NationStates Jolt Archive

If you have valid grounds to question Fonda, and swear epiteths on her... I can swear the same upon you... You're the one creating the precedent, not me...

I'll impugn you're integrity, because it is worth very little in my book. And counter-productive to the principles America stands for. Hows that, IMHO, your very OPINIONS, as misguided as they are, are far more dangerous to America as country, than a million Jane Fonda-s... And far more treasonist.... Because they are a commission of treason against the principles this country stands for... Without those principles, there is no America... There is nothing to fight for....

Oh yes, it's easy to point fingers... "They are a TRAITOR... WE SHOULD BANISH THEM..."... At least I have not levied such snide remarks upon your head, as deserving in principle as you are of having such levied against your own perverted principles...

When I fought and served, I didn't merely serve for my liberty, or the liberty of others back home waving flags.... I served for those who sat in picket lines, against our governments involvement in those conflicts... I served for people who were over in those countries providing medical aid... I served for the principles the constitution stood for, for what "America(tm)" stands for... I even served for Jane Fonda....

It's obvious that the character of "America" has degraded to the point at which people now have to "deserve" those things we were born with... I thank those protestors... sure, they may be misguded sometimes, but at least, in their own way, they cared.... I can say far more for them than I can for those pathetic weezles waging their flags like they actual care about anything....

I'm still a vertibrate...I still have a backbone... If the US were trying Saddam, I'd expect him to afforded every single right that I would enjoy in a trial... You know why? Because I have a backbone, because I have a principle... Because I am an American.... Can you say the same thing? If Jane Fonda were tried, I'd expect her to be afforded every right enjoyed by every other American... And I would be in the face of anyone who argued otherwise.... Why? Because I am an American, and I believe, HEART, MIND AND SOUL in the principles this country was founded upon.... I'd be up there beating everyone in Washington with the Constitution till their ears bled...

My principles are certainly not perverted. I've argued my point time and time again, and all I get are insults from self-righteous losers. I suppose you are above hate. I am not, and I'll admit it. Certain things piss me off, so I rant. You can call me unamerican if you will. Yes, people should have the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but at times, I wish they didn't and that's human. When the KKK puts burning crosses in people's backyards and try to get avenues named after them, I wish there wasn't any protection for them. Same with Nazi sympathizers. Same with that traitor Jane Fonda. But, yes, those rights are necessary so good people can protest what's wrong with our country like some anti-war protesters and the civil rights protestors of the 60s. Also, I'm not some "pathetic weasel waving my flag." I don't agree with everything the government does, and nobody should have to. It's just that some things are downright distasteful. (At times I think you're not even reading my posts.)

I agree with the sig Zooke. But here's a question? Why are we on the NS General forums then when there are so many idiots posting BS?

Some say the same about us. It's all a matter of experience, views, and opinions. I have to say, it drives me nuts when people who weren't around during the Nam era think that they have a full understanding of that period. You know, once someone on here told my husband that he was lying when he said that he met with protests, vilification, and discrimination when he returned to the states. When my husband told how he was hit with a balloon filled with urine and that it splashed his mother, the other poster said that he had googled the subject...and, as there were no pictures of such acts and that he had read a blog that said it never happened, my husband was a liar trying to stir up trouble. They try to apply today's standards, opinions, and media bias to that time and there is no comparison. They say that something was learned about paying the respect and honor to our vets that they deserve. Yet, how many times have you seen the stupid actions of a handful of guards at Abu Ghraib projected to the entire military force on this forum? Every time a soldier dies, the people who scream about the wasted life are the same ones who scream twice as loud when a soldier shoots an enemy combatant without waiting to see if he blows up himself and everyone else. They're the people who see hundreds of bodies being pulled out of mass graves in Iraq and then wonder why we are there.

They're not idiots. Their sensibilites are just different.

That just makes me sick that those things happen. I am glad though that times have changed but those things still occur. They are placing their lives on the line and that is the thanks they get.

I wasn't alive during Nam either but one thing I have learned is that research goes along way. Though I dont have the 1st hand experience, I am trying to understand it.

I wish people will take more time to think before they react to something.

Tell your husband that this son of a military officer thanks him for his service.

Toyko rose was pardoned, so if you want to use her as the example, Fonda should be pardoned of anything she did. Which still doesn't constitute as treason.

Btw, Tekania, please dont post until you have read a whole thread. You rehashed many things that had already been covered.

Tokyo Rose was pardoned by Ford because he found that the trial evidence was lacking. There were several female propagandists during WWII and our GIs referred to all of them as Tokyo Rose. The woman who was convicted of treason was later discovered to have worked in secret with Allied POWs to slip in secret messages. She was convicted on the broadcasts of all the Tokyo Roses.

There was only one Hanoi Jane. She was never tried so there is nothing to pardon her for. She doesn't deserve to be forgiven, though.

There everyone goes with the freedom of speech crap. Are traitors protected by the Constitution, too?... ...She does not deserve to live in America with us. The guy who banned it is a veteran. He served his country unlike she, and he was apalled by her actions thirty years ago. Certain things cannot be forgiven, and she should be banished. She disrespected our boys on the ground. She spread lies about them and attacked them. She has pure hatred in her heart for the men who answered their nation's call. As far as I'm concerned, she is not an American.

Europeans used to think like this in the middle ages. Then came the wars between kings with "God on their side", the revolutions, the rises in blind nationalism, the empires, World Wars I and II, and the Cold War and we realised where we were going wrong. The US uses the tag line "defending democracy" all the time, but when a sizeable proportion of its people don't agree with the "freedom of speech crap" as you put it, it loses significant credibility on the international stage.
Patriotism is all fair and good but no patriot can honestly say their country has never made a mistake. Heck, I am far from patriotic about my country because it's riddled with mistakes - I say this as a viewpoint without glamourising the island I'm currently sitting on and wanting to leave. To be honest, the Vietnam saga was a case of meddling with the affairs of another country when there was no authority to do so. You seem to follow your leader so devoutly and the flag of your country. Whilst these may seem positive qualities to you, these were also the qualities of the average medieval English peasent. At least they could be excused for not knowing what the other country was and being brainwashed by the falsified divine right of a king they didn't choose to lead them. Your monarch, elected by the people, powered with the "right of God" leads you blindly into battles you shouldn't be fighting and yet you follow in the name of morality? The nations you attack might be happy under their old schemes and wouldn't pose a threat to you if you hadn't interfered with them so much in the name of paranoia. If you're going to be authoritarian, that's fair enough, but only do it to yourselves - you have no right to oppress other peoples with your own principles if theirs differ, the "gentiles" do not need "converting", and you are not "leading the heathens into the ways of righteousness" either. People can make their own decisions, and to force them to follow your way is a breach of human rights, plain and simple. Allowing people to make their own choice is not oppression, I have some moral standards myself as well, but people should be allowed to choose their own so long as they do not negatively affect other people against their will. It's a sad fact that the only people who need converting in this world are those who try to convert them - whilst this is an oxymoron, the point stands that if everyone who felt that everyone should be as they choose without negatively affecting people were in one area, people who feel as though they should come first in another and people who thought that everyone should be like them were put in another, with the three areas being completely isolated from one another, the first group would get along without let or hindrance, the second group would decend into anarchy as they would pick each other's pockets and the third group would fight to the death until one lonely, blood-stained champion of bigots reigned over a country of no subjects. The only way for peace and co-operation is to allow people to be as they will, but not interfering with other's attempts to do so.

The English King George III was mad. I'd suggest that the American King George II is mad as well.

My principles are certainly not perverted. I've argued my point time and time again, and all I get are insults from self-righteous losers. I suppose you are above hate. I am not, and I'll admit it. Certain things piss me off, so I rant. You can call me unamerican if you will. Yes, people should have the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but at times, I wish they didn't and that's human. When the KKK puts burning crosses in people's backyards and try to get avenues named after them, I wish there wasn't any protection for them. Same with Nazi sympathizers. Same with that traitor Jane Fonda. But, yes, those rights are necessary so good people can protest what's wrong with our country like some anti-war protesters and the civil rights protestors of the 60s. Also, I'm not some "pathetic weasel waving my flag." I don't agree with everything the government does, and nobody should have to. It's just that some things are downright distasteful. (At times I think you're not even reading my posts.)

It's not about taste, it's about principle... I am reading your posts... Which is why I keep posting... Because I do think people can change... And I do believe people can be reasoned with. But at the same time, I would not let my person feeling on an issue over ride my sense of American-ism as a principle. But see, you can't believe "these people shouldn't".... Not if you're going to claim "American" principle... Because, if you let this bias influnce your own speech, how then can you claim any validity upon the core principles?

The reason I fight so vehemently against your words... Is because they are dangerous. Just as dangerous as any act of treason. They are what others see.... Why do you think so many other countries view Americans as hypocrical monsters? because I words do not match our ideals... We represent American, and we should represent its ideals, in words and deeds... Even in the face of views and people in opposition. When you're levying advocation towards banishment, and dis-service of rights upon people like Jane Fonda, others will American as such in general. They realize that we can't advocate in words removal of rights, while in principle supposedly standing by those foundational principles of "America" that makes as special to begin with.

Our damaged credibility as Americans, is not the fault of the United Nations, the UK, any of the Eurpean nations.... It's our own fault... Because, we supposedly live under a set of guideline principles, that we violate almost everytime we open our mouths. Opinions are nice.... but principles are better...

Our founding Fathers even saw our own shortcommings, even before we were founded... They fought, as I fight, against those shortcommings in word...

When we had slavery, it was so obvious to some that it was against our principles... AS time went on, it became more so... It took a war for it all to end... Because some did not want to correct the injustice we presented in the name of these principles...

And sometimes these principles come with a price... Thomas Paine, after advocating for the Revolution here in the American Colonies, did the same in France leading in their revolution... He was trodden on by the French for opposing the mistreatment of the aristocracy... Why? Because it was against the principles of liberty he had advocated so much for. Revolution was one thing, outright spiteful murder was another... When we inherited the ideals of the Enlightenment, and codified them as a nation, we adhered to a responsibility of representing that enlightenment; which indeed includes there very words we speak, and acts we advocate... When we advocate things, or form opinions contrary to those principles, we show ourselves as hypocrits. If you're going to have principles, you have to stand by them, even if they hinder your own self or any moral order of yourself.

When someone sees you, and your talk, they see an American, someone in the United States who claims allegence to your country... And thereby judge you from word and deed... What are you expecting them to see when they see you as an american bringing epiteths upon someone, advocating the denial of their rights, merely from an opinion.... Do you not think they to formulate an opinion of yourself, and of Americans in general? Can you not see the importance of yourself as an agent, and representative of America everytime you stand before others?

I don't agree with the views of KKK members, or Aryan Nations types... I don't agree with the republicans, I don't agree with the democrats... I don't hate them, and I disagree with their views.... I don't hate Jane Fonda either...I don't agree with her, but I don't hate her... I don't think she should be banished, and I don't think (as someone advocated) that post-facto law should be layed upon her head under the Patriot Act. I think she should be accorded every right we all have in possession by nature... And I don't think anyone should advocate otherwise, while at the same time claiming to represent those principles we should hold dear as Americans...

If we're going to claim to be a beacon, we have to act like one... and talk like one...

Tokyo Rose was pardoned by Ford because he found that the trial evidence was lacking. There were several female propagandists during WWII and our GIs referred to all of them as Tokyo Rose. The woman who was convicted of treason was later discovered to have worked in secret with Allied POWs to slip in secret messages. She was convicted on the broadcasts of all the Tokyo Roses.

There was only one Hanoi Jane. She was never tried so there is nothing to pardon her for. She doesn't deserve to be forgiven, though.

The post I replied to said that tokyo rose was convicted, and if she was, why was jano fonda not?

Anyways, you are right, she was never tried. Ergo, she is not a traitor by law(it doesnt matter if there are possible reasons that she wasnt tried, that were extraneous. You cant accept the law only sometimes). Ergo, there is nothing to forgive her for, as she did nothing illegal.

Some say the same about us. It's all a matter of experience, views, and opinions. I have to say, it drives me nuts when people who weren't around during the Nam era think that they have a full understanding of that period. You know, once someone on here told my husband that he was lying when he said that he met with protests, vilification, and discrimination when he returned to the states. When my husband told how he was hit with a balloon filled with urine and that it splashed his mother, the other poster said that he had googled the subject...and, as there were no pictures of such acts and that he had read a blog that said it never happened, my husband was a liar trying to stir up trouble. They try to apply today's standards, opinions, and media bias to that time and there is no comparison.
Zooke, although you and I do not share the same opinions most of the time, there have been occaisions where we have agreed with each other. And we have commented on those similarities in a joking manner.

However, after reading an earlier post of yours and then this one, I see a problem. In this post, you relate a story that someone wouldn't believe your story because they couldn't find anything about it on the Internet. Then in your earlier post, you posted a link to Jane Fonda, that is not entirely factual. Then you made allegations that I believe are not true and asked you to respond to those allegations (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8920322&postcount=143).

You want people to believe what happened to your husband and are upset because they don't "have a full understanding of that period", especially when they don't believe. Naturally, you are upset.

Did you get the link to the Jane Fonda web site by doing a Google search? Do you believe everything that is written there? Can you prove the allegations that you made about her in your post?

Even though I grew up in that same "period" (albeit in Canada, not the US), age is irrelevant, whether they grew up in that "period" or not is irrelevant, as long as the "truth" is told. Truth is relevant.