Will Messrs Spielberg + Hanks dare to …
-
wab-3 — 11 years ago(September 10, 2014 12:16 AM)
You're nuttier than a fruitcake, you know that? Eisenhower was MacArthur's aide in Manilla for many years. Why would he engage in a conspiracy against him? When Ike saw the move afoot to rebuild the US Army in the late 30's he got MacArthur to transfer him back to work under Marshall as Army CoS. So did Bradley. No conspiracy, just smart career planning. MacArthur couldn't do that because he'd already served as CoS and effectively outranked Marshall. Plus he'd retired from the Army. And because he was a vain and arrogant preener who could not work with anyone unless he was in sole command.
The Joint Chiefs voted unanimously that Truman should relieve MacArthur of command. Are you suggesting that the four other service chiefs were in on the "conspiracy" too? In fact, it is the opinion of most military historians that MacArthur was guilty of unseemly electioneeringtrying to position himself for draft to the '52 GOP nominationinsubordination and disobeying orders. Only his five stars, MoH and fame protected MacArthur from being court-martialed. Read American Caesar for the whole story.
And leftist conspiracies have nothing to do with why no one wants to do as mini-series about the Korean War. It's just bad business. Nobody would watch it. That's how capitalism works, remember?
But if the Koch Brothers want to put up $100 million to finance a mini-series about Korea, I'm sure they can hire a team of very good writer/producers to make one. They could probably hire most of the production team who did the grunt work of making BoB and The Pacific if they wrote such a check, just not Hanks and Spielberg. -
lezardormeurgeant — 11 years ago(September 14, 2014 03:00 AM)
oh oh, having recourse to name-calling is symptomatic of bad faith.
Your earlier posts made unequivocally clear that you view a movie' s success uniquely from its box office succe$$ regardless of its artistic and historical values.
Your rage against the Korean War's Real Victory of a free Taehan Minkuk(that you refuse to acknowledge anyway) is indicative enough of your slant.
That Victory which allowed also more than 22,000 Chinese and thousands of North Korean POWs to chose Freedom, was bought with untold American sacrifices and blood.
It was American Refusal of the forced repatriation of the POWs back to their unwanted side, that prolonged the fighting on the static front.
But suddenly the Chicoms and their NK minions, upon hearing of the tactical 9-inch(280mm)nuclear-round firing gun going Far-Easternian, asked for a new Pan-Mun-Jom meeting where they quickly agreed to terms for cease-fire.
It's pure bad faith to view both sides as equal. -
nickm2 — 11 years ago(September 14, 2014 06:10 PM)
is indicative enough of your slant.
hehehehehehehhe said 'slant' when talkin' 'bout Korea & the Chicoms; heheheheheh-cool.
But Seriously, Big Mac overstepped his bounds & disregarded Truman's authority-which IS something that should not happen. Anyway, while he was also a very popular figure, he also totally allowed
HIS
Army to "go to pot" as it were. I noticed a complete lack of sensible deployments (IE: riding trucks & staying road bound, instead of marching; failure to emphasize the control of key terrain features etc) during his tenure
That being said I also agree with much of what you wrote -
lezardormeurgeant — 11 years ago(September 16, 2014 04:37 AM)
I didn't see the pun comming, and it was purely unintentional.
And if anyone should have seen the punch coming on June 25th 1950,
it 's the fat cats in DC.
On June 8th 1950, all the NK newspapers(not many,I concede)printed what would soon become known
as "The Pyongyang Manifesto" calling for general elections (held at gunpoint as it would turn out, were Americans not shed their blood) throughout Korea (N & S) ignoring completely the Taehan Minkuk's existence.
A translated copy was available to the US Congress who chose to ignore it.
General MacArthur was an absolutely loyal military servant of The American Republic,
not a militaristic Ceasar as William Manchester would have us believe.
Besides, Mr. Manchester's monumental "Death Of A President" while recounting
the adulterated Camelot's 1,000 days made only one scant line in mentioning
Otto Otepka, whose for-being-loyal-ordeal behind the scenes, began even before January 20th 1961,
the official beginning of JFK's mandate.
If you can get hold of William G. GILL's 1969
"The Ordeal Of Otto Otepka"
,
its 500 pages will suck you in as a tornado in one reading.
You can read too an article by the author in the August 1965 issue of the Reader's Digest.
Google also "Clark Mollenhoff articles".
Good read. -
nickm2 — 11 years ago(September 18, 2014 09:38 PM)
Also allow me to 'wax sarcastic' in that in regards to the Korean War, many H'wood leftists probably felt the 'Good Guys' didn't win, which is probably why they don't want to make movies about a lost cause.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!? -
-
nickm2 — 11 years ago(September 27, 2014 01:15 AM)
1991"How to read Donald Duck - Imperialism in the Disney Comics" ! [
]
"Ah-soImpelialist pig/dogs"
in Disney??!!
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!? -
nickm2 — 11 years ago(September 10, 2014 08:17 PM)
General Bradley was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he made that famous statement about Korea being an unwinnable war. Every reputable historian since has agreed with Bradley's assessment.
Kinda hard to take that point of view in light of the success of South Korea vs the utter failure of North Korea. The Korean War looks pretty damned successful by comparison. -
wab-3 — 11 years ago(September 12, 2014 05:00 PM)
That's not what Bradley was talking about. The Chinese were not going to let MacArthur establish a far-right client state on their doorstep, which is what MacArthur was doing by trying to install Rhee as the leader of a united Korea. Doing that would have caused a massive land war halfway around the world against the then-united Sino-Soviet bloc, which would have been unwinnable.
Frankly, MacArthur didn't even care about Korean politics. He cared too much about American politics and not enough about Korean politics. That's why he was relieved of command. -
DD-931 — 11 years ago(January 02, 2015 11:01 PM)
The Inchon landing was one of the most brilliant amphibious assaults in history, and if the Chinese hadn't intervened it would have been the decisive event of the Korean War. You could certainly make a film about that.
-
agracier-574-436194 — 10 years ago(August 07, 2015 03:06 PM)
I would think that the greater challenge, if you wish to call it that, is to make a mini-series about the Great War. It is after all the centennial from 2014-2018. What better time to come out with a series on that subject?