NationStates Jolt Archive

Eut,

I don't think he was agreeing with what was posted on the blog. I read what he said to mean that by spitting in Fonda's face, this man reopened a thirty-year-old debate and a thirty-year-old wound. Certainly, you can concede that his actions and the ensuing debate have revived some of the hurt you feel, yes?
Of course, but so does seeing anything about Hanoi Jane, or hearing a car backfire, or seeing blood, or smelling cordite, or reading about "protestors," or any one of a thousand other cues.

One question for you Eutrusca. Now that someone has spit in Jane Fonda's face, can you finally let go of the pain and anger?

Or will it take a thousand such attacks or something much more harmful to give you satisfaction? When will you be able to let it go?

Perhaps I already have the answer to my question, by the way that you titled this thread:

Yayyyy! FINALLY some payback! :(

One question for you Eutrusca. Now that someone has spit in Jane Fonda's face, can you finally let go of the pain and anger?

Or will it take a thousand such attacks or something much more harmful to give you satisfaction? When will you be able to let it go?

Perhaps I already have the answer to my question, by the way that you titled this thread:

Yayyyy! FINALLY some payback! :(
I don't know that it will ever go away.

The only thing to which I can compare this is the grief you feel when someone close to you dies, or when a long-term relationship breaks up. The pain may lessen, but sometimes it never truly goes away.

As you would have learned had you read the other posts I've made to this thread, I have tried many, many times to "let go of it," as you put it. Sometimes I suceeded in merely supressing it for many years, only to have it resurface at some later, unexpected time. It's not as easy as you seem to think. Some of my brothers are still in psychiatric wards because of Vietnam and the hatred and vituperation they received when they returned home.
The way that I look at the comments that you have made, is that even though the Vietnam war ended over 30 years ago and you are a retired veteran, you are still a prisoner of war.

The way that I look at the comments that you have made, is that even though the Vietnam war ended over 30 years ago and you are a retired veteran, you are still a prisoner of war.
In a manner of speaking, I suppose I am, as are many, many of my brothers who went through the same sort of thing, or much, much worse.

The way that I look at the comments that you have made, is that even though the Vietnam war ended over 30 years ago and you are a retired veteran, you are still a prisoner of war.

He admits that he wants to move past this. I'm curious, what are you trying to accomplish here?

Second-generation Hanoi Jane Hater here, for a variety of reasons involving blood relations who were stuck in that hellhole of a country for various reasons at, and around, the time of her giving assistance to the NVA.

Jane Fonda 'apologized' just enough to get her movie made- a crass and extorted apology has no validity. It is my sincerest hope, that after she dies of old age (or maybe some dreadful venerial disease...one can only hope!) her soul will spend eternity in a hot, nasty place, stuck in a tiger cage with Robert McNamara and LBJ.

In the meantime, kudos to the tobacco-sharing gentleman, it's only unfortunate that it has not induced her to imitate those buddhist monks who gave their all REALLY opposing the war-via a five gallon can of gas, and a lighter.

Second-generation Hanoi Jane Hater here, for a variety of reasons involving blood relations who were stuck in that hellhole of a country for various reasons at, and around, the time of her giving assistance to the NVA.

Jane Fonda 'apologized' just enough to get her movie made- a crass and extorted apology has no validity. It is my sincerest hope, that after she dies of old age (or maybe some dreadful venerial disease...one can only hope!) her soul will spend eternity in a hot, nasty place, stuck in a tiger cage with Robert McNamara and LBJ.

In the meantime, kudos to the tobacco-sharing gentleman, it's only unfortunate that it has not induced her to imitate those buddhist monks who gave their all REALLY opposing the war-via a five gallon can of gas, and a lighter.
By "second-generation", do you mean that this hatred has been passed onto you by another person in your family as some sort of sick inheritance?

By "second-generation", do you mean that this hatred has been passed onto you by another person in your family as some sort of sick inheritance?
Having been in the Army many years after the Vietnam War, we learned to hate certain journalists who we knew had it in for us.

Ever wonder why that CBS reporter "got lost" during the first Gulf War and wandered out into the desert with his team and was captured by the Iraqi Army before the ground war started?

Heh heh heh. If you're going to spout stories about how badly we're going to lose, and be so wrong and unknowing about the subject of the military, we're going to give you the wrong directions.

I heard he was ass-raped by the Iraqis.

Oh, and if you're hanging around an American unit today, and you have a rep for saying bad things, or even better, you have a rep for working with the insurgents so you know when the bomb is going off so you can get good pics, don't expect the US troops to save you when the insurgents open fire - you're on your own buddy.

If you think this is about "hurt feelings" you're not 1/10th as intelligent as I thought you were.

Feel free to insult my intelligence, if you so choose - it makes no difference to me.

This isn't about intelligence, anyway - this is about empathy.

The chap in question feels betrayed, I'm sure. He feels like he was directly betrayed by Jane Fonda (which is, perhaps, a little egocentric of him), and that she betrayed her country (his opinion).

However, this isn't a heat-of-the-moment incident. This is a grudge held for 30 years. The man admitted he doesn't normally chew tobacco, and did so PURELY so that he could spit it in her face - making this action pre-meditated.

Regardless of what Jane Fonda did during the war, she did nothing directly to this individual - whereas, he has chosen to take his 'revenge' on her in person. She did what she thought right, in a time of war. He has assaulted a civilian in peace-time.

I see this as a matter of 'hurt feelings', you see it differently.

Lots of people do what they think is right, Hitler thought what he was doing was right. I'm not comparing her to Hitler, but pretending like every person who does what they think is right is automatically of equal worth or that if their reasoning (Hitler did it because his countries economy was failing) is noble that it excuses their actions is just silly.

The man believes that Jane Fonda helped us lose a war, increased casualties and caused a lot of good men to have been spit upon, all while slandering POWs and committing treason. I would hardly call that hurt feelings. The man thought it was a small amount of justice.

If I spit in a man's face for raping my daughter would that be considered over my "own hurt feelings". Wording it that way doesn't make your statement even close to resemble an accurate account of what happened.

Perhaps the difference would be that a rape is a direct attack on an individual - here, the idea of it being a family member makes it personal.... whereas, Jane Fonda's actions were not targetted towards any given individual?

I do not believe, personally, that objecting to a war (even vocally) is on a level with sexual violence. Maybe that's just me.

The thing is - Jane Fonda perceived her actions to be right. She believed that the US was in the wrong, that the war shouldn't have taken place. She believed it was a 'bad war'... and there are many that agree with her... the quote comes to mind about America "being great, because it is good", and that when it cease to be "good", it will stop being great... under those lights, Fonda was a true patriot.

The gentleman in question perceived Fonda's actions as wrong, even treasonous... and perhaps he is right. But, to brood over that for 30 years, before carrying out a revenge assault... I don't see how that is justified.

It's all perception.

As you said, perhaps the fellow saw a 'small amount of justice'. Many other people probably saw an embodiment of vengeance, or maybe just assault.

I do not believe, personally, that objecting to a war (even vocally) is on a level with sexual violence. Maybe that's just me.

There is a big difference between objecting to a war and cheering on the torture and death of soldiers. I have objections to the Iraq war, but I don't applaud every time a soldier - who is there because of orders, not due to his own decisions - dies or gets injured. I don't suggest that it "serves them right" as if they have done anything wrong. And I certainly don't call POWs who went through years of suffering liars just so I can feel like I have the moral high ground yelling at them.

Jane Fonda went well beyond simply objecting to a war.

Edit: I've met many a soldier who, while not necessarily agreeing with protesters, is proud of the fact that they protect the freedom that allows such protests and respects their views. However, I have yet to meet a single one who has any respect for Fonda or her actions.

NOTE: Here's another Vietnam veteran's take on things like this.


John Kass
30 years later, Vietnam vet asks: `Was it worth it?'

Published April 24, 2005


Next week marks the 30th anniversary of the end of the war in Vietnam. Rather than talk to a professor, I talked to John Colovos.

He owns the Cambridge House Restaurant where I eat lunch, at Ohio and St. Clair, near the Tribune. He's a few days shy of 60, but wiry and strong, a hunter, still.

One early morning last week, we sat in a booth in the back. John didn't eat. He spiked his coffee with sugar and smoked. It was the first time we'd ever talked about Vietnam.

"I love my country. I fought for my country. I got wounded in Vietnam. But was it worth it? I still think about that."

He received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and a Purple Heart. Though born in Europe, the immigrant became an American through loss of blood.

"In the old country, in the village, a Communist guerrilla captain was going to kill my dad because he wouldn't join the Communists. He put the gun to my father's head. The man with the gun was my father's first cousin. He let him live, but that's how bad it was. That civil war was cousin against cousin. I thought Vietnam would have the same dynamic."

They left Greece and settled in Chicago, where his father cut leather in a shoe factory.

"One day one of those presses took his left hand off. I quit school and worked."

He was drafted in June 1965. After boot camp, a sergeant approached: "`Hey, you Greeks did good in Korea. Come here you.' That was it and I was in the 101st Airborne.

"... In Vietnam, we'd capture a hill. Then they'd say, `We're moving out' and you say, `What happens to the hill when we move out?' and they say, `We're here to show our power. This hill doesn't mean anything.' You think to yourself, `Oh,' and you think about friends who died.

"We'd see the Frenchmen in a Michelin plantation. They were protected by us. They lived in style. Every time we cut rubber trees to clear the area, our government paid them something like $1,500 per tree. And we were protecting them?

"And that's when I started asking, why am I here? It was strictly a business war. Real estate and business."

We didn't discuss China and Russia, dominos, gradual escalation, political theory. Theory was so thin so early in the morning, so airy, so light. As John Colovos thought back almost 40 years, his own kids grown, smoking in a booth in his restaurant, his boots were on the ground.

He thought about the deadly village of Cu Chi, at a camp situated above a series of enemy underground tunnels.

"They came at us about 5:30 in the morning. They overran the camp. We beat them back. They overran it again. We beat them back. I'd never seen hand-to-hand before. It lasted more than six hours. I see a personnel carrier. One of the Vietnamese, he didn't even have a weapon anymore, just a little guy with a hatchet. The battle was over, but he ran and attacked the personnel carrier, banging on it with his hatchet.

"One of our guys on top of the carrier looked down at him. He shook his head. He couldn't believe an enemy like this, no gun, had the will to fight. With his hands. With a hatchet. That's how we would be if some country attacked America. But we were over there, thousands of miles away.

"That's when I was thinking, maybe we shouldn't have been in Vietnam. An officer showed up. We saluted. He said that he should be saluting us. Then I looked down at my leg and it was all bloody. Then I passed out. It was a hand grenade."

On June 6, 1967, he flew into O'Hare International Airport. His buddy, Joe, from Michigan, was worse off, having lost his leg below the knee.

"We were all spit and polish, we had our medals on, walking to another gate for Joe to take his flight home," Colovos said. "Then we got the welcome home. There were three guys with long hair. They walked up to us. We stood there. They spit."

Wounded and outnumbered, they brawled on the floor with the other three. John screamed for bystanders to help.

"The bystanders were in a circle, watching. They didn't help. That broke my heart."

John pulled a pistol and the fight stopped. Two police officers calmed things down, let him keep his pistol but took the bullets, then scattered the crowd. After seeing Joe off to Michigan on another flight, the police drove Colovos home to North and Central.

"The older officer, he was a nice man, kept saying, `Settle down, the war's over,' and I said, `Maybe for you, but not for me.' It took me a long time to get back to normal.

"Now the Vietnamese have vacation tours, but I'm not going there. I don't blame the Vietnamese. They did what they did. We did what we did. But I'm not going back. So many kids got killed, and now our country and Vietnam are friends. They have vacations, resorts, and you ask me if it was worth it.

"So many dead. My friends are dead. What did we get out of it? What did we gain?"

There is a big difference between objecting to a war and cheering on the torture and death of soldiers. I have objections to the Iraq war, but I don't applaud every time a soldier - who is there because of orders, not due to his own decisions - dies or gets injured. I don't suggest that it "serves them right" as if they have done anything wrong. And I certainly don't call POWs who went through years of suffering liars just so I can feel like I have the moral high ground yelling at them.

Jane Fonda went well beyond simply objecting to a war.

I think perhaps the idea that Jane Fonda would "applaud every time a soldier... dies or gets injured" is, perhaps, an exaggeration.

Regarding soldiers - even with a draft, there is a choice to disobey orders. Soldiers may choose not to disobey orders, for fear of reprisal, but that is their choice. People did chose not to serve.

I'm not saying it "serves them right"... I'm not saying they "deserved it"... but every single soldier in Vietnam had a choice NOT to be there, had a choice not to fight. Perhaps, their assigned officer might have shot them for their refusal to fight - but still, there is always a choice.

Again - I think it's all about perspective. Perhaps, Fonda did act outside of the rules of what is 'acceptable' as objection. But then, women and children slowly burning to death in a Napalmed village probably felt that the US was acting outside of 'acceptable' limits to warfare.

Perhaps the difference would be that a rape is a direct attack on an individual - here, the idea of it being a family member makes it personal.... whereas, Jane Fonda's actions were not targetted towards any given individual?

I do not believe, personally, that objecting to a war (even vocally) is on a level with sexual violence. Maybe that's just me.

The thing is - Jane Fonda perceived her actions to be right. She believed that the US was in the wrong, that the war shouldn't have taken place. She believed it was a 'bad war'... and there are many that agree with her... the quote comes to mind about America "being great, because it is good", and that when it cease to be "good", it will stop being great... under those lights, Fonda was a true patriot.

The gentleman in question perceived Fonda's actions as wrong, even treasonous... and perhaps he is right. But, to brood over that for 30 years, before carrying out a revenge assault... I don't see how that is justified.

It's all perception.

As you said, perhaps the fellow saw a 'small amount of justice'. Many other people probably saw an embodiment of vengeance, or maybe just assault.

As Dem pointed out she went far beyond objecting to a war, if I were a POW or the family member of a POW, Jane Fonda's remarks would add no small measure of pain to my plight. For her to applaud the enemy for killing my brethren and to put propaganda out on Vietnamese radio making completely and knowingly untrue statements about the actions of soldiers and the treatment of POWs is far beyond objecting to a war. In fact, she didn't object to the war, she just didn't want us to win.

I wasn't even alive when she did most of what she did, but I find it offensive for her to be compared to the peace activists who believe enough in what they are fighting for that they are willing to sacrifice for their beliefs instead of gain from them, expose lies instead of create them, promote peace instead of promoting war against Americans and calling it peace. Jane Fonda was no peace activist and no amount of calling her that will make it true.

I think perhaps the idea that Jane Fonda would "applaud every time a soldier... dies or gets injured" is, perhaps, an exaggeration.

Having read quotes and such from her, I don't.

Regarding soldiers - even with a draft, there is a choice to disobey orders. Soldiers may choose not to disobey orders, for fear of reprisal, but that is their choice. People did chose not to serve.

I don't know many 18 year old kids with the resources and lack of respect for the government to do so. And if soldiers regularly choose to disobey orders, there is no military left.

You also have to remember how many of these kids were duped into thinking that this war was integral to the survival of our country - that Communism (herein represented as Satan himself) might take over.

I'm not saying it "serves them right"... I'm not saying they "deserved it"...

Why not? She did.

but every single soldier in Vietnam had a choice NOT to be there, had a choice not to fight. Perhaps, their assigned officer might have shot them for their refusal to fight - but still, there is always a choice.

I don't see a big choice between "Go here and shoot at people who shoot you and you might have a chance at survival" and "I will shoot you in the head right now".

Again - I think it's all about perspective. Perhaps, Fonda did act outside of the rules of what is 'acceptable' as objection. But then, women and children slowly burning to death in a Napalmed village probably felt that the US was acting outside of 'acceptable' limits to warfare.

I'm sure they did - and they were right. But war is ugly - people on both sides die horrible deaths. Applauding that is uncalled for - in either case.

Having read quotes and such from her, I don't.


Surely, you do not honestly think Jane Fonda personally cheered the death or injury of every soldier? You are sticking to your guns on that as a literal interpretation?


I don't know many 18 year old kids with the resources and lack of respect for the government to do so. And if soldiers regularly choose to disobey orders, there is no military left.

You also have to remember how many of these kids were duped into thinking that this war was integral to the survival of our country - that Communism (herein represented as Satan himself) might take over.


It's not a matter of respect or resources. It's a matter of conscience. There WERE conscientious objectors during the Vietnam war. SOME people did make a choice of conscience.

I appreciate that people perceived a war against Communism, and fought as bloody a war as was needed to protect their homeland. I also appreciate that other people perceived that it was NOT a war against Communism, and were appalled at a military action based on a lie.


Why not? She did.


Perhaps. But I did not.


I don't see a big choice between "Go here and shoot at people who shoot you and you might have a chance at survival" and "I will shoot you in the head right now".


It's a crisis of conscience. To some, death is better than dishonour.


I'm sure they did - and they were right. But war is ugly - people on both sides die horrible deaths. Applauding that is uncalled for - in either case.

I heard people exclaiming great satisfaction at the kill figures announced during the invasion of Iraq... how many of the 'enemy' were killed, and how few of our brave boys.

I have heard the deaths since the end of open hostilities lamented... in terms of our boys, again - while the 'enemy' figures are left unmentioned.

War IS partisan. People really do gain satisfaction from the deaths of the enemy, and lament the loss of friends. But, it's a matter of perspective.

Wow. For one, I'm amazed this thread is still alive. For another...it's getting damn heated in here!

Now, I've seen a lot of people really slam Jane Fonda here. I'll admit, I don't really know much about what she did during the Vietnam war (nor do I care all that much). I haven't read through all the posts, but I would like someone to post some actual links to the things she is supposed to have said or done (like applauding the torture of POWs????). A lot of claims are being made, but especially as someone who really has no idea of her actions, I'd like some proof that she is the devil incarnate as so many of you seem to be suggesting. Thanks.

Wow. For one, I'm amazed this thread is still alive. For another...it's getting damn heated in here!

Now, I've seen a lot of people really slam Jane Fonda here. I'll admit, I don't really know much about what she did during the Vietnam war (nor do I care all that much). I haven't read through all the posts, but I would like someone to post some actual links to the things she is supposed to have said or done (like applauding the torture of POWs????). A lot of claims are being made, but especially as someone who really has no idea of her actions, I'd like some proof that she is the devil incarnate as so many of you seem to be suggesting. Thanks.
http://www.vietnamwar.com/JaneFonda.htm

http://www.vietnamwar.com/JaneFonda.htm
Hmmm...maybe you'd like to pick out some specifics? So far I don't see that much to back up the furious claims made. The only thing I've seen is that she denied that POWs had been tortured, although it seems that she based her views on what she was SHOWN (which of course would not have included that). So, was she naive? Assuredly. Evil? Traitor...I'm not seeing it.

I found this interesting, by the way:

A valuable lesson was taught by North Vietnam to other nations on how the United States may be defeated by fighting a two front war - the battlefield and the American home front. We must be aware of this vulnerability.
So when you go to war, you must also declare war on your own people...anyone who does not back the official line? I guess if you believe this, that you should suspend your freedoms in wartime, that she would be a traitor. So would thousands of other Americans I guess. I for one, don't support that kind of stifling of opinion, no matter the 'reason'.

She was outspoken politically. So were, and so are many others. Simply because you do not agree with her does not make her a traitor. I've seen no proof that she "applauded the torture" of troops, that she in any way 'betrayed her country', or any of the other emotional claims made here. Go ahead and dislike her. Spitting in her face (or threatening worse) is silly. If you think that is okay, you open up the door for EVERYONE who disagrees with ANYONE to do the same thing. So much for the freedoms you Americans are always claiming you hold so dear.

I visited and paid my respects at the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC this past Friday. Though it was raining at 5pm on a weekday, there were still several hundred people there.
I also visited the new World War II Memorial on Saturday-its in line between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. Its truly awesome-a very significant and beautiful tribute. I'm not positive, but I think it was built with private donations.

http://www.vietnamwar.com/JaneFonda.htm

I know it's hard for people to be subjective about things that affected them directly, but this source is a mockery in terms of 'evidence'.

Most of the content is 'assertions', or attempts to tie together disparate threads... e.g. that Fonda is a socialist, therefore is serving some form of Communist conspiracy.... or that Fonda opposed the American invasion of Vietnam, therefore she must be an enemy agent.

The most damning 'evidence' - such as it is, is that there appears to be a photograph of her sitting on a Vietnamese war-machine. I'm not sure that is illegal, or even morally reprehensible. There appears to be a microphone being held towards her - which would imply that the Anti-Aircraft gun was merely a 'venue' for an interview.

It's a matter of perspective... as I said before.

I know it's hard for people to be subjective about things that affected them directly, but this source is a mockery in terms of 'evidence'.

Most of the content is 'assertions', or attempts to tie together disparate threads... e.g. that Fonda is a socialist, therefore is serving some form of Communist conspiracy.... or that Fonda opposed the American invasion of Vietnam, therefore she must be an enemy agent.

The most damning 'evidence' - such as it is, is that there appears to be a photograph of her sitting on a Vietnamese war-machine. I'm not sure that is illegal, or even morally reprehensible. There appears to be a microphone being held towards her - which would imply that the Anti-Aircraft gun was merely a 'venue' for an interview.

It's a matter of perspective... as I said before.

I'm not being sarcastic here- I was wondering if you were aware of the numerous broadcasts she made on behalf of the North Vietnamese pointed at the American soldier, calling them baby killers and war criminals? It was a deliberate attempt to demoralize the soldier as an individual. This is certainly damning evidence.
I've said before, this person certainly had the resources and connections to make an organized and legitimate protest. Instead, she reached out to the enemy and tried to attack the American soldier directly.

I'm not being sarcastic here- I was wondering if you were aware of the numerous broadcasts she made on behalf of the North Vietnamese pointed at the American soldier, calling them baby killers and war criminals? It was a deliberate attempt to demoralize the soldier as an individual. This is certainly damning evidence.
I've said before, this person certainly had the resources and connections to make an organized and legitimate protest. Instead, she reached out to the enemy and tried to attack the American soldier directly.
No offense, but who are you to decide what is legitimate protest and what is not? I'd have to agree with GNI...it's a matter of perspective. If by trying to show the American public that the 'enemy' were human beings, with culture, with family, with traditions and routines just like anyother was 'reaching out to the enemy' in your books, fine. To me, it is a case of trying to get people to question the labels and the stereotypes of the faceless, evil 'enemy'. She used harsh names and labels too, and directed them towards American troops. Even if Mai Lai was some sort of isolated aburration, I think she was justified in using those labels, though I wouldn't agree they applied to every American soldier.

Damning evidence? Of what exactly?

I'm not being sarcastic here- I was wondering if you were aware of the numerous broadcasts she made on behalf of the North Vietnamese pointed at the American soldier, calling them baby killers and war criminals? It was a deliberate attempt to demoralize the soldier as an individual. This is certainly damning evidence.
I've said before, this person certainly had the resources and connections to make an organized and legitimate protest. Instead, she reached out to the enemy and tried to attack the American soldier directly.

None of that is one that site, and I have seen no evidence to support such allegations other than subjective reports.... nothing recorded... no transcripts... no film.

I have HEARD of such broadcasts, but I have not HEARD such broadcasts - so I cannot express any opinion on them, either way.

From what I HAVE seen, I haven't seen anything that counts as an attack on American soldiers. Except for one instance:

Where she asserted that, stories about soldiers being tortured because they wouldn't see her, were lies... A situation, I think, being more likely explained by her lack of knowledge, coupled with a response to the implied allegation that she was somehow involved in such torture.

All of which aside... babies WERE killed by US servicemen. Crimes of war WERE committed.

It is a little precious for an armed force to get bent out of shape over someone discussing it.

It reminds me of people saying that the newspapers were un-Patriotic for discussing prisoner abuse scandals...

So honestly...is there any basis her to really call her a traitor, instead of just a person you disagree with utterly? It's gotten awfully quiet here...

No offense, but who are you to decide what is legitimate protest and what is not?

*SNIP*

Damning evidence? Of what exactly?

Would you agree that treason is not a legitimate protest? If one were to suggest that she is guilty of treason (I happen to believe she is for providing comfort and aid to the enemy), as many here have, I think they are justified in suggesting that it is not a legitimate form of protest.

It has been exhaustingly explained that she did not just show the humanity of the other side. She encouraged them to continue killing American soldiers. She encouraged Americans to lay down their arms and surrender to the North Vietnamese while claiming that POWs were not being mistreated. This is the opposite of promoting peace. She didn't want people to stop killing people, she didn't want Americans to kill the North Vietnamese. She said clearly that the killing of Americans was completely acceptable and encouraged.

Damning evidence of what? Well, many would argue treason and at the very least of her lying about the American veterans.

Sinuhue and Grave n Idle- I am not here to bang heads with either of you. There have already been 18 pages of that. I just dont agree with either of you and I'm as sure of my position as you are yours. So I am choosing to leave it at that.

So honestly...is there any basis her to really call her a traitor, instead of just a person you disagree with utterly? It's gotten awfully quiet here...

Of the things I've been able to confirm on Snopes:

It did occur that she was introduced to POWs while she was in Vietnam. They were tortured prior to talking to her, and ordered to tell her that they were being treated well, and were never tortured.

She parrotted this when she got home. And when it came out that indeed they had been tortured, she said that they were liars. It has since come out that the Vietnamese even have admitted the torture (and killing) of prisoners of war - long before she apologized.

It wasn't just a matter of disagreeing with US policy. When the US ended its involvement in Vietnam, she continued for some years to speak on behalf of the Vietnamese Communists. It is quite clear that she was not so much anti-US as she was pro-Communist.

Sitting in the seat of an anti-aircraft gun is one thing. Making tapes to be broadcast to US soldiers to urge them to surrender and call POWs claims of torture "lies" seems to be crossing the line. Perhaps in another war (WW II), she would have suffered the same fate as Tokyo Rose.

It wasn't simple protest, however. It was overt action. Plenty of people protested the war without defaming POWs who were speaking the truth, or by trying to demoralize US troops in the field.

Would you agree that treason is not a legitimate protest? If one were to suggest that she is guilty of treason (I happen to believe she is for providing comfort and aid to the enemy), as many here have, I think they are justified in suggesting that it is not a legitimate form of protest.

I think that clause of treason can be extended to cover just about anything that someone might do that could possibly be construed as supporting the 'enemy', including anything they say that disagrees with the official war line. Has she ever been tried for treason? No? In that case, despite your opinions, she is not a traitor.

It has been exhaustingly explained that she did not just show the humanity of the other side. She encouraged them to continue killing American soldiers. She encouraged Americans to lay down their arms and surrender to the North Vietnamese while claiming that POWs were not being mistreated.
Surrender and withdrawal are not the same as "put down your weapons so we can slaughter you". She claimed POWs were not being mistreated because she saw no evidence of such. So she was dumb. Not a traitor. She wanted the war to end, as did many, and didn't think it was a legitimate action on the part of her country. SHE WANTED WAR TO END. To me, that is NOT the opposite of peace.

This is the opposite of promoting peace. She didn't want people to stop killing people, she didn't want Americans to kill the North Vietnamese. She said clearly that the killing of Americans was completely acceptable and encouraged.
Again, she wanted war to end. It can't end if one side keeps fighting. The killing of Americans as acceptable and encouraged? Of course it was. If Americans were killing Vietnamese, you think they should not retaliate?

Sinuhue and Grave n Idle- I am not here to bang heads with either of you. There have already been 18 pages of that. I just dont agree with either of you and I'm as sure of my position as you are yours. So I am choosing to leave it at that.
No problem. I wasn't here to debate earlier:). I'm kind of responding most to Dem's recent posts anyway.

*snip*
So basically, she went way too far? I can't disagree on that. I understand why people revile her. I don't particularly share that feeling, but then again, it isn't an issue that directly affected/affects me. The ONLY issue I have is that people are applauding the action of this one vet. I don't think this sort of behaviour should be alright for some, and not for others. Again, I ask, if I spit in Henry Kissinger's face, would I get all this positive feedback?

(the answer MAY be yes, but I still wouldn't do it, no matter how much I hate him...)

Sinuhue and Grave n Idle- I am not here to bang heads with either of you. There have already been 18 pages of that. I just dont agree with either of you and I'm as sure of my position as you are yours. So I am choosing to leave it at that.

I haven't actually claimed to be 'sure' of my position... I just see little evidence of the 'facts' alleged... and what there is seems to be mostly circumstantial.

My big issue is more with the assault carried out 30 years after the war ended, than with the politics and right/wrong of actions in the theatre of war.

Certainly not here to bang heads with you, or any of the others, really.

NOTE: There are very, very few people I truly hate, but this bitch is most definitely one of them!


Missouri Man Spits on Jane Fonda (http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/index.jsp?cat=ENTERTAINMENT&fn=/2005/04/20/112694.html)
TIM CURRAN, Associated Press Writer
56 minutes ago

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A man spit tobacco juice into the face of actress Jane Fonda after waiting in line to have her sign her new book, police said.

The man ran off but was quickly caught by police Tuesday night and charged with disorderly conduct.

Fonda has been on tour and doing interviews to promote her just-published memoir, "My Life So Far." The thrice-married, two-time Academy Award winner covers a wide array of topics, including her 1972 visit to Hanoi to protest the Vietnam War, during which she was photographed on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. She has apologized for that photo, but not for opposing the war.

Capt. Rich Lockhart of the Kansas City Police Department said that although Fonda did not want to press charges against Michael A. Smith, 54, of Kansas City, he was arrested on a municipal charge of disorderly conduct after off-duty officers caught him just outside Unity Temple, where Fonda was signing books.

Lockhart said Smith was released on bond late Tuesday night and is due to appear in municipal court on May 27.

Smith, a Vietnam veteran, told The Kansas City Star on Wednesday that Fonda was a "traitor" and that her protests against the war were unforgivable. He said he normally does not chew tobacco but did so Tuesday solely to spit juice on the actress.

"I consider it a debt of honor," he told The Star for a story on its Web site, www.kansascity.com. "She spit in our faces for 37 years. It was absolutely worth it. There are a lot of veterans who would love to do what I did."

Fonda drew a crowd of about 900 for her appearance, said Vivian Jennings, whose Rainy Day Books of suburban Fairway, Kan., sponsored the event at Unity Temple in Kansas City. Fonda, 67, spoke for about 15 minutes, answered questions for another 15, then began signing copies of her book.

Jennings said the actress never got up from her seat and continued autographing books after the tobacco juice was wiped off.


I don't truely hate her, but it seems like justice.

Of the things I've been able to confirm on Snopes:

It did occur that she was introduced to POWs while she was in Vietnam. They were tortured prior to talking to her, and ordered to tell her that they were being treated well, and were never tortured.

She parrotted this when she got home. And when it came out that indeed they had been tortured, she said that they were liars. It has since come out that the Vietnamese even have admitted the torture (and killing) of prisoners of war - long before she apologized.


So - her action was an honest mistake, due to being lied to?

So basically, she went way too far? I can't disagree on that. I understand why people revile her. I don't particularly share that feeling, but then again, it isn't an issue that directly affected/affects me. The ONLY issue I have is that people are applauding the action of this one vet. I don't think this sort of behaviour should be alright for some, and not for others. Again, I ask, if I spit in Henry Kissinger's face, would I get all this positive feedback?

(the answer MAY be yes, but I still wouldn't do it, no matter how much I hate him...)

She went way too far. And Cat-Tribe illustrated how she can't be prosecuted (at least not in the Vietnam-era or current political climate - during WW II she would have been shot).

I'm a big believer in having justice served, even if it's cold and way past due.

You probably would get someone's applause for spitting on Kissinger.

Her actions during the Vietnam War were the main reason I showed an unbelievable level of hostility to protesters and to anti-military reporters when I was in the Army - and I was by no means alone. The difference between me and the veteran in question is that I had the legal right to beat protesters until their bones broke - and I had no legal obligation to give a CBS reporter accurate information about where we were or where Iraqi forces were when they asked us for that information during the first Gulf War.

So protesters were legally abused into hospital - and a CBS reporter was captured by Iraqi troops and ass-raped. All because of unsatisfied hostility.

Someone probably should write a new law that covers aiding the enemy just short of treason, so that future cases of "went too far" get satisfied before it cascades into a torrent of abuse.

pfft....Jane is a bint and her aerobics tapes sucked too.

I don't truely hate her, but it seems like justice.
Yes. Spittle undoes all the wrongs. I shall dispense 'justice' in this fashion from now on.

pfft....Jane is a bint and her aerobics tapes sucked too.

Best argument I've heard today. :)

She went way too far. And Cat-Tribe illustrated how she can't be prosecuted (at least not in the Vietnam-era or current political climate - during WW II she would have been shot).

I'm a big believer in having justice served, even if it's cold and way past due.

You probably would get someone's applause for spitting on Kissinger.

Her actions during the Vietnam War were the main reason I showed an unbelievable level of hostility to protesters and to anti-military reporters when I was in the Army - and I was by no means alone. The difference between me and the veteran in question is that I had the legal right to beat protesters until their bones broke - and I had no legal obligation to give a CBS reporter accurate information about where we were or where Iraqi forces were when they asked us for that information during the first Gulf War.

So protesters were legally abused into hospital - and a CBS reporter was captured by Iraqi troops and ass-raped. All because of unsatisfied hostility.

Someone probably should write a new law that covers aiding the enemy just short of treason, so that future cases of "went too far" get satisfied before it cascades into a torrent of abuse.

You are seriously laying the blame for your actions, and the actions of others on Jane Fonda? I frankly call bluff. You don't strike me as the kind of person to do something like hospitalise someone just because of how Jane Fonda made you feel. I don't think you would really want us to believe she has that much power over you. You are as responsible for your OWN actions as she is for hers.

How is this justice exactly?

You are seriously laying the blame for your actions, and the actions of others on Jane Fonda? I frankly call bluff. You don't strike me as the kind of person to do something like hospitalise someone just because of how Jane Fonda made you feel. I don't think you would really want us to believe she has that much power over you. You are as responsible for your OWN actions as she is for hers.

How is this justice exactly?

It's not bluff. I broke a woman's arms and shoulders in Germany in 1989 because she got inside the exclusion area. Having heard how soldiers were abused by protesters during the Vietnam War made me want to dish it out long before anyone ever did it to me.

I've gotten gentler and calmer since then. But when I was younger, I was not to be trifled with. Probably wouldn't do it now.

It's not bluff. I broke a woman's arms and shoulders in Germany in 1989 because she got inside the exclusion area. Having heard how soldiers were abused by protesters during the Vietnam War made me want to dish it out long before anyone ever did it to me.

I've gotten gentler and calmer since then. But when I was younger, I was not to be trifled with. Probably wouldn't do it now.
Good to hear. *shudders*

So you broke a woman's arms and shoulders because she was protesting? And you did it because you didn't want to be tortured, and preferred to hurt someone else before you were hurt yourself (by others, not by your victim)? I hope you're not saying your action was based in any sort of logic!!??

And that was LEGAL?

That scares me.

Surely, you do not honestly think Jane Fonda personally cheered the death or injury of every soldier? You are sticking to your guns on that as a literal interpretation?

I don't think she personally knew of the death of every single soldier - it wasn't like they were reporting every name like they are now, but the quotes I have seen from her indicate that she was applauding those she knew about.

It's not a matter of respect or resources. It's a matter of conscience. There WERE conscientious objectors during the Vietnam war. SOME people did make a choice of conscience.

Do you know what it takes to be a conscientious objector in this country? It isn't easy to get it past them - you basically have to demonstrate that you are completely opposed to all war.

And very few 18-year olds are that adamant in their views.

I appreciate that people perceived a war against Communism, and fought as bloody a war as was needed to protect their homeland. I also appreciate that other people perceived that it was NOT a war against Communism, and were appalled at a military action based on a lie.

I can appreciate both perceptions - and I am appalled at any military action based on a lie. I do not, however, blame the soldiers fighting for that action.

I heard people exclaiming great satisfaction at the kill figures announced during the invasion of Iraq... how many of the 'enemy' were killed, and how few of our brave boys.

Anyone who rejoices over death is disgusting.

War IS partisan. People really do gain satisfaction from the deaths of the enemy, and lament the loss of friends. But, it's a matter of perspective.

If people really do gain satisfaction from the deaths of the enemy, they do not deserve to live. Killing people is never a good thing. It may sometimes be necessary or understandable, but it is not something to rejoice over.

If people really do gain satisfaction from the deaths of the enemy, they do not deserve to live. Killing people is never a good thing. It may sometimes be necessary or understandable, but it is not something to rejoice over.
I hope you apply that standard to people fighting on 'your' side as well...

Good to hear. *shudders*

So you broke a woman's arms and shoulders because she was protesting? And you did it because you didn't want to be tortured, and preferred to hurt someone else before you were hurt yourself (by others, not by your victim)? I hope you're not saying your action was based in any sort of logic!!??

And that was LEGAL?

That scares me.

I was on a Pershing II launch trailer. She got up on the launcher (already illegal). She came towards the warhead section (nuclear). Once within 2 meters of the warhead, I had permission (in fact, orders) to kill her.

Unauthorized personnel in the exculsion area are to be killed without warning.

I still did nothing. She then swung at me (just to slap me). So I caught her swinging arm, broke it back through the elbow with the other hand, and pulled the whole thing up behind her back, and tossed her onto the pavement (where she broke the other arm and shoulder trying to catch herself).

Legal. It was even the subject of a hearing in German court - she tried to file a complaint - and they threw it out on the basis that I was doing my duty.

I was almost court martialed for NOT killing her.

I'm saying that if a protester wants to play rough (whether by offering physical violence, or by heaping abuse on prisoners), then I'm not going to be the last one to get hurt.

I don't think she personally knew of the death of every single soldier - it wasn't like they were reporting every name like they are now, but the quotes I have seen from her indicate that she was applauding those she knew about.

Do you know what it takes to be a conscientious objector in this country? It isn't easy to get it past them - you basically have to demonstrate that you are completely opposed to all war.

And very few 18-year olds are that adamant in their views.

I can appreciate both perceptions - and I am appalled at any military action based on a lie. I do not, however, blame the soldiers fighting for that action.

Anyone who rejoices over death is disgusting.

If people really do gain satisfaction from the deaths of the enemy, they do not deserve to live. Killing people is never a good thing. It may sometimes be necessary or understandable, but it is not something to rejoice over.

You reside quite close to me... you should come visit my neck of the woods. I am willing to wager I could introduce you to a few dozen people who have 'gained satisfaction from the deaths of the enemy' in Iraq.

I appreciate your viewpoint, and I am disgusted by such behavour also... just as I was disgusted by the cheering of certain Muslims I worked with, on September 11th. Unfortunately - these are real people... this is what the world is really like.

I don't blame soldiers for fighting. However, that doesn't ABSOLVE them of responsibiity, either. Nazi's skewered babies on bayonets... I like to think I would have found another way, rather than following such orders.

Regarding the applause... I still haven't seen any evidence that she actually applauded ANY deaths or injuries.

I was on a Pershing II launch trailer. She got up on the launcher (already illegal). She came towards the warhead section (nuclear). Once within 2 meters of the warhead, I had permission (in fact, orders) to kill her.
Okay. Situation clarified, I think you were probably pretty reserved. Shite, did she not understand how dangerous her actions were? Your original post created pictures of a protester crossing a painted line or something. *shudders, but in understanding this time*


I'm saying that if a protester wants to play rough (whether by offering physical violence, or by heaping abuse on prisoners), then I'm not going to be the last one to get hurt.
Alright...but heaping abuse on prisoners...do you mean physical or otherwise? I'd say yes to the physical (as justification), but not so much for verbal abuse founded in ignorance. Anyway. Thanks for clearing this up...you had me a bit worried there!

I was on a Pershing II launch trailer. She got up on the launcher (already illegal). She came towards the warhead section (nuclear). Once within 2 meters of the warhead, I had permission (in fact, orders) to kill her.

Unauthorized personnel in the exculsion area are to be killed without warning.

I still did nothing. She then swung at me (just to slap me). So I caught her swinging arm, broke it back through the elbow with the other hand, and pulled the whole thing up behind her back, and tossed her onto the pavement (where she broke the other arm and shoulder trying to catch herself).

Legal. It was even the subject of a hearing in German court - she tried to file a complaint - and they threw it out on the basis that I was doing my duty.

I was almost court martialed for NOT killing her.

I'm saying that if a protester wants to play rough (whether by offering physical violence, or by heaping abuse on prisoners), then I'm not going to be the last one to get hurt.

It perturbs me that the military treats 'friendly' civilians like enemy combatants.

Again - I think I (personally) would have looked for another option, rather than follow such an order.

It perturbs me that the military treats 'friendly' civilians like enemy combatants.

Again - I think I (personally) would have looked for another option, rather than follow such an order.

I didn't follow the order - I could have killed her, and been following orders.

I could have attacked her as soon as she got on the launcher, or as soon as she was in the exclusion area.

No, I waited for her to do something stupid, to indicate that she wanted to take this to the next level.

So she wasn't being very "friendly". So held the German court.

It perturbs me that the military treats 'friendly' civilians like enemy combatants.

Again - I think I (personally) would have looked for another option, rather than follow such an order.

They are not friendly civilians when they are attacking our soldiers or trying to take our nuclear weapons.

In truth, there *are* correlations between the Vietnam war and our current war in Iraq.
Agreed, but, on Bill Mahr, Jane Fonda essentially called the two wars the exact same thing...if she can't realize the differences, then all she looks for in wars is a way to criticize the US government.

Again, I ask, if I spit in Henry Kissinger's face, would I get all this positive feedback?
Yes, some people would. There are people on this board that follow the example of Ward Churchill...and demand that we Americans publicly hang him.

I didn't follow the order - I could have killed her, and been following orders.

I could have attacked her as soon as she got on the launcher, or as soon as she was in the exclusion area.

No, I waited for her to do something stupid, to indicate that she wanted to take this to the next level.

So she wasn't being very "friendly". So held the German court.

I'm sure you were acting well within your rights, and certainly within your orders. However, breaking civilians just doesn't appeal to me - which is probably why I have never joined the armed forces.

I can see that she was clearly in violation, I'm not debating that.

By "friendly", I (admittedly, making an assumption) meant a civilian of a friendly power... as opposed to the 'enemy combatant' that I speculated later.

My assumption was compound: a) that the 'civilian' was a civilian; b) that the 'civilian' was German; c) that the US and Germany were 'friendly' at that point.

Actually: d) that the 'civilian' did not know how to operate a Pershing and/or nuclear device.

I think that last one is probably a fairly safe assumption... but you never know.

So - okay - commentary withdrawn, due to flawed assumption.

I hope you apply that standard to people fighting on 'your' side as well...

I do. I have yet to meet a single person who has ever killed someone who is actually proud of it, and I make a point of staying away from any who cheer at death.

I recognize that such people exist, but I have no respect for them.

I do. I have yet to meet a single person who has ever killed someone who is actually proud of it, and I make a point of staying away from any who cheer at death.

I recognize that such people exist, but I have no respect for them.

I think it's important to show some restraint, even when you have permission to kill.

Yes, some people would. There are people on this board that follow the example of Ward Churchill...and demand that we Americans publicly hang him.

Ward Churchill? Isnt he that fake Indian proffessor that praised the 9-11 terrorists?

I think that clause of treason can be extended to cover just about anything that someone might do that could possibly be construed as supporting the 'enemy', including anything they say that disagrees with the official war line. Has she ever been tried for treason? No? In that case, despite your opinions, she is not a traitor.

I suspect that trying her was discouraged after the Chicago 7 trial and due to the fact that Nixon was up for reelection. There is no statute of limitations as Cat noted, so it could have been done since, but I suspect that the chance of conviction decreased as interest in the Viet Nam War waned. Also, treason is a rare crime that specifically in its definition needs two witnesses for conviction. That means Jane Fonda could walk up to a cop and say she shot down American planes and she would be guilty but unable to be convicted. A lack of conviction does not make innocent, just unable to be found guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. This isn't a court of law. I and many others would still reasonably consider her guilty of treason.

If I go out and murder someone, I am a murderer regardless of whether I am ever tried or convicted of that crime.

Surrender and withdrawal are not the same as "put down your weapons so we can slaughter you". She claimed POWs were not being mistreated because she saw no evidence of such. So she was dumb. Not a traitor. She wanted the war to end, as did many, and didn't think it was a legitimate action on the part of her country. SHE WANTED WAR TO END. To me, that is NOT the opposite of peace.

She saw emaciated POWs that had recently been tortured. I'm quite certain she had much reason to believe that torture had and was continuing to occur. She wanted the VC to win. By your definition, then Johnson wanted peace too or every general or every soldier on either side. He wanted the war to win with a North surrender to the South. Wanting a war to end does not qualify you as a pacifist.

Again, she wanted war to end. It can't end if one side keeps fighting. The killing of Americans as acceptable and encouraged? Of course it was. If Americans were killing Vietnamese, you think they should not retaliate?

I didn't say the VC shouldn't retaliate. However, you can't suggest that people go out and shoot people and call yourself a harbinger of peace. She encouraged only the south and the Americans to lay down their guns and surrender. She never suggested that everyone lay down their guns and as you said it can't end if one side keeps fighting.

I visited and paid my respects at the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC this past Friday. Though it was raining at 5pm on a weekday, there were still several hundred people there.
I also visited the new World War II Memorial on Saturday-its in line between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. Its truly awesome-a very significant and beautiful tribute. I'm not positive, but I think it was built with private donations.
Both of them were.

I know it's hard for people to be subjective about things that affected them directly, but this source is a mockery in terms of 'evidence'.

Most of the content is 'assertions', or attempts to tie together disparate threads... e.g. that Fonda is a socialist, therefore is serving some form of Communist conspiracy.... or that Fonda opposed the American invasion of Vietnam, therefore she must be an enemy agent.

The most damning 'evidence' - such as it is, is that there appears to be a photograph of her sitting on a Vietnamese war-machine. I'm not sure that is illegal, or even morally reprehensible. There appears to be a microphone being held towards her - which would imply that the Anti-Aircraft gun was merely a 'venue' for an interview.

It's a matter of perspective... as I said before.
And as I have pointed out before, anyone who has the "perspective" that what Hanoi Jane did is in any way acceptable definitely does not have my respect. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

No offense, but who are you to decide what is legitimate protest and what is not? I'd have to agree with GNI...it's a matter of perspective. If by trying to show the American public that the 'enemy' were human beings, with culture, with family, with traditions and routines just like anyother was 'reaching out to the enemy' in your books, fine. To me, it is a case of trying to get people to question the labels and the stereotypes of the faceless, evil 'enemy'. She used harsh names and labels too, and directed them towards American troops. Even if Mai Lai was some sort of isolated aburration, I think she was justified in using those labels, though I wouldn't agree they applied to every American soldier.

Damning evidence? Of what exactly?
Contrary to what "moral relativists" may say, some things are truly and simply wrong. Among these is visiting the homeland of those who are killing the young soldiers of your nation so you can make propaganda broadcasts against your own people, laughingly peer through the sights of an anti-aircraft machinegun which was used to kill your nation's pilots, hand those who are imprisoning and torturing the young pilots they shot down a propaganda victory by referring to those same pilots as "criminals," and all the other things Hanoi Jane did.

My Lai was the exception, and I never saw or heard of any such killings in any of the AOs in which I operated. The average American soldier was ( and is ) just like your brother or son or father or uncle or friend. He was ( and is ) doing one of the most difficult and thankless jobs on earth. Anyone who disrespects him in my presence will regret the day his mother gave him birth.

And those are MY feelings on the matter. They will not change.

pfft....Jane is a bint and her aerobics tapes sucked too.
A "bint?" Wuzzat?? :confused:

They are not friendly civilians when they are attacking our soldiers or trying to take our nuclear weapons.

Agreed, but, on Bill Mahr, Jane Fonda essentially called the two wars the exact same thing...if she can't realize the differences, then all she looks for in wars is a way to criticize the US government.

Yes, some people would. There are people on this board that follow the example of Ward Churchill...and demand that we Americans publicly hang him.
There's another blithering idiot I would love to be alone in a room with for five minues! Would that he would slither back under whatever rock he slimed out from under!

Contrary to what "moral relativists" may say, some things are truly and simply wrong. Among these is visiting the homeland of those who are killing the young soldiers of your nation so you can make propaganda broadcasts against your own people, laughingly peer through the sights of an anti-aircraft machinegun which was used to kill your nation's pilots, hand those who are imprisoning and torturing the young pilots they shot down a propaganda victory by referring to those same pilots as "criminals," and all the other things Hanoi Jane did.

My Lai was the exception, and I never saw or heard of any such killings in any of the AOs in which I operated. The average American soldier was ( and is ) just like your brother or son or father or uncle or friend. He was ( and is ) doing one of the most difficult and thankless jobs on earth. Anyone who disrespects him in my presence will regret the day his mother gave him birth.

And those are MY feelings on the matter. They will not change.
First:

I accept that those are your feelings on the matter.

Second:

I sincerely hope you aren't tossing me in the moral relativist groups simply because I do not consider the same things to be wrong as you do.

Third:

I can't really speak to the issue that well, since I'm not all that informed on it. However, I haven't seen much of the opposing viewpoint in this thread, so I will continue to refrain from making a real judgement either way (as to whether her actions contituted treason or not).

Fourth:

Don't you hate it when people number their points like this? Anyway, as for soldiers in general. I certainly would not want any of my children to join a profession that will likely involve the murder of others (yes, murder, whether it is at someone's orders or not, taking a human life is murder. Sorry, that's one of those things I consider to be just wrong, and my opinion, like yours, is not about to be changed.) HOWEVER, I don't hate soldiers, and I don't make them the targets of my actions against war. I target their leaders. But you will NEVER hear me praise that profession. Please don't take that as a personal attack on you, or any other professional soldier. It isn't meant that way.

Fifth:

I fold. As I said, I neither know enough (or care enough) to defend Jane Fonda. Nonetheless, I still maintain that spitting in her face is no sort of justice. It's petty revenge that accomplishes nothing.

Done. :D

Both of them were.


Hey-I'm sorry, but I wasnt able to locate your friend, Peter Borsay. I left the slip I wrote the panel and line on in the car several miles away. Trying from memory,I was looking at Panel #23 & 28 on the East side, not the west. It was drizzling and the kids werent too happy.

There's another blithering idiot I would love to be alone in a room with for five minues! Would that he would slither back under whatever rock he slimed out from under!
Which one...Bill Mahr or Ward Churchill?

Hey-I'm sorry, but I wasnt able to locate your friend, Peter Borsay. I left the slip I wrote the panel and line on in the car several miles away. Trying from memory,I was looking at Panel #23 & 28 on the East side, not the west. It was drizzling and the kids werent too happy.
S'ok. He'll be there next time I go. Thanks anyway! :)

First:

I accept that those are your feelings on the matter.

Second:

I sincerely hope you aren't tossing me in the moral relativist groups simply because I do not consider the same things to be wrong as you do.

Third:

I can't really speak to the issue that well, since I'm not all that informed on it. However, I haven't seen much of the opposing viewpoint in this thread, so I will continue to refrain from making a real judgement either way (as to whether her actions contituted treason or not).

Fourth:

Don't you hate it when people number their points like this? Anyway, as for soldiers in general. I certainly would not want any of my children to join a profession that will likely involve the murder of others (yes, murder, whether it is at someone's orders or not, taking a human life is murder. Sorry, that's one of those things I consider to be just wrong, and my opinion, like yours, is not about to be changed.) HOWEVER, I don't hate soldiers, and I don't make them the targets of my actions against war. I target their leaders. But you will NEVER hear me praise that profession. Please don't take that as a personal attack on you, or any other professional soldier. It isn't meant that way.

Fifth:

I fold. As I said, I neither know enough (or care enough) to defend Jane Fonda. Nonetheless, I still maintain that spitting in her face is no sort of justice. It's petty revenge that accomplishes nothing.

Done. :D
1. Thank you.

2. No. I have respect for those who have their own closely-held opinions/beliefs, and who advocate them without resorting to defamamation or violence. I think you qualify for that. :)

3. Ok.

4. Taking life is wrong under almost all circustances. But I understand those who do so in defense of their country or freedom. I don't like it, but I can understand it. Being a warrior has its positive points, but it can also be a very thankless job. We didn't expect thanks ... we just didn't expect to be reviled. ( No, I don't hate it when people number their points. It makes it much easier to reply. ) :)

5. You are correct in saying that spitting is "petty revenge," but it's one of the few times I have ever seen any sort of payback for the evil this woman did.

Which one...Bill Mahr or Ward Churchill?
I don't know Mahr. Churchill needs to be hanged at dawn from a tree along the Mall near the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC.

S'ok. He'll be there next time I go. Thanks anyway! :)


Have you been able to visit the new WWII Memorial since its been built? This was my first visit to DC in 13 years and this is the first I saw it.

http://www.vietnamwar.com/JaneFonda.htm
How much credibility does this web site have? I would suggest none, because at the bottom it shows this picture:

http://www.vietnamwar.com/JaneFonda_JohnKerry.gif

The big problem here, is that this picture is a lie. You don't have to believe me, but perhaps you will believe Snopes (http://snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry2.asp)?

Or better yet, perhaps you will believe the photographer (Ken Light) who actually took the picture of John Kerry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13810-2004Feb27&notFound=true), who was in reality by himself when photographed by Mr. Light?

Since the author of the web site that you posted is willing to tarnish the image of two people at the same time with a bogus photo, how can anyone have any faith in anything else posted on this site?

Perhaps you have more credible sources?

Have you been able to visit the new WWII Memorial since its been built? This was my first visit to DC in 13 years and this is the first I saw it.
Nope. I try to space my visits to DC well apart, so I can better handle the requisite visit to the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial emotionally. I have heard that the WWII Memorial is quite beautiful. Good! Those guys deserved it, and long, long overdue I might add.

Since the author of the web site that you posted is willing to tarnish the image of two people at the same time with a bogus photo, how can anyone have any faith in anything else posted on this site?
Making it seem that Hanoi Jane and Kerry appeared together tarnishes both their images? Hmmm. I would think that it's impossible to tarnish that which already has no luster. :)

For her to applaud the enemy for killing my brethren
Can you prove this assertion?

and to put propaganda out on Vietnamese radio making completely and knowingly untrue statements about the actions of soldiers and the treatment of POWs is far beyond objecting to a war.
What untrue statements did she make?

In fact, she didn't object to the war, she just didn't want us to win.
Did she in fact state that she didn't want the US to win?

I wasn't even alive when she did most of what she did, but I find it offensive for her to be compared to the peace activists who believe enough in what they are fighting for that they are willing to sacrifice for their beliefs instead of gain from them, expose lies instead of create them, promote peace instead of promoting war against Americans and calling it peace. Jane Fonda was no peace activist and no amount of calling her that will make it true.
I was alive when Jane fonda was protesting the Vietnam War, but that is irrelevant, other than she was encouraging an end to the war. In my books, that makes her an advocate of peace, Why do you say that she wasn't a "peace activist"?

Making it seem that Hanoi Jane and Kerry appeared together tarnishes both their images? Hmmm. I would think that it's impossible to tarnish that which already has no luster. :)
The fact that one of them was only about 59,300 votes away from being your president, seems to indicate that he had a lot more "lustre" than you are willing to give him?

The fact that the other one is one of the best actresses in the US, seems to indicate that she is a star in her own right?

The fact that the other one is one of the best actresses in the US, seems to indicate that she is a star in her own right?

You are kidding, right? This is a joke? One of the best actresses?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

NOTE: Here's another Vietnam veteran's take on things like this.

John Kass
30 years later, Vietnam vet asks: `Was it worth it?'

Published April 24, 2005

Next week marks the 30th anniversary of the end of the war in Vietnam. Rather than talk to a professor, I talked to John Colovos.

He owns the Cambridge House Restaurant where I eat lunch, at Ohio and St. Clair, near the Tribune. He's a few days shy of 60, but wiry and strong, a hunter, still.

One early morning last week, we sat in a booth in the back. John didn't eat. He spiked his coffee with sugar and smoked. It was the first time we'd ever talked about Vietnam.

"I love my country. I fought for my country. I got wounded in Vietnam. But was it worth it? I still think about that."

He received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and a Purple Heart. Though born in Europe, the immigrant became an American through loss of blood.

"In the old country, in the village, a Communist guerrilla captain was going to kill my dad because he wouldn't join the Communists. He put the gun to my father's head. The man with the gun was my father's first cousin. He let him live, but that's how bad it was. That civil war was cousin against cousin. I thought Vietnam would have the same dynamic."

They left Greece and settled in Chicago, where his father cut leather in a shoe factory.

"One day one of those presses took his left hand off. I quit school and worked."

He was drafted in June 1965. After boot camp, a sergeant approached: "`Hey, you Greeks did good in Korea. Come here you.' That was it and I was in the 101st Airborne.

"... In Vietnam, we'd capture a hill. Then they'd say, `We're moving out' and you say, `What happens to the hill when we move out?' and they say, `We're here to show our power. This hill doesn't mean anything.' You think to yourself, `Oh,' and you think about friends who died.

"We'd see the Frenchmen in a Michelin plantation. They were protected by us. They lived in style. Every time we cut rubber trees to clear the area, our government paid them something like $1,500 per tree. And we were protecting them?

"And that's when I started asking, why am I here? It was strictly a business war. Real estate and business."

We didn't discuss China and Russia, dominos, gradual escalation, political theory. Theory was so thin so early in the morning, so airy, so light. As John Colovos thought back almost 40 years, his own kids grown, smoking in a booth in his restaurant, his boots were on the ground.

He thought about the deadly village of Cu Chi, at a camp situated above a series of enemy underground tunnels.

"They came at us about 5:30 in the morning. They overran the camp. We beat them back. They overran it again. We beat them back. I'd never seen hand-to-hand before. It lasted more than six hours. I see a personnel carrier. One of the Vietnamese, he didn't even have a weapon anymore, just a little guy with a hatchet. The battle was over, but he ran and attacked the personnel carrier, banging on it with his hatchet.

"One of our guys on top of the carrier looked down at him. He shook his head. He couldn't believe an enemy like this, no gun, had the will to fight. With his hands. With a hatchet. That's how we would be if some country attacked America. But we were over there, thousands of miles away.

"That's when I was thinking, maybe we shouldn't have been in Vietnam. An officer showed up. We saluted. He said that he should be saluting us. Then I looked down at my leg and it was all bloody. Then I passed out. It was a hand grenade."

On June 6, 1967, he flew into O'Hare International Airport. His buddy, Joe, from Michigan, was worse off, having lost his leg below the knee.

"We were all spit and polish, we had our medals on, walking to another gate for Joe to take his flight home," Colovos said. "Then we got the welcome home. There were three guys with long hair. They walked up to us. We stood there. They spit."

Wounded and outnumbered, they brawled on the floor with the other three. John screamed for bystanders to help.

"The bystanders were in a circle, watching. They didn't help. That broke my heart."

John pulled a pistol and the fight stopped. Two police officers calmed things down, let him keep his pistol but took the bullets, then scattered the crowd. After seeing Joe off to Michigan on another flight, the police drove Colovos home to North and Central.

"The older officer, he was a nice man, kept saying, `Settle down, the war's over,' and I said, `Maybe for you, but not for me.' It took me a long time to get back to normal.

"Now the Vietnamese have vacation tours, but I'm not going there. I don't blame the Vietnamese. They did what they did. We did what we did. But I'm not going back. So many kids got killed, and now our country and Vietnam are friends. They have vacations, resorts, and you ask me if it was worth it.

"So many dead. My friends are dead. What did we get out of it? What did we gain?"
How is this a "another Vietnam veteran's take on things like this"?

How do you know what this guy feels about Jane Fonda? In certain respects, perhaps he agrees with her?

"... In Vietnam, we'd capture a hill. Then they'd say, `We're moving out' and you say, `What happens to the hill when we move out?' and they say, `We're here to show our power. This hill doesn't mean anything.' You think to yourself, `Oh,' and you think about friends who died.

************
"We'd see the Frenchmen in a Michelin plantation. They were protected by us. They lived in style. Every time we cut rubber trees to clear the area, our government paid them something like $1,500 per tree. And we were protecting them?

"And that's when I started asking, why am I here? It was strictly a business war. Real estate and business."

*************
"One of our guys on top of the carrier looked down at him. He shook his head. He couldn't believe an enemy like this, no gun, had the will to fight. With his hands. With a hatchet. That's how we would be if some country attacked America. But we were over there, thousands of miles away.

"That's when I was thinking, maybe we shouldn't have been in Vietnam.

***************
"Now the Vietnamese have vacation tours, but I'm not going there. I don't blame the Vietnamese. They did what they did. We did what we did. But I'm not going back. So many kids got killed, and now our country and Vietnam are friends. They have vacations, resorts, and you ask me if it was worth it.

"So many dead. My friends are dead. What did we get out of it? What did we gain?

Now maybe I am wrong, and this guy hates Jane Fonda as much as many on this thread do, but from what I can see, he questions being there in the first place.

Now maybe I am wrong, and this guy hates Jane Fonda as much as many on this thread do, but from what I can see, he questions being there in the first place.
oooohhhh....you're EVIL! I like it!

Now maybe I am wrong, and this guy hates Jane Fonda as much as many on this thread do, but from what I can see, he questions being there in the first place.
Many of us did ... many of us still do. And your point is?

Now maybe I am wrong, and this guy hates Jane Fonda as much as many on this thread do, but from what I can see, he questions being there in the first place.

Saying "I don't think we should have been there" is a far cray from "We were all baby-killers who deserved to be put in POW camps. Oh, and by the way, the POW camps were the Hilton. No one was mistreated there at all."

Like I said before, I have met many a soldier who respects and is even proud of protestors for speaking their mind and for the country which allows that. I have met many who think that we have been in unecessary conflicts that caused unecessary loss of life. I have yet to meet a single one with even the smallest sliver of respect for Jane Fonda.

Can you prove this assertion?


What untrue statements did she make?


Did she in fact state that she didn't want the US to win?


I was alive when Jane fonda was protesting the Vietnam War, but that is irrelevant, other than she was encouraging an end to the war. In my books, that makes her an advocate of peace, Why do you say that she wasn't a "peace activist"?

This is a 22-page thread. Feel free to read it. It answers all of your questions with links to her radio addresses, her statements about veterans and POWs, and explains how she did not advocate peace any more than President Johnson.

This is a 22-page thread. Feel free to read it. It answers all of your questions with links to her radio addresses, her statements about veterans and POWs, and explains how she did not advocate peace any more than President Johnson.
The challenge was for you to back up your assertions with facts, which I am sure that you will find to be a most difficult chore? It is easy to regurgitate what others have stated but so many do so without checking the facts.

I have read the whole thread and I see many unsubstantiated comments. The links that were provided were from personal web sites, and one in particular actually used a "photoshopped" picture of Kerry and Fonda.

I invite you to enlighten me and the other posters.

The challenge was for you to back up your assertions with facts, which I am sure that you will find to be a most difficult chore? It is easy to regurgitate what others have stated but so many do so without checking the facts.

I have read the whole thread and I see many unsubstantiated comments. The links that were provided were from personal web sites, and one in particular actually used a "photoshopped" picture of Kerry and Fonda.

I invite you to enlighten me and the other posters.

You didn't read my posts from snopes, did you?

Saying "I don't think we should have been there" is a far cray from "We were all baby-killers who deserved to be put in POW camps. Oh, and by the way, the POW camps were the Hilton. No one was mistreated there at all."
Perhaps if you provide the exact words, then we have something to work with?

Many of us did ... many of us still do. And your point is?
You were trying to use that soldiers words as if he were in agreement with the thrust of this thread and after reading it, that is not my take at all.
NOTE: Here's another Vietnam veteran's take on things like this.

So protesters were legally abused into hospital - and a CBS reporter was captured by Iraqi troops and ass-raped. All because of unsatisfied hostility.
And you were fighting for "democracy", and "freedom of speech"?

Someone probably should write a new law that covers aiding the enemy just short of treason, so that future cases of "went too far" get satisfied before it cascades into a torrent of abuse.
So if people are "disenters" then they should be jailed? Civil rights belong to soldiers only?

Saying "I don't think we should have been there" is a far cray from "We were all baby-killers who deserved to be put in POW camps. Oh, and by the way, the POW camps were the Hilton. No one was mistreated there at all."

Like I said before, I have met many a soldier who respects and is even proud of protestors for speaking their mind and for the country which allows that. I have met many who think that we have been in unecessary conflicts that caused unecessary loss of life. I have yet to meet a single one with even the smallest sliver of respect for Jane Fonda.

You keep repeating hysterical exaggerations of what Ms. Fonda did and said.

You've been asked repeatedly for reliable proof -- none of which has come forth.

Ms. Fonda's protests of the war went overboard. She was very, very wrong in some things she said and did.

Of course, we know the government -- and many military leaders and soliders -- were actively lying about what was occuring in Vietnam.

And many horrors were perpetrated against the Vietnamese -- and against protesters here in the U.S.

I am sure some Vietnam Veterans were spit on. I have met some that say that happened to them and I believe them.

I also know that anti-war protestors were spat on, beaten, even killed. Remember Kent State?

This is a 22-page thread. Feel free to read it. It answers all of your questions with links to her radio addresses, her statements about veterans and POWs, and explains how she did not advocate peace any more than President Johnson.

Meh.

Um, care to point out where this evidence is?

How it is reliable?

What exactly it says that matches the claims you keep making?

'Cuz you couldn't do it before. I don't see any new evidence that has come forward.

And you were fighting for "democracy", and "freedom of speech"?


So if people are "disenters" then they should be jailed? Civil rights belong to soldiers only?

No, I was fighting against assholes who think their way of living is the way to live who wanted to punish me for not being like them.

IMHO, when you actually aid the enemy in their propaganda effort you've crossed a line way past simple opinion.

Meh.

Um, care to point out where this evidence is?

How it is reliable?

What exactly it says that matches the claims you keep making?

'Cuz you couldn't do it before. I don't see any new evidence that has come forward.

The statement about POWs being liars came from Jane, as do her claims that the POWs were not tortured. It's all on the Snopes site. Yes, some claims are false and gratuitous. It also mentions that she was not so much against the war as she was for the North Vietnamese, for she continued her efforts after the US was no longer involved there.

NOTE: There are very, very few people I truly hate, but this bitch is most definitely one of them!


Missouri Man Spits on Jane Fonda (http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/index.jsp?cat=ENTERTAINMENT&fn=/2005/04/20/112694.html)
TIM CURRAN, Associated Press Writer
56 minutes ago



If he had thrown a pie or something at her, I might have laughed, but spitting on someone is disgusting, and dangerous, (communicable diseases). Fonda went a little bit too far with her support of the Viet-cong, in my opinion, but I congratulate her for speaking out against a totally bullshit war.

Ward Churchill? Isnt he that fake Indian proffessor that praised the 9-11 terrorists?

Ward Churchill probably has fantasies about Americans being killed.
Yeah, that is the guy. :)


Churchill needs to be hanged at dawn from a tree along the Mall near the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC.
Agreed. Anyone who advocates the public lynching of my elected officials and supports people who wish to kill millions of people should be shot.
Or deported.
I hate Ward Churchill.


Can you prove this assertion?

It's hard to prove anything about Jane Fonda, either positive or negative, because there are so few unbiased sources.
However, since the crowd that Jane Fonda ran with (the liberal extremists of the 60s):
1. Had socialist leaders by admission
2. Spat on US soldiers
3. Burned government buildings
4. Spread all sorts of lies and mistruths about the war (such as "Vietnam is imperialism") and STILL spread those lies in the US education system

and considering that
1. Jane Fonda finds parallels between Iraq and Vietnam only to criticze the US government
2. She started "F.T.A", as according to Wikipedia
3. Visited Hanoi, despite the fact that Communism was the greatest evil to the US at that time and Ho Chi Minh did indeed have communist tendencies
4. Called US soldiers "liars", also according to Wikipedia
5. Manned an enemy gun( a bit beyond trying to "understand" the NVA)


it certainly seems that Jane Fonda had no intention on supporting US victory...it SEEMS that she would consider a US victory in Vietnam to be a condemnation of the Vietnamese people to live under the boot of American "Imperialism"

At least here in Chicago, those who opposed the Iraq war have largely considered the US victory over Saddam Hussein to be a largely negative thing, because it forces the Iraqi people to live under the imperialism of "American Corporations".
And, if these people ALL draw parallels between Nam and Iraq, I would suspect that I can draw parallels between Nam and Iraq war opponents.
Note that, to my surprise, when I was watching the protests during the Republican Convention on C-SPAN, roughly half the groups I saw were socialist groups (literally socialist groups...They defined themselves as socialist)
Some things'll never change.

Meh.

Um, care to point out where this evidence is?

How it is reliable?

What exactly it says that matches the claims you keep making?

'Cuz you couldn't do it before. I don't see any new evidence that has come forward.

I agreed that I couldn't show her guilty of treason in a court of law.

We have posted links to her radio addresses while in country, to pictures of her posing in an AA gun pretending to shoot the enemy (us), to her public statements about POWs that have since been shown to untrue even by the admission of the North Vietnamese. I don't believe I have the ability to show her guilty in a court of law, but I don't have easy access to all legal precedence or training law, so what I can do is not a good measure. I certainly showed plenty of evidence for ME and lots of others to logically consider her to be treasonous and a liar.

You saw the evidence and didn't debunk it. I'm not making those silly slips of paper arguments or that she beat POWs or anything. The claims I made about what she did has been adequately verified by a number of sources.

She doesn't even deny that she did most of what I claim. Much of her statements were made in public speeches and to the news media. She was proud of what she was saying and wanted people to hear it. It's not difficult to verify. She openly admits to supporting the North Vietnamese. It's a fact her son Troy is named after a South Vietnamese man who was hung for treason during the war that he was christianed (again I don't think that's the right word) with that name slightly after the war during a festival held in Fonda's honor.

Personally, I wouldn't bother to spit on her, but that's because it just lowers me to acting like a criminal (well, technically, not acting like, acting as) and I'd like to think I'm better than that.

Jane Fonda was young, passionate, ignorant and wrong. Spitting on her was still wrong. I'm disturbed by Eustrusca's defense of the spitter. That's assualt. Fonda behaved badly, so did the spitter.
I participated in protests against the Iraq war. Even if things turn out well we had no business going over there. But I'll never understand the people who treated our returning troops so poorly after they returned from Vietnam. They did a nasty job as well as they could, though unfortunately many believed the bogus reasons for being there. I have a brother in Kuwait who may end up in Iraq soon. He's under no delusions as to why we're there. I hope people will respect the job he does even if they disagree with him being there.

Come, now. Jane Fonda uses words to express dissension. That's why they hate her. Acting all high and mighty, with her civility and freedom of expression.

if they're for freedom of expression i'm against'em too

You keep repeating hysterical exaggerations of what Ms. Fonda did and said.

You've been asked repeatedly for reliable proof -- none of which has come forth.

What you quoted me on came from the links and quotes posted here in this very thread.

Ms. Fonda's protests of the war went overboard. She was very, very wrong in some things she said and did.

Exactly my point.

Of course, we know the government -- and many military leaders and soliders -- were actively lying about what was occuring in Vietnam.

And many horrors were perpetrated against the Vietnamese -- and against protesters here in the U.S.

I am sure some Vietnam Veterans were spit on. I have met some that say that happened to them and I believe them.

I also know that anti-war protestors were spat on, beaten, even killed. Remember Kent State?

None of that has anything to do with Jane Fonda being wrong. It just means that a whole lot of other people were wrong too.

Jane Fonda was young, passionate, ignorant and wrong. .


She wasnt very young, she was in her mid thirties I believe. That might be young in the grand scheme of things but it is old enough to not have excuses made about your actions.

http://slate.msn.com/id/1005224/

EDIT: This article furthers the myth that servicemen weren't spat upon when we returned from Vietnam. How do I know it's a myth? Because I was one of those spat upon and called "a baby killer." All this sort of article does is keep open wounds which should have healed long, long ago.
And yet you want to promote an article that was written 4 years ago that suggests that the spitting on Vietnam vets is a "myth", which in turn promotes a book that was written:

The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam

Lembcke, a professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam vet, investigated hundreds of news accounts of antiwar activists spitting on vets. But every time he pushed for more evidence or corroboration from a witness, the story collapsed--the actual person who was spat on turned out to be a friend of a friend. Or somebody's uncle. He writes that he never met anybody who convinced him that any such clash took place.

And then you state:

All this sort of article does is keep open wounds which should have healed long, long ago.

Who started this thread? You did.

Who wants to keep the wounds open? Apparently you do?

Why did you start this thread?

And as I have pointed out before, anyone who has the "perspective" that what Hanoi Jane did is in any way acceptable definitely does not have my respect. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Strange that you would choose one issue, and one as subjective as this... to be the basis for how you apportion respect.

I guess I have to forgo your respect, then. Perhaps Fonda did careless things, insensitive things... even dangerous things... but, she was doing something she believed in, and was willing to face whatever that brought her way. Even when assaulted for her decisions 30 years later, she refused to press charges.

She was doing exactly what the soldiers were doing. She was making a stand for a better world.

I think Vietnam was a bad war. I think the US troops were lied to, and made to fight a war for lies, and then subjected to a horrible homecoming because of lies.

I think that, however misguided she may have been, Fonda was trying to preserve "something great" about the US. I think she was trying to stop innocents dying, on both sides. I think she was fighting against what she perceived as an unjust war.

I can appreciate that she may have alienated those subjectively involved. I can appreciate that she may have overstepped acceptable boundaries.

But, I also think it is largely a matter of perspective... and if THAT means I lose someone's respect... well, I won't lose any sleep over it.