MovieChat Forums > Rules of Engagement (2000) Discussion > Vietnamese colonel and the salute by Jac...

Vietnamese colonel and the salute by Jackson


At least one, and probably several by now, movie reviewers on here have noted this (and I therefore want to echo what they said) but I think the point (in part) of having that part where the Vietnamese colonel salutes Jackson at the end, is to show that he acknowledges and understands what motivates Jackson. After all, the retired Vietnamese colonel admitted that he would have shot an American radio operator if he thought it would save the lives of men under his command. So the point as one reviewer has noted is that often, soldiers in the field sometimes have more in common with the soldiers they are fighting against, than they do with the politicans back home, who are often very disconnected from the reality of combat and the moral dilemmas that present themselves. I thought it was a neat twist to have the Vietnamese colonel testify (even granting the difficulty of finding someone in another country so fast, depending on where he was currently living), although it was foreshadowed heavily when the prosecutor (Guy Pearce) earlier asked Col. Childers if he had ever shot an unarmed man and Jackson pauses and says no.

reply

Yeah, I thought that was cheesy but I could see how it may be true.

I'm intersted if it is likely that this would happen.

Report: Our High Schools May Not Adequately Prepare Dropouts For
Unemployment

reply

yes it would happen and has, I know quite a few Vietnam vets who have gotten into contact with ex Vietnam soldiers and they have become very good friends, I know of over a dozen. And these arent just people who were in the wat but soldiers who have fired upon each other in battles, many were wounded during.

reply

Yeah, I guess it makes sense.

Report: Our High Schools May Not Adequately Prepare Dropouts
For Unemployment

reply

I really didn't like that. It did strike me as cheesy - and I don't like the implication that North Vietnamese soldiers were any better than the snipers on the roof in that town. They were seeking to impose a totalitarian government on the South -

if this had been about an alleged atrocity in Vietnam, and they'd had some American officer from W.W.II salute an ex-SS officer from W.W.II, wouldn't you have seen it as pretty creepy? I would.

reply

Hi

As a Soldier I have learned and I have understood, that all Soldiers, what ever Army they serve for, are be comerades. Thats also why you HAVE to provide 1st aid also to the enemy.
Normaly it is not the soldiers who hate each other, they just following orders and try to save theyr own live.

Yes, for sure, it is hard to see an enemy soldier as an comrade if you see how your friends get woundet and killed by them an it is just human to start hate the others, I probaly think I would do the same, but if you think about. The enemy soldiers lost also friends in the same way!

Regarts

Peter

reply

I've served with the Rangers and 101st in Afghanistan and Iraq and while we're talking about two distinctly different wars (Vietnam and Iraq) there are still MANY similarities.

Soldiers on opposing sides of war for the most part develop not a hatred for each other, but a hatred to the situation. You hear stories all the time of the soldiers in World War I calling a christmas truce and meeting in "no mans land" and singing christmas carols and exchanging tobacco and the like.

Wars are not fought by the people who make the decisions to go to war. Diplomats, politicians and high ranking generals make those decisions. We, the commons soldiers, go where we're told and fight because we believe in the system that brought us there. Its the same with the enemy. The Iraqi's we encounted on our way through Iraq didn't WANT to kill us anymore than we wanted to kill them. They were fighting to defend their homeland the way we would have fought to defend ours.

Additionally, a respect emerges for your enemy. I'll admit that my Rangers are FAR superior in training, mobility, equipment, motivation, etc. than the Iraqi troops we faced. But as we were told before we started the ground campaign. The second you don't respect your enemy...you're dead. When taking POW's (quite contrary to the scandals all over the news) most soldiers treat the enemy with respect. As an officer it was not uncommon for me to pick the brains of Iraqi officers as far as troop strength, etc. These meetings were generally ended with a handshake, a salute or an exchange of some sort to signify that while we're enemies on the field...there is no hatred or animosity for each other personally.



Afghanistan is completely different however. We respected those Taliban and Al Qaeda fighers for their ability to fight, but never once did I respect them as people. VERY VERY VERY few times will an Al Qaeda fighter surrender. They'll fight to their last breath and if necessary till they only have one bullet left for themselves. So in the rare occasion that we took a fighter alive...there was no gesture of respect on our part or theirs. Sure, we as the civilised fighting force gave them the concessions afforded prisoners of war, but that's it.

reply

american perhaps not,but there are numerous cases of canadian and british officer's "going to bat" for SS officers. e.g. Kurt Meyer

After the war, Meyer was tried and condemned to death by a Canadian military court for collusion in the shooting of Canadian and British prisoners. In January 1946, his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by Canadian Major General Christopher Vokes, who considered all evidence against him circumstantial. Vokes recognized that in the heat of battle it was often difficult to decide who had killed an enemy and who had murdered a prisoner. There was no proof Meyer ordered the murder of Canadian prisoners but it was clear from physical evidence collected after the fighting that dozens of unarmed Canadians had been murdered and as the commander, Meyer, while not guilty of the murders was at least fully responsible. The circumstances surrounding the shooting of the prisoners with the grounds of Meyer's HQ in the Abbey d'Ardennes was especially damning. Vokes well realized that in the heat of battle men were often killed while trying to surrender. However the physical evidence and testimony from German soldiers that Canadians were executed inside Meyer's HQ after being interogated could not be ignored.

On September 7, 1954, with the support of several Canadian and British officers who had faced him in Normandy, he was released from prison.

reply

and they'd had some American officer from W.W.II salute an ex-SS officer from W.W.II, wouldn't you have seen it as pretty creepy? I would.
During the Nuremburg Trials of Karl Doenitz (BdU, Commander of U-Boats), it is interesting to note that many of those who were witnesses to his defence were US Admirals such as Ernest J King, Chester Nimitz, and Charles Lockwood, who testified that the actions of the German U-Boats were no less than what we (The Allies) did as well.

Sir, Put the mouse down slowly and step away from the keyboard!

reply

I didn't find it cheesy at all. The NV colonel who testified hesitated, but admitted he would have done the same thing in that situation.

Childers and the Vietnamese Colonel had a certain amount of respect for each other in doing whatever they could to save the lives of their troops. They were on opposite sides during the war and wanted to kill each other, but the war is over now. Vietnam is not the communist totalitarian state that we feared and it was not a domino in communism taking over the world.

Call it what you will, but I do think that the North Vietnamese are "better" than Islamic terrorists.

The Vietnamese did not travel the world to attack innocent civilians in countries which they despised. They also did not attempt genocide on anyone of a specific heritage so the Godwin you present falls to Godwin's Law.

Right or wrong, the Viet Cong were fighting for their own country. If the snipers in this movie had any decency, they'd be fighting their own government instead of attacking innocent diplomats and their families who were confined to their embassies.

Hitler and the Nazis wanted to take over the world and exterminate Jews.

I see some huge differences among the 3 enemies the US has faced and in the case of Islamic terrorists they are still facing.

reply

That is called two enemies who earned respect for each other. It's something to do with valor on each side. I can't explain it... That happens in real life,it's true.

reply

Yes it does Happen
"We Were Soldiers" Hal Moore and Nguyen An
http://www.lzxray.com/Lt_Gen_An.htm


And back to WW2...
USS Indianapolis was sunk by the Japanese Sub I-58 after the Battleship had just delivered the parts for the Atomic Bomb to Tinian.
Captain Charles Butler McVay III was courtmartialed for the sinking (The ONLY US Captain to be courtmartialed for his ship sinking due to hostile action)
Mochitsura Hashimoto was the commander of the Japanese submarine I-58 which sank the USS Indianapolis. He died on October 25, 2000, at the age of 91, having spent the last years of his life as a Shinto priest in Kyoto, Japan.
Mochitsura Hashimoto was called as a witness to the prosecution in Capt. McVays trial.

In 1999, when a Japanese journalist was interviewing the elderly Shinto priest about his life and about the sinking of the Indianapolis, she informed him that an effort was being made in the United States Congress to exonerate Captain McVay. Hashimoto told her he would like to help, an offer which was relayed by e-mail to young Hunter Scott in Pensacola, Florida, who suggested that Hashimoto write a letter to Senator John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and passed on Warner's address.

The text of that letter follows:

"November 24, 1999
Attn: The Honorable John W. Warner
Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee
Russell Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510

"I hear that your legislature is considering resolutions which would clear the name of the late Charles Butler McVay III, captain of the USS Indianapolis which was sunk on July 30, 1945, by torpedoes fired from the submarine which was under my command.

"I do not understand why Captain McVay was court-martialed. I do not understand why he was convicted on the charge of hazarding his ship by failing to zigzag because I would have been able to launch a successful torpedo attack against his ship whether it had been zigzagging or not.

"I have met may of your brave men who survived the sinking of the Indianapolis. I would like to join them in urging that your national legislature clear their captain's name.

"Our peoples have forgiven each other for that terrible war and its consequences. Perhaps it is time your peoples forgave Captain McVay for the humiliation of his unjust conviction.

Mochitsura Hashimoto
former captain of I-58
Japanese Navy at WWII
Umenomiya Taisha
30 *beep* Kawa Machi, Umezu
Ukyo-ku, Kyoto 615-0921, Japan"


http://www.ussindianapolis.org/hashimoto.htm

Sir, Put the mouse down slowly and step away from the keyboard!

reply

Great story GCSailor! Thanks. I'll have to read up on that. You know real war stores are fifty times better than that made up garbage.

What hump?

reply

es it does Happen
"We Were Soldiers" Hal Moore and Nguyen An
http://www.lzxray.com/Lt_Gen_An.htm


And back to WW2...
USS Indianapolis was sunk by the Japanese Sub I-58 after the Battleship had just delivered the parts for the Atomic Bomb to Tinian.
Captain Charles Butler McVay III was courtmartialed for the sinking (The ONLY US Captain to be courtmartialed for his ship sinking due to hostile action)
Mochitsura Hashimoto was the commander of the Japanese submarine I-58 which sank the USS Indianapolis. He died on October 25, 2000, at the age of 91, having spent the last years of his life as a Shinto priest in Kyoto, Japan.
Mochitsura Hashimoto was called as a witness to the prosecution in Capt. McVays trial.

In 1999, when a Japanese journalist was interviewing the elderly Shinto priest about his life and about the sinking of the Indianapolis, she informed him that an effort was being made in the United States Congress to exonerate Captain McVay. Hashimoto told her he would like to help, an offer which was relayed by e-mail to young Hunter Scott in Pensacola, Florida, who suggested that Hashimoto write a letter to Senator John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and passed on Warner's address.

The text of that letter follows:

"November 24, 1999
Attn: The Honorable John W. Warner
Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee
Russell Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510

"I hear that your legislature is considering resolutions which would clear the name of the late Charles Butler McVay III, captain of the USS Indianapolis which was sunk on July 30, 1945, by torpedoes fired from the submarine which was under my command.

"I do not understand why Captain McVay was court-martialed. I do not understand why he was convicted on the charge of hazarding his ship by failing to zigzag because I would have been able to launch a successful torpedo attack against his ship whether it had been zigzagging or not.

"I have met many of your brave men who survived the sinking of the Indianapolis. I would like to join them in urging that your national legislature clear their captain's name.

"Our peoples have forgiven each other for that terrible war and its consequences. Perhaps it is time your peoples forgave Captain McVay for the humiliation of his unjust conviction.

Mochitsura Hashimoto
former captain of I-58
Japanese Navy at WWII
Umenomiya Taisha
30 *beep* Kawa Machi, Umezu
Ukyo-ku, Kyoto 615-0921, Japan"

http://www.ussindianapolis.org/hashimoto.htm


Thanks for posting that. What a fantastic piece of history that no one will ever read in the history textbooks. I love these kinds of stories that flesh out, and broaden what we already know about history.

reply

Thanks for posting that. What a fantastic piece of history that no one will ever read in the history textbooks. I love these kinds of stories that flesh out, and broaden what we already know about history.

You're welcome.

History is out there for the learning. You just have to go find it. Don't expect it to find you. Because when history comes looking for you, you are repeating it (usually the bad parts at that). It's all out there. just gotta find it.

Speaking of Broadening what we know of history.
Two of the biggest battles of the US Naval war in the Pacific has a LOT of errors in the history books. I'm not talking conspiracy crap here (I hate those guys) or revisionist historians with a political motive. I'm referring to errors made at the time that have made their way into the accepted histories and are wrong. In some cases intentional falsehoods.

Pearl Harbor, and Midway.
Especially Midway, a Lot of what we presume to know about the battle is false.
No ones fault really. Some historians accepted the words of a man they trusted and who was there. This man told tales according to what the listener wanted to hear and made the teller out to be more than he was. No one questioned him or the historians who wrote of what he claimed. Others in writing their history mearly parroted the previous historians works without doing their own original research, thus these lies crept into our collective memory of the battles.

Some of that was with Pearl as well with the tale told of the cancelled third wave. There never was any planned third wave to be cancelled. a Lie told years afterwards.

But a lot of the wrongness of Pearl was not because of the Lies of this one man, but were necessitated by the secrecy surrounding MAGIC and ULTRA, the breaking of the Japanese codes which was still classified long after the war was over. Most of the investigations into who was to blame for the fiasco never got the full story because the investigators themselves were not cleared for the information.

If you want to know of History that is rarely known, broadens the actual history, I suggest reading two books and an Essay. The Essay can be found online. The books you'll have to find at a store or Library.

"Pearl Harbor: Final Judgement"
By Henry C Clausen.

You can find a summary of the book here:
http://www.amgot.org/phclausn.htm which starts....
"In 1944, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, knowing that high-ranking members of the military had testified falsely before the various bodies investigating Pearl Harbor, selected a lowly major and young lawyer named Henry C. Clausen and gave him extraordinary authority to go anywhere and question anyone under oath, from enlisted personnel right up to Chief of Staff George C. Marshall. To this day, no member of the public knows the full story of Clausen's investigation. Over seven months during 1944 and 1945, Clausen traveled more than 55,000 miles (88,512 km) to interview and obtain sworn affidavits from nearly one hundred Army, Navy, civilian, and British personnel. Many of these people never testified before any other inquiry, including Congress. Clausen wore a self-destructing case containing ultrasecret decoded Japanese messages that forced witnesses to tell the truth and opened files that revealed a massive, inconceivable failure to exploit the priceless intelligence obtained by the United States in the months prior to Pearl Harbor.

"Clausen presented an 800-page report to Secretary of War Stimson - but because his report was Top Secret, he did not write a conclusion. That conclusion, and in fact Clausen's entire Top Secret report, would have torn apart the government of the United States and revealed the breathtaking secret capability of the Allies to crack Japanese and German codes. Henry Clausen is the last major living witness, the one person who can reveal, fifty years afterward, the real truth about Pearl Harbor.



The second book is "Shattered Sword: The untold story of the battle of Midway"
By Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully
Shattered Sword is a new, definitive account of the Battle of Midway, focusing primarily (but by no means exclusively) on the Japanese side of the battle. Throughout the book, the authors make extensive usage of new Japanese primary and secondary sources that have not been utilized in prior studies. These include:

*The official Japanese War History series (Senshi Sosho),

*The translated carrier air group action reports of the four Japanese carriers involved in the battle,

*The comprehensive Japanese casualty figures found in Sawachi Hisae's groundbreaking volume on the battle (Midowei Kaisen Kiroku), and many others.

The result is an account that is grounded less on first-hand personal accounts (although these are found in plenty as well), and more on concrete operational data. This shift in focus has led to many important, and potentially provocative, re-interpretations of the conventional wisdom on the battle.

You can read the intro here: http://www.shatteredswordbook.com/ShatteredSwordIntroduction.pdf

The Essay found online is written by Jonathan Parshall, one of the authors of Shattered Sword. In it he discusses the man I mentioned above as being the source of many of the lies, and how this man severely damaged our view of these historical battles. That man is Mitsuo Fuchida, The Pilot commander who led the planes in the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The Essay is called: "Reflecting on Fuchida, Or: A tale of three whoppers"
It is found on the website of the US Naval War College:
http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/612aa0c4-47a1-4107-afbb-17fa992adf5 9/Reflecting-on-Fuchida,-or--A-Tale-of-Three-Whopper

Happy reading. Would enjoy your take and reflections on it. Try the Essay first.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

"Wars are not fought by the people who make the decisions to go to war. Diplomats, politicians and high ranking generals make those decisions. We, the commons soldiers, go where we're told and fight because we believe in the system that brought us there. Its the same with the enemy. The Iraqi's we encounted on our way through Iraq didn't WANT to kill us anymore than we wanted to kill them. They were fighting to defend their homeland the way we would have fought to defend ours."

I'm not 100% certain on this, but arent the Iraqis killing our soldiers the crazy, fundamentalist jihad type? If so, then they DO want to kill us. They hate Americans, and want us dead

reply

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are completely different than any other wars that are being discussed here.

It's not soldiers versus soldiers...it's (civilian) terrorists (freedom fighters if you prefer) versus soldiers.

There is no honour.

reply

I dont think the salute was cheesy..In the commentary it say's the whole point of the movie was to show how far a Marine would go to save the live's of other Marine's.That's why it showed the NVA general salute him in the end to show he respected him for willing to go so far to save his men which is exactly what he would have done in Sam Jackson's place.

reply

I agree. I liked it too. Compared to all the lying and betrayal by the NSA guy and the yemen ambassador, it was honorable that the former enemy understood and saluted Sam Jackson's character.

<<-- Mess With The Best, Die Like The Rest -->>

reply

I found the salute to be absolutely ludicrous.

The Vietnamese man saying in court he would have also murdered a POW if he had the opportunity to do so was also absolutely ludicrous.

Therefore it does not provide a suitable "explantion" for the salute. I'm sure the intention of the director was to use the one ludicrousity (the Vietnamese man saying he would murder a POW too) to explain the subsequent ludicrousity (the salute). However, both of them are equally ludicrous, so therefore the ludicrous testimony by the Vietnamese man does not justify the ludicrous salute.

reply

I was absolutely disgusted by this film, and the "salute" and Tommy Lee Jones' comment at the end was the part I found the most repellent. I guess you can explain the salute by the saying that birds of a feather flock together, but - especially combined with Jones' line - the message seemed to be, to put it simply and bluntly: "None of you pathetic, lowly non-combattants have the right to judge us soldiers. We are ready to understand and cover for each other, even if we are/were on the opposite sides in a war. Your morality does not apply to us. So, shut up, lowly civilians!"

reply

what?

reply

[deleted]

I hated the cheesy salute, i think a simple nod would have done the trick.

Paper... snow.... A GHOST!!

reply

GCSailor beat me to the Hal Moore example (by 6 years!). The stills he links to are from a reconcilliation trip Moore made along with other vets from the Battle of Ia Drang (the one depicted in the Mel Gibson film). The trip was featured in an hour long TV news special about the battle prompted by Moore and Galloway's book, "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young". It was extremely moving to watch these vets from both sides revisit the battlefield where so many had died.

On or about the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Ortona, vets from the 1st Canadian Divison revisted the city - scene of brutal house to house fighting over Christmas 1943. They had a reconcilliation dinner with vets from the German Parachute Division they had fought so hard against.

Anothe raspect not mentioned is the shame that the NVA Col might be harbouring. He caved in to Childers's demands and was allowed to go free (remember, Childers promised to set himm free if he cooperated). In a weak moment, the NVA Col sold out his side in order to save his own ass. That has to weigh on him over the years.

As for the actual salute itself, what bothers me is that the final salute in a military film has become such an annoying cliche. Hollywood even loves to put a saluting character on the posters! Enough with the f##king salutes already! Saving Pte Ryan, A few Good Men. The General's Daughter, Crimson Tide...when will it ever end? The military salute is not directed at the individual but at the commission - paying compliments to the authority. It's not meant to be a personal act. With that in mind, I tend to agree with the last poster who said he'd have preferred to see a knowing nod or, perhaps even a handshake.

That said, the reason for the recognition between the two former enemies (salute or otherwise) is perfectly plausible.

As foir the comments from Navaro and Ivana: you're both full of crap and don't know what you're talking about. TLJ's final comment is absolutely on the mark. 2Lts in line units died in large numbers very fast. Combat is messy and armchair civilians have no right to judge or comment. So yeah, STFU you stupid ignorant civilian.

reply

Yes, it is understandable, but then did any British or US Soldiers after WW2 become friends with Nazis and salute each other after the war?

I would not think so?

reply

There are plenty of examples of reconcilliation between former WW2 enemies (see my example of the Battle of Ortona mentioned before your post). And let's be clear, there were nazis and there were German soldiers. Many were both but many soldiers were not nazis...

reply