their superiors then it's their moral responsibility to disobey those orders! I'd rather face a firing squad than take the life of an innocent (someone's baby, someone's wife/mother, etc.)

[Gorilla Mask]

I get the emotional feeling but soldiers are soldiers, it's their leaders mostly to blame.

I disagree. Soldiers are soldiers when they engage other soldiers. But when they shoot artillery into residential areas and purposely target civilians they are no longer soldiers. They are war criminals. And if these are the orders that they receive from their superiors then it's their moral responsibility to disobey those orders! I'd rather face a firing squad than take the life of an innocent (someone's baby, someone's wife/mother, etc.)

If the soldier in question was acting, is prosecuted or convicted for an illegal act (in this case a war crime), I have to support Ivan on this issue:

Article D 4122-3 of the French Defense Code (translated by me): "the subordinate must not execute an order prescribing to perform an act that is manifestly illegal or contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflicts and to international conventions in force for France"

I guess there is the same rule in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice.

However, Conch was surely refering to a former belligerent in a common sense. In addition, the offense to which the duty of disobedience responds must be known to the soldier and or obvious from the order given.

[Mark de Croix]

But in the end did he not kill a Viet Cong? Maybe not the man responsible for Ed's death but still an enemy who fought against him and Ed in the war. So not exactly an innocent person. I can't argue differences between PTSD and insanity so I'll leave it at that.

Thanks for the post, Ivan. You make interesting commentary. Just for the sake of discussion, though, aren't you assuming that the General deserved to die, simply for being an enemy? Where would you draw the line as to who deserves death and who, not? Wouldn't you have difficulty proving that the US was in the right about the war? Isn't it fairly well discredited today? My observation of American culture is that people tend to overuse situational reasons for their ill-behavior. How many times have we heard people try to squirm out their responsibility for drunken driving using lame excuses (as an example)? People here want to say Taylor had PTSD so how could he help it? All that is not the issue because he killed an innocent man. Peace bro.

Clearly in his mind he saw the Viet Cong as the enemy. Because he fought against them. I didn't so I don't have much of a say in this. But let's say I ran across a Russian soldier who was an invader of Ukraine and possibly has the blood of Ukrainian soldiers and even civilians on his hands. Now it's a different story because that hits much closer to home for me. Would I consider this man an "innocent"? Certainly not. Even without knowing what atrocities he may or may not have committed I would still consider him an enemy. Was he simply following orders? Perhaps. But they were evil orders. Even if he doesn't see it that way.

The Russian vs. Ukrainian example doesn't follow because those two countries are presently at war; so killing each other would not be a crime. But the Vietnam War was long over, so Taylor had no right to kill that Vietnamese man. Thus the Vietnamese was an innocent man.

I'm talking about if I ran into a Russian soldier here in the states. Even long after the war ended. I would still consider him an enemy. He would not be an innocent in my eyes, even if it's peace time.

Sure you would feel that way, but you wouldn't murder him, right? Or would you?

[eagle]

Over the last week, with my wife & kids out of town, I was able to catch up on my 40th anniversary viewing. I was able to finish "Double Jeopardy," and to watch "The Last Page" and "The Elmo Ziller Story." I like these episodes, but really like that last one, mostly because of Robin Dearden (one of my two favorite women from the series, the other being Erin Gray) -- I absolutely adore the Texas accent, much more than other southern accents, but a real southern accent is really good too. And, I find this amusing since I dated multiple midwesterners and married one of them (her parents live in Green Bay). I love that accent too, and hate that my wife has lost hers.

[ConchRepublican]

Over the last week, with my wife & kids out of town, I was able to catch up on my 40th anniversary viewing. I was able to finish "Double Jeopardy," and to watch "The Last Page" and "The Elmo Ziller Story." I like these episodes, but really like that last one, mostly because of Robin Dearden (one of my two favorite women from the series, the other being Erin Gray) -- I absolutely adore the Texas accent, much more than other southern accents, but a real southern accent is really good too. And, I find this amusing since I dated multiple midwesterners and married one of them (her parents live in Green Bay). I love that accent too, and hate that my wife has lost hers.

Agreed about Robin Dearden! She was great in both appearances and second only to Erin Grey when it comes to MPI babes.

[ConchRepublican]

I get the emotional feeling but soldiers are soldiers, it's their leaders mostly to blame.

I disagree. Soldiers are soldiers when they engage other soldiers. But when they shoot artillery into residential areas and purposely target civilians they are no longer soldiers. They are war criminals. And if these are the orders that they receive from their superiors then it's their moral responsibility to disobey those orders! I'd rather face a firing squad than take the life of an innocent (someone's baby, someone's wife/mother, etc.)

Were Allied bomber pilots war criminals when they firebombed Dresden and other German and Japanese cities?

I hear you, I hate wanton destruction and especially when innocents get caught in between opposing forces, they always pay the worst price, but I'm wary on hanging everything on the soldier on the ground.

[☨magnum.t]

I get the emotional feeling but soldiers are soldiers, it's their leaders mostly to blame.

I disagree. Soldiers are soldiers when they engage other soldiers. But when they shoot artillery into residential areas and purposely target civilians they are no longer soldiers. They are war criminals. And if these are the orders that they receive from their superiors then it's their moral responsibility to disobey those orders! I'd rather face a firing squad than take the life of an innocent (someone's baby, someone's wife/mother, etc.)

Were Allied bomber pilots war criminals when they firebombed Dresden and other German and Japanese cities?

I hear you, I hate wanton destruction and especially when innocents get caught in between opposing forces, they always pay the worst price, but I'm wary on hanging everything on the soldier on the ground.

I agree, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible atrocities and lots of civilian lives were lost 200,000 is a conservative estimate but who knows how long the war would have continued had the bombs not been dropped. Or if the nazis had developed and dropped an atomic bomb on an allied country first? War is hell and not just for the soldiers. In fact the pilot who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, Col. Tibbets, started out as an surgeon. The thoughts going through his head and duality of it all had to be tremendous. Insinuating that he should have refused the orders to drop the bomb is something only an armchair quarterback can do. I have friends that were killed in Afghanistan from IEDs. I have no idea who buried them and never will. If I did know and they were in front of me asking for forgiveness what would I do? I don't know. I would like to think i would forgive them, but know one ever knows something like that until put in that situation.