No, I agree ...

That was very well put. I am in full agreeance.

Here's what I am saying - there was a one-two punch from my perspective. First, your point about it being a war about race is affording Hanks a great deal of latitude. Given his political leanings I assumed he was referencing us in specific if not alone; but lets go ahead and assign him the more general, legitimate motives you described. The 1, 2 shots were Hank's comments followed by the "pot shot" scene. This isn't fair to you because you haven't seen it, but the shots I am describing weren't them trying to kill an enemy unwilling to surrender. THAT I would have no problem with. The shots I refer to is the purposeful missed shots as the Japanese soldier first ran right, then left. They were taunting, laughing and corralling him, via their rounds, for some short lived entertainment. THEN one Marine (Leigit) draws his weapon and shoots the Japanese dead (a reasonable response given the suicide grenade attack by a Japanese soldier pretending to be dead moments before), ending the little "pistol dance" they were forcing the soldier to do.

So this is my point - with all the unending stories of heroism and brutal sacrifice that occurred literally on a second by second basis, and absent any scenes that demonstrate Japanese brutality to POW's, why are we treated, in the first episode, to that scene? Why set the template with that? With all the film making prowess of Hanks & Spielberg could they not of communicated what you wrote in your last short of that scene? What I'm saying is why do we start off with that? Why is that not after clear episodes of monumental stress, rather than one night time firefight? Between Hanks comments and that scene I was less than optimistic about the series.

That being said, episode II was fantastic. I don't care what the political bent is, once you decide to accurately portray a full frontal Japanese assault, the heroism of the US Marines speaks for itself.