Im not here to say or argue who is or was the “true” or “rightful” government of Vietnam. That is a question now, and always, that should be in the hands of the Vietnamese peoples.
I am merely stating that Vietnam is about a lot more than America and it is a shame that the country and their civil war has become so intrinsically tied to America. Often more so than to their own civil war and the issues driving it. To the point where many do not even know differences between the Vietcong and NVA, who the Montagnard or the many other ethnic and political groups fighting for their country or people or way of life were or why they were even fighting beyond this dull witted parroting that “murica bad. Murica made them fight..”
Vietnam is a whole ass country, sometimes more than one country in its history, with various periods and ethnic groups and its own politics and cultural conflicts.

This explanation is STILL an oversimplification- but the classic lie about American Freedom and nothing but heroic peoples heroes has long been proven false, however the replacement propaganda about an evil American government trying to force their way on “Vietnam” is equally false. There is more history there- before america it was French and other foreign influence that created a divided Vietnam to begin with.

Politicians played the war to their favor and various people used it for their own gains or agendas, often to the detriment of soldiers and civilians alike.
The south Vietnamese government and military did so as well, with many brave honorable fighters but also with traitors and the corrupt or complacent among the ranks.
In the end, pro north forces were able to drive out america and force the south Vietnamese government into exile and gain control of the country.
There hadn’t been one Vietnam for decades before the war, but after the war both North and South Vietnam ceased to exist and there was a singular Vietnam rebuilt in the image of pro northern powers.

Costs and logistics were staggering and often far greater than predicted. Programs intended on some level to help civilians or rally local support often became cluster fucks and massacres with opposite effects. US forces were internally polarized by various factors including social divisions, inequities back home, and feelings on the war. Many soldiers served with duty and honor. Many had lapses and there were those who consistently served with neither.

The American government did get involved, just as the Russians, Chinese, and numerous other foreign and domestic actors got involved.
The US government got involved for various political and economic reasons- one being a “proxy war” against communism, using a (most likely staged) attack on a U.S. ship as the “foot in the door.”
A combination of factors including general prejudices and biases along with political and economic pressures led to various atrocities, exacerbated by the stresses placed on often unprepared and unwilling troops who in many cases were not fit for the mission and were often poorly supplied and utilized, and also often only there to avoid prison. The brutality of the conflict, duress, lack of morale or purpose, racism, drugs, and losses also contributed.

So MAYBE it is possible but just very risky or complicated to do, but evidence suggests that you can’t completely manipulate human memory or thought in the matrix. We know they can manipulate it to some degree- it appeared that the skills programs used to teach things like piloting vehicles or combat skills operate by “implanting memories” or at the least through some sort of accelerated learning that bypasses traditional cognition or absorbtion methods. So there is some evidence that the mind can be influenced, but I’d say that based on context, it just wouldn’t be prudent or safe go give someone the knowledge about the matrix while they were still a part of the matrix.
So beyond any arguments about neos life and happiness, by the time someone has shown so much drive and investment and discomfort with the world and some invisible thing they feel is “off,” they need to either fully commit or give up on knowing the truth or else die basically.

The convoluted set up is that the human mind needs this sort of stimulation but can’t believe that which is too “perfect,” but then… why not lobotomize your batteries or breed them to be simple to the point of almost only basic biological functions?
Why not create a matrix in a far off past with less technology or knowledge? So many possibilities for better chances at control and compliance or for “humane” methodologies if that was a goal.
But the set up is that the matrix is necessary to the entire system, and if they could “program” the human mind, they wouldn’t need an elaborate and secret system of control based in psychology and manipulation. They could just program the human mind to do and thing whatever they needed for things to work. What’s more- why would they need to have agents take over peoples bodies and all this stuff if they could just have any person become a programmed puppet?

So to NOT separate someone from the matrix before telling them the “secret” is basically a death sentence wether they decide to join or not. Once they know the truth, they can’t go back in. In theory. It’s alluded to that they might be able to erase memories and such- but only really in a deal with Cypher which we have no reason to believe was genuine. Morpheus says that his people can make neo wake up and believe everything up until being told the truth is a dream, and when smith interrogates neo- he wakes up remembering what happened but feeling it was a dream. No evidence shows then making anyone forget exactly. We see people being influenced but not controlled.
If it were so easy and possible to control human minds the matrix wouldn’t need to exist would it? They wouldn’t have had to destroy past matrices.

We see how dangerous it is just to contact someone to try and break them out. Even with jamming and such the machines find out quickly and respond aggressively.
But so long as your plugged into the matrix from birth, they have physical possession of your body and control your life or death biologically. The “free” humans only have to worry about physical death if a machine hunts then down and they can’t hide. The main danger to them is death of the mind. The matrix sets up that the mind and body can’t live without the other. Being jacked in to the matrix as a free human means the machines only have one diste access to your mind. Being not free, they can kill your mind and if that can’t be done, they only need enough time to find your body and kill it.

And of course they touch on why they can’t tell you first- some people “crack.” And without seeing it yourself, you’d be unlikely to accept that you lived inside a battery farm in the future just because someone told you so. More importantly what isn’t said (that I recall) but is evident- the machines would likely kill you or push you into some sort of socially marginalized lobotomized or psychotic state so that you posed no danger and your ramblings if any would go unheard. They control the matrix by and large, so getting you inside the matrix wouldn’t be too hard. Morpheus and crew could protect you to some extent, at great effort, for a limited time- but at the movies start that is a prospect that would take all their resources and end in failure and likely their deaths too.

So we can say that his entire existence is more or less, him wanting to find the matrix and get his answers.
If he didn’t take the way out, he likely would have drifted through life looking for an answer he’d never find but once had a dream about. Dying with a hole inside of himself. So for sure, I’m with you on this.

Indeed. This ignores that neo was fundamentally unhappy in his matrix life.
The movie implies or outright states that he is unhappy in his job, has no idea or real care about his future career or life, he lives alone and doesn’t really seek or desire relationships with others, romantic or otherwise. No significant other, not friends or family are shown to be important to him. No romantic partner. He sells hacks in his spare time but for what reason? He doesn’t seem to spend a lot of money. His clothes and home are pretty low end. He searches for “the matrix” and Trinity whom he believes will lead him to answers. That’s his life. He wouldn’t have even gone to the party if not for the white rabbit message from a person claiming to be Trinity.
But we see he DOES care about his life. He doesn't want to die. He isn’t suicidal. It isn’t like he believes or feels life is pointless, he clearly feels there IS a point, a mystery to solve, or wants there to be a point- and is looking for it

So while many of these laws can be outdated or overly rigid and restrictive, many also make sense when really examined and considered.
Laws on doors are in a way an example- though arguably many feel that you should be allowed to make decisions about your personal safety free from undue interference on your behalf- not west a seat belt, rife without a helmet, or drive a car that doesn’t meet certain crash standards etc. so long as the life at risk is primarily the one that made the choice to perform the act.
I won’t open that debate or comment beyond to say that wether door laws are an example of a prudent law or not is debatable, but in general some of these laws do have good reason when we start to dig and consider that they can’t always decide legality of an act on an individual basis but need one rule that applies across the board.

An example of that is when you look at most cars sold in the USA into the 1980’s, all the headlights looked the same. 4 small squares, 2 large rectangles, 2 or 4 small or large circles…
The law mandated the use of specific raked beam headlights- units where the bulbs and lens and assembly were one piece and disposable. This limited how cars could be designed. Compare that to newer cars with their elaborate and stylized head lights of many shapes and sizes and designs. A switch to permit the use of certain standardized replaceable bulbs as long as the assembly met certain test criteria opened up the door to more modern cars and mostly closed the door on older designs like “flip up lights” or “hide aways” that had been invented primarily to allow some stylistic variance or aerodynamic advantage while being legally compliant.

These various laws often have pros and cons. Some seem silly but actually make decent sense. In the USA, cars must have “orange” side markers in the front and “red” in the rear. These markers must act as reflectors AND be lit on cars after certain years. This helps increase visibility of the car to others even in poor lighting, and while mandating those colors or the presence of these markers can be stylistically limiting to designers and owners looking to customize, the arrangement makes it easier to tell the direction a car is facing and traveling even from afar and in poor visibility. Many such laws have been relaxed overtime- this has allowed automotive designers and customizers more freedom in these areas.

So for instance, you can fail a road inspection some places for having “perforations” in sheet metal- essentially any holes in the car that weren’t there when the car was sold such as rust holes or… an axe hole.
Places like Japan Can be very strict on road inspections and often require that all windows and switches be operable. This is part of why it is less common to see older cars at all or cars in Poot condition some places. The cost benefit ratio of up keeping older cars is often not favorable, and rules are less lax than places where people can drive almost anything that meets some basic requirements like having lights- or sometimes less than that even.

There is often a presumptive element however. That is to say that they do not necessarily force manufacturers to crash test a vehicle without the doors IF the vehicle is designed to be operated without doors, as it stands to reason ;even if that reasoning is false) that if the car is designed to operate without doors, the doors are ornamental and thusly are no more a crash safety issue than removing a spoiler or fog lights on most cars.
Country, state, province, city, county, etc. rules may vary of course. In sor places it is illegal to operate a vehicle without a hood (bonnet) and in others it is legal.
As for the axe- this is another circumstantial one. For example- while in much of America there aren’t any or many strict standards for the body of a car or accessories- in some places in America and abroad there are.

We all have our morals. If the idea of non consensual masturbation being rape bothers someone- they either need to examine their behavior or reconcile their morals I would say. At the end of the day it’s your head, your rules. You can also ignore the entire issue and just thoughtlessly do what you want or justify it how you want. If we examine the issue though- it is at the least ethically or morally problematic to anyone that values consent. But I mean- we force people to do things all the time. Anyone with kids would likely never get anything done and raise horrible humans if they never did anything the kid didn’t want to do. How many kids would not be in school if you needed a 4-12 graders consent to force them to go?

But good luck enforcing a law like that, and almost anyone who got in trouble socially or legally for that would probably be accountable. Possibly deserving- because your head is private so long as you keep it private.
You know that thinking of your spouses sister or brother while making love is “wrong,” but- that’s in YOUR head. So I won’t say it is wrong to think of someone without their consent- although without consent usually precludes something wrong. I’ll say that right or wrong, if you keep it in your head, it’s on you to reconcile your guilt and desire. That’s how everything works in thoughts. “I make money by being s parasite/hurting others but…”

Some states make any unwanted and intentionally or reasonably foreseen forced contact with bodily fluids an assault. Spitting, licking, even if it causes no harm can be the same as a punch or a grope. Others don’t. We make laws for when people do things that make us need laws generally.
So we hope that someone doesn’t ruin it for everyone, but people are people and inevitably tend to do so given time and opportunity.

Or obnoxious. Which isn’t a crime generally, and I personally don’t think being obnoxious should be a crime- but it’s common decency right? The hope is that you don’t need to worry about having a law about…
Here’s a true story. A guy was masturbating into his coworkers coffee every day and the judge in that jurisdiction couldn’t find a crime to punish him for. At the place and time they had no safety rails for that. They never thought they’d need to deal with a criminal case of someone masturbating into their coworkers coded because who the fuck would do that?