NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Well, the poster child for anti-war idiocy is at it again. I suppose stirring up hatred against Vietnam veterans wasn't enough. Now she's tying to start the Nation down that same road for Iraqi veterans. Over my dead body! God, I hope she visits North Carolina! Hehehe!


Jane Fonda to stump for Iraq pullout

From Associated Press

Actress and activist Jane Fonda says she intends to take a cross-country bus tour to call for an end to U.S. military operations in Iraq.

"I can't go into any detail except to say that it's going to be pretty exciting," she said, speaking Saturday at an event in Santa Fe, N.M., promoting her book, "My Life So Far."

Prompted by a question from the audience, Fonda said war veterans whom she has met on a nationwide book tour encouraged her to break her silence on the Iraq war. [ Damned if I know any of them! Must be easier when you limit yourself to former "Vietnam Vets Against The War." ]

Hundreds of people in the audience cheered loudly when Fonda announced her intentions to join the anti-Iraq war movement.

"I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam," she said. "I carry a lot of baggage from that."

Fonda incited controversy in July 1972 when she was photographed sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun while on a tour of the country to drum up support to end the war.

she's been silent on the iraq war?

She really bugs. It is too bad that a bus doesn't put her in the hospital for a while, or something.

And so the rabid warmongering starts again...

Eutrusca, you really need to learn the difference between valid anti-war views and the start of a 'slippery slope'.

And so the rabid warmongering starts again...

Eutrusca, you really need to learn the difference between valid anti-war views and the start of a 'slippery slope'.
What ... ever!

This bytch is the same one who laughingly peered through the sights of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun while I and my fellow soldiers were fighting in South Vietnam. I have no sympathy for any cause she supports, regardless of how "noble."

COMMENTARY: Well, the poster child for anti-war idiocy is at it again. I suppose stirring up hatred against Vietnam veterans wasn't enough. Now she's tying to start the Nation down that same road for Iraqi veterans. Over my dead body! God, I hope she visits North Carolina! Hehehe!


Jane Fonda to stump for Iraq pullout

From Associated Press

Actress and activist Jane Fonda says she intends to take a cross-country bus tour to call for an end to U.S. military operations in Iraq.

"I can't go into any detail except to say that it's going to be pretty exciting," she said, speaking Saturday at an event in Santa Fe, N.M., promoting her book, "My Life So Far."

Prompted by a question from the audience, Fonda said war veterans whom she has met on a nationwide book tour encouraged her to break her silence on the Iraq war. [ Damned if I know any of them! Must be easier when you limit yourself to former "Vietnam Vets Against The War." ]

Hundreds of people in the audience cheered loudly when Fonda announced her intentions to join the anti-Iraq war movement.

"I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam," she said. "I carry a lot of baggage from that."

Fonda incited controversy in July 1972 when she was photographed sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun while on a tour of the country to drum up support to end the war.

I'm a vet, and I'm against the war.

Congradulations; you've now met one.

Now you can quit this pretense that all vets are of the same war-mongering infantile mentality; as your own.

God, I hope she visits North Carolina! Hehehe!

Why? What will you do?

I'm a vet, and I'm against the war.

Congradulations; you've not met one.

Now shut up.
Make me, you turncoat! :p

Why? What will you do?
Let's just say that you'll hear about it. :D

Why? What will you do?

Considering his attitude? Something that might land him in jail probably. Can't really say for certain.

Considering his attitude? Something that might land him in jail probably. Can't really say for certain.
Perhaps, but it would be more than worth it. :)

Let's just say that you'll hear about it. :D

You won't do a damn thing and you know it. You'll piss and moan here and that's all.

You won't do a damn thing and you know it. You'll piss and moan here and that's all.
( shrug ) Perhaps so.

Ya don' kno, do ya! :D

You won't do a damn thing and you know it. You'll piss and moan here and that's all.
Then, technically, he's right. We WILL hear about it, from his own mouth.

Spitting on Iraqi veterans?

You say that like it would be a bad thing.

/I kid. I do!

Anyway, I support Jane Fonda's anti-war message. I don't quite know why she's famous any more and why so many people give a hoot that she some 30 years ago used her right to free speech and dissension, but she's always had fun exercise videos. And exercise is good. If only more people ran their bodies in stead of their mouths (yeah, I'm looking at some of you! Yeah, you!), well, this would be a tolerable forum.

Then, technically, he's right. We WILL hear about it, from his own mouth.
That would mean that I had decided she wasn't worth the aggravation. If I decide it's worth the consequences, you'll hear about it on the evening news. :D

Dude, I realize you have a blind spot, and I'd never be one to defend what Fonda did in Vietnam, but there's a gulf the size of the Pacific between what she did then and what's described in this article. Try taking a Prozac or something on this one.

Dude, I realize you have a blind spot, and I'd never be one to defend what Fonda did in Vietnam, but there's a gulf the size of the Pacific between what she did then and what's described in this article. Try taking a Prozac or something on this one.
I promise that when I decide ... if she comes to NC, that is ... you'll be among the first to know. :D

I promise that when I decide ... if she comes to NC, that is ... you'll be among the first to know. :D

Unless it's lethal, please do it.

I promise that when I decide ... if she comes to NC, that is ... you'll be among the first to know. :D

I do believe that discussing one's conspiracy to commit a crime is against the TOS.

I promise that when I decide ... if she comes to NC, that is ... you'll be among the first to know. :D

Why? Are you going to find a cruise missile somewhere and launch it at him simultaneously as you put your nefarious plans into action? =p


I do believe that discussing one's conspiracy to commit a crime is against the TOS.

I do believe your right! But nevertheless, should anything violent befall Jane Fonda, we know who the prime suspect will be now.

That would mean that I had decided she wasn't worth the aggravation. If I decide it's worth the consequences, you'll hear about it on the evening news. :D

My guess is it will have something to do with hot coffee......and a furby...why I don't know.

She should have been tried for treason. She doesn't deserve to call herself an American. I can have no sympathy for her.

She should have been tried for treason. She doesn't deserve to call herself an American. I can have no sympathy for her.

I'll try to nip this one in the bud.

She did not provide 'aid and comfort' to the enemy. Ergo she did not commit treason. She exercised her right of free speech in a dubious manner but did not commit treason.

She should have been tried for treason.

Fortunate for her that she didn't commit treason.

She doesn't deserve to call herself an American.

Yes she does. Unless you deem free speech and dissension "anti-American"? I wouldn't be surprised if you did...

I can have no sympathy for her.

Oh, how ever will she be able to go on without your sympathy? Poor Jane Fonda. I guess her wealth and fame will continue to be all the sympathy she needs.

Its very, very simple. Colonel Oliver North once pointed out that Fonda was a traitor, and he quoted from the Constitution to support the case. It is clear as crystal, and i will provide the quote below:

Constitution of the United States of America

Article III

Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


I refer you to the first sentence of the first paragraph. Fonda adhered and gave aid to the enemy, and comfort depending on how you see it. Her actions to stop the war provided the North Vietnamese with propaganda with which to strike against the South and the USA, to effectively further their war effort, i.e. she aided the enemy.
There are also thousands of witnesses to these acts, not to mention a confession by the traitors own hand.

Thus, in perfect conclusion, Fonda is guilty of treason and should be dealt with accordingly. It is probably only a matter of time before a case is brought against her.

I'll reiterate my point. You can bluster and hold a stance on this issue, but this case always comes back to the cold, hard FACTS. She did commit treason according to the Constitution, and there is no way around this.

So how come no-one ever tried to proseute her? Maybe they figured out she didn't commit treason...

it's been thirty years. If the case is so simple why hasn't Eutrusca taken it? Why don't you?

If it were a perfect conclusion, the government would not have waited 30+ years. The fact that no one sensible wants to try her tells us that it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to build a case against her that would stand in court.

I hope that someone catches you doing something really asinine in your youth and that it comes back to haunt you for the rest of your life.

I am not saying what Jane did was right, what i am saying is that she was a young, impulsive rebel when she did that. How many of you were not stupidly impulsive in your youth?

She just happened to be famous enough that her irresponsibility was recorded and made a big deal of.

But for cryin' out loud, that was soemthing like 40 years ago. U bet none of you were even alive when that all happened, and you are just taking the bitterness you heard from your parents or grandparents and passing it on.

GET OVER IT ALREADY. Wake up into the 21st century.

Its very, very simple. Colonel Oliver North once pointed out that Fonda was a traitor, and he quoted from the Constitution to support the case. It is clear as crystal, and i will provide the quote below:




I refer you to the first sentence of the first paragraph. Fonda adhered and gave aid to the enemy, and comfort depending on how you see it. Her actions to stop the war provided the North Vietnamese with propaganda with which to strike against the South and the USA, to effectively further their war effort, i.e. she aided the enemy.
There are also thousands of witnesses to these acts, not to mention a confession by the traitors own hand.

Thus, in perfect conclusion, Fonda is guilty of treason and should be dealt with accordingly. It is probably only a matter of time before a case is brought against her.

I'll reiterate my point. You can bluster and hold a stance on this issue, but this case always comes back to the cold, hard FACTS. She did commit treason according to the Constitution, and there is no way around this.
North Vietnam was not an enemy of the United States in 1972--no declaration of war had been issued by the Congress. Thus, the US and the DRV were formally at peace in 1972.

Law is a strange thing...

Make me, you turncoat! :p
Turncoat? :P

What makes me a turncoat?

I am anti-war because of the principles of my oath of office; which I still adhere to; even out of the office.

I will be sending my locaL congressman a notice requesting they look into Ms. Fonda's action's as an act of sedition and/or treason against the soldiers of the US. I'm a vet too. There was something in the laws that superceeded the right to freespeech when it's used to demoralized troops in time of war. At the very least they can put her in jail long enough to put the kabosh on her tour. Noone in this town will hear her as most of us are vets.

I will be sending my locaL congressman a notice requesting they look into Ms. Fonda's action's as an act of sedition and/or treason against the soldiers of the US. I'm a vet too. There was something in the laws that superceeded the right to freespeech when it's used to demoralized troops in time of war. At the very least they can put her in jail long enough to put the kabosh on her tour. Noone in this town will hear her as most of us are vets.

You mean the sorts of charges they used against Tokyo Rose?

COMMENTARY: Well, the poster child for anti-war idiocy is at it again. I suppose stirring up hatred against Vietnam veterans wasn't enough. Now she's tying to start the Nation down that same road for Iraqi veterans. Over my dead body! God, I hope she visits North Carolina! Hehehe!


Jane Fonda to stump for Iraq pullout

From Associated Press

Actress and activist Jane Fonda says she intends to take a cross-country bus tour to call for an end to U.S. military operations in Iraq.

"I can't go into any detail except to say that it's going to be pretty exciting," she said, speaking Saturday at an event in Santa Fe, N.M., promoting her book, "My Life So Far."

Prompted by a question from the audience, Fonda said war veterans whom she has met on a nationwide book tour encouraged her to break her silence on the Iraq war. [ Damned if I know any of them! Must be easier when you limit yourself to former "Vietnam Vets Against The War." ]

Hundreds of people in the audience cheered loudly when Fonda announced her intentions to join the anti-Iraq war movement.

"I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam," she said. "I carry a lot of baggage from that."

Fonda incited controversy in July 1972 when she was photographed sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun while on a tour of the country to drum up support to end the war.

Hmmm...

Jane Fonda. Well I opposed(or would have, had I been alive) the Vietnam war, and Gulf War II, but what she did was pretty bad. Instead of attacking the real culprits, those in power that greenlight a war, she represents the anti-war factions that oppose the actual troops on the ground, which is just wrong. I mean I'm really anti war, but I have sense enough to recognize and respect that in their hearts, veterans are/did what they thought was right, and what they were ordered to do. It's not the soldiers that decide to bomb Vietnam or Iraq, it's the politicians from the safety of the capital building and white house. If anyone opposes the war, bitch to the politicians, not at the soldiers.

Now this recent stuff, we don't know which direction Fonda is taking it. My guess is she won't take photos with a Mujaheddin RPG launcher or something, or spit on veterans as you suggest. She is just stepping up to join the growing anti-war call, and going on a nationwide bus trip to support it. Personally I think Jane Fonda is too much of a coward to do anything that might really offend veterans this time around. She only stood opposed to the Vietnam war when the public did, she hated on veterans when that was cool, but then did an about face, miraculously when public opinion about Vietnam and vietnam veterans was more positive and respectful than negative. Now she speaks up about Iraq, suprise! as public opinion turns on that conflict. Jane Fonda is a bad actress who blows with the wind of public opinion, I wouldn't concern myself with her. After all, public opinion still respects veterans of Iraq, even it a majority now think going was a bad idea.

What exactly does she want to accomplish? Does she want to remove US and coalition troops before the Iraqi police and security forces are strong enough to prevent a full scale civil war in Iraq? That would cost the lives of perhaps millions of Iraqis and set the stage for terrorism the likes of which we've never seen.

Hanoi Jane's a fucking idiot. If Eutrusca throws a pie in her face or something I'll gladly help pay his legal fees and/or fines.

I do believe that discussing one's conspiracy to commit a crime is against the TOS.
LOL! Who said I was going to comitt a crime, Fass?

BTW ... hello again. :)

My guess is it will have something to do with hot coffee......and a furby...why I don't know.
How did you guess? I have five trained, killer attack-Furbies ready to go on a moment's notice! :D

LOL! Who said I was going to comitt a crime, Fass?
You just did :D
How did you guess? I have five trained, killer attack-Furbies ready to go on a moment's notice! :D

I hope that someone catches you doing something really asinine in your youth and that it comes back to haunt you for the rest of your life.

I am not saying what Jane did was right, what i am saying is that she was a young, impulsive rebel when she did that. How many of you were not stupidly impulsive in your youth?

She just happened to be famous enough that her irresponsibility was recorded and made a big deal of.

But for cryin' out loud, that was soemthing like 40 years ago. U bet none of you were even alive when that all happened, and you are just taking the bitterness you heard from your parents or grandparents and passing it on.

GET OVER IT ALREADY. Wake up into the 21st century.
Excuse me??? I was in Vietnam while all that shit was going on. When I came home after each of my two tours, I and all my brothers had to endure the animosity of so-called "war protestors" encouraged by Hanoi Jane and her ilk, including being called vile names, having things thrown at us, and being spit upon. So what if it was 40 years ago? It was wrong then, it's wrong now, and I will be friggin' damned if I will ever allow it to happen to any of the fine young men and women who are serving in Iraq!

LOL! Who said I was going to comitt a crime, Fass?

Considering his attitude? Something that might land him in jail probably.

Perhaps, but it would be more than worth it.

One doesn't tend to end up in jail unless one commits a crime. But it is the US, so you may have a point.

BTW ... hello again. :)

Hello.

You just did :D
Having trained, killer attack-Furbies is against the law??? Oh shit! I'm in for it now! Heh!

One doesn't tend to end up in jail unless one commits a crime. But it is the US, so you may have a point.

Hello.
I did say "perhaps." :p

How you been, man? Things going ok for ya? :)

Having trained, killer attack-Furbies is against the law??? Oh shit! I'm in for it now! Heh!
There's probably some law against it somewhere. You'd just have to look long enough :D

What ... ever!

This bytch is the same one who laughingly peered through the sights of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun while I and my fellow soldiers were fighting in South Vietnam. I have no sympathy for any cause she supports, regardless of how "noble."

I would've done the same thing in her position, really. The only thing I can't agree with was her resenting that picture.

Oh, Eut. You're always such a reasonable Centrist *snicker*.

I did say "perhaps." :p

Your evasive language needs some work. ;)

How you been, man? Things going ok for ya? :)

I'm OK. Just started seeing someone new, so, you know, I'm all tingly! :)

Excuse me??? I was in Vietnam while all that shit was going on. When I came home after each of my two tours, I and all my brothers had to endure the animosity of so-called "war protestors" encouraged by Hanoi Jane and her ilk, including being called vile names, having things thrown at us, and being spit upon. So what if it was 40 years ago? It was wrong then, it's wrong now, and I will be friggin' damned if I will ever allow it to happen to any of the fine young men and women who are serving in Iraq!You have plenty valid reason to be mad, but what some of us are trying to point out is that war protest isn't necessarily spitting on soldiers. From your posts, one could get the feeling that you consider the two synonymous due to your experiences. We're all sorry for how you were treated, but that doesn't mean we can't be against a war that we consider unjust.

"Hate the war, love the veteran"

*snip*

So, let me get this straight.

Saying she is against the Iraq war is somehow a bad thing?

I hope that someone catches you doing something really asinine in your youth and that it comes back to haunt you for the rest of your life.

I am not saying what Jane did was right, what i am saying is that she was a young, impulsive rebel when she did that. How many of you were not stupidly impulsive in your youth?

She just happened to be famous enough that her irresponsibility was recorded and made a big deal of.

But for cryin' out loud, that was soemthing like 40 years ago. U bet none of you were even alive when that all happened, and you are just taking the bitterness you heard from your parents or grandparents and passing it on.

GET OVER IT ALREADY. Wake up into the 21st century.



I'm only 19 but not nearly as stupid as that. I'm only suprised she hasn't been lynched by the non-traitors :D

Excuse me??? I was in Vietnam while all that shit was going on. When I came home after each of my two tours, I and all my brothers had to endure the animosity of so-called "war protestors" encouraged by Hanoi Jane and her ilk, including being called vile names, having things thrown at us, and being spit upon. So what if it was 40 years ago? It was wrong then, it's wrong now, and I will be friggin' damned if I will ever allow it to happen to any of the fine young men and women who are serving in Iraq!

I wouldn't advocate doing any of that stuff to draftees, because they usually didn't wanna be there in the first place. It wasn't their choice... They were forced into it.

I sure as hell would advocate doing that sort of thing to people who enlisted. Wars like Vietnam and Iraq are unjust and highly unnecessary, and the enlisted who think they are necessary, well... I'd say something quite appalling about them, but I don't want extra flamebait.

So, let me get this straight.

Saying she is against the Iraq war is somehow a bad thing?



No, that's just dumb. Providing the North Vietnamese with a huge morale boost was the bad thing :rolleyes:

I'm only 19 but not nearly as stupid as that.

Ha! Sure...

No, that's just dumb. Providing the North Vietnamese with a huge morale boost was the bad thing :rolleyes:
And how does this tie into the Iraq war? Has she done something similarly stupid for Saddam or the insurgents?

Edit: Why is it dumb to be against the Iraq war?

No, that's just dumb. Providing the North Vietnamese with a huge morale boost was the bad thing :rolleyes:

Well, it was their ordeal. We were in no position to invade because of what they were doing.

"OMG LETZ STOP TEH COMUNISTS NO MATTER HOW MANY PPL R KILD, JUST BCUZ THER IDEALOGY IS DIFRNT!"

What exactly does she want to accomplish? Does she want to remove US and coalition troops before the Iraqi police and security forces are strong enough to prevent a full scale civil war in Iraq? That would cost the lives of perhaps millions of Iraqis and set the stage for terrorism the likes of which we've never seen.

Hanoi Jane's a fucking idiot. If Eutrusca throws a pie in her face or something I'll gladly help pay his legal fees and/or fines.



Hey, there's finally something we agree on :D

No, that's just dumb. Providing the North Vietnamese with a huge morale boost was the bad thing :rolleyes:
....and is of absolutely no relevance to the Iraq war.

And why would it be a bad thing anyway? The North Vietnamese weren't the ones at fault, the US was the instigator.

Ha! Sure...


:mad:

Your evasive language needs some work. ;)

I'm OK. Just started seeing someone new, so, you know, I'm all tingly! :)
Never been good at being evasive. Sorry. ;)

Ooooo! Don't do anything *I* wouldn't do! :D

....and is of absolutely no relevance to the Iraq war.

And why would it be a bad thing anyway? The North Vietnamese weren't the ones at fault, the US was the instigator.

*carts you an assload of cookies*

....and is of absolutely no relevance to the Iraq war.

And why would it be a bad thing anyway? The North Vietnamese weren't the ones at fault, the US was the instigator.



Who started the war between the North and the South? Who were the aggressors? Who tried to reamalgamate who under communist rule?....really Nad, saying that supporting enemy troops isn't a negative thing is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard on these forums...even dumber than that "Hitler- misunderstood." thread.

*carts you an assload of cookies*



*intercepts the cart of cookies because Nadkor certainly doesn't deserve them*

Oh, Eut. You're always such a reasonable Centrist *snicker*.
Very funny. You're a regular laugh riot. Just because I don't agree with the entire leftist agenda doesn't mean I'm not centrist. I happen to be rather "hawkish" in international relations, but most of the right-wing social agenda leaves me cold. Surely you can figure that out! ;)

*intercepts the cart of cookies because Nadkor certainly doesn't deserve them*

Actually, she does. You don't.

*launches Nadkor a cache of cookies*

Never been good at being evasive. Sorry. ;)

It's what's kept me from getting banned! :D

Ooooo! Don't do anything *I* wouldn't do! :D

Oh, I didn't peg you much as a fan of vanilla anything, really. :p

Very funny. You're a regular laugh riot. Just because I don't agree with the entire leftist agenda doesn't mean I'm not centrist. I happen to be rather "hawkish" in international relations, but most of the right-wing social agenda leaves me cold. Surely you can figure that out! ;)

Yeah, especially since you always look at both sides of all issues...

*gag*

You have plenty valid reason to be mad, but what some of us are trying to point out is that war protest isn't necessarily spitting on soldiers. From your posts, one could get the feeling that you consider the two synonymous due to your experiences. We're all sorry for how you were treated, but that doesn't mean we can't be against a war that we consider unjust.

"Hate the war, love the veteran"
Then we are in partial agreement. Peaceful protest which doesn't demonize a particular group is fine with me. As a matter of fact, it's necessary to keep those in power honest. Treat my bros well and you have my support. :)

So, let me get this straight.

Saying she is against the Iraq war is somehow a bad thing?
No. She's just a "bad thing," period!

:mad:

Stop the bellyaching! You walked into that one, as you, frankly, so often tend to do.

While I may not agree with the initial post I'm going to have to applaud Euts calmness and sense of humor while debating something as contentious to him as Jane Fonda and the anti-war movement. *hi5*

but Eut, I think it is probably more like the Jane will be the one getting spit on... again.

Actually, she does. You don't.

*launches Nadkor a cache of cookies*



Treason advocates deserve nothing of the sort unless they are those yucky oatmeal-raisin cookies laced with cyanide! *jumps and catches the launch*

Then we are in partial agreement. Peaceful protest which doesn't demonize a particular group is fine with me. As a matter of fact, it's necessary to keep those in power honest. Treat my bros well and you have my support. :)I have a good friend that was over there. The soldiers aren't to blame for the war, they're just following orders. I spent the first half of my life as a military dependent, so that might have had some influence on my outlook; I'd never dream of taking out my disagreement with the Bush administrations action on a soldier because he's a soldier.

Treason advocates deserve nothing of the sort unless they are those yucky oatmeal-raisin cookies laced with cyanide! *jumps and catches the launch*

The word "treason" seems to be thrown around aimlessly with people such as yourself. The Cat-Tribe had a rather lengthy post on this some weeks ago.

I wouldn't advocate doing any of that stuff to draftees, because they usually didn't wanna be there in the first place. It wasn't their choice... They were forced into it.

I sure as hell would advocate doing that sort of thing to people who enlisted. Wars like Vietnam and Iraq are unjust and highly unnecessary, and the enlisted who think they are necessary, well... I'd say something quite appalling about them, but I don't want extra flamebait.
Then you are beyond reasoning with. Since every US military person is now a volunteer, you will be castigating all of them. Please refrain from addressing me directly, or from posting in threads I create. ( Yes, I know this is unlikely to happen, since you feel you have the "right" to revile good men and women simply because you have a personal ax to grind, but I thought I would make the statement anyway. )

Stop the bellyaching! You walked into that one, as you, frankly, so often tend to do.



Fine, fine.....just don't run to the mods when I respond in kind to things you set yourself up for :mad:

Treason advocates deserve nothing of the sort unless they are those yucky oatmeal-raisin cookies laced with cyanide! *jumps and catches the launch*This is probably the weirdest case of thread hi-jacking I've ever seen :p

The word "treason" seems to be thrown around aimlessly with people such as yourself. The Cat-Tribe had a rather lengthy post on this some weeks ago.



No matter how you try to spin it, supporting the enemy and providing them with a massive morale boost and loads of propaganda falls under the category of "aiding and abedding".

I have a good friend that was over there. The soldiers aren't to blame for the war, they're just following orders. I spent the first half of my life as a military dependent, so that might have had some influence on my outlook; I'd never dream of taking out my disagreement with the Bush administrations action on a soldier because he's a soldier.
You are on the path toward true wisdom, Grasshopper! :D

Then you are beyond reasoning with. Since every US military person is now a volunteer, you will be castigating all of them. Please refrain from addressing me directly, or from posting in threads I create. ( Yes, I know this is unlikely to happen, since you feel you have the "right" to revile good men and women simply because you have a personal ax to grind, but I thought I was make the statement anyway. )

1: Yes, that's the idea. Any idiot who thinks joining a war to "kill them eye-rackies" deserves my insults.

2: No, I think I'll do whatever I please on General, so long as it's within the rules.

3: So, your definition of a "good" person is one who goes off to a foreign country to help kill people?

[SIZE=2]AUDIO:




Announcer: They served their country with courage and distinction. They’re the men who served with John Kerry in Vietnam.



Announcer: They’re his entire chain of command, most of the officers in Kerry’s unit. Even the gunner from his own boat.



Announcer: And they’re the men who spent years in North Vietnamese prison camps.



Announcer: Tortured for refusing to confess what John Kerry accused them of. . . of being war criminals.



Announcer: They were also decorated. Many very highly. But they kept their medals.



Announcer: Today they are teachers, farmers, businessman, ministers, and community leaders. And of course, fathers and grandfathers.



Announcer: With nothing to gain for themselves, except the satisfaction that comes with telling the truth, they have come forward to talk about the John Kerry they know.



Announcer: Because to them honesty and character still matters. . . especially in a time of war.



Announcer: Swift Vets and POW’s for Truth are responsible for the content of this advertisement.




I'll give you one guess as to which Vietnam Vet they're smearing :(

I do support the cause however... If Jane Fonda had a shred of decency she would just shut her trap.

Fine, fine.....just don't run to the mods when I respond in kind to things you set yourself up for :mad:

That's your problem - you never do respond in kind. You always overreact and resort to the basest of insults, in stead of retorting with anything witty (and if you do, it's usually dependent on the wit of others, such as a link to some website).

It's what's kept me from getting banned! :D

Oh, I didn't peg you much as a fan of vanilla anything, really. :p
That's probably why I've been forumbanned twice. Most of my positions are rather well thought out, if I do have to say so myself, but I do tend to state things in a rather ... um ... "assertive way" at times! :D

You are relatively correct about that. Vanilla is not my favorite flavor. ;)

You are on the path toward true wisdom, Grasshopper! :DI don't know if I should feel insulted or honored :p I know what the animal is, but why are you referring to me as a Grasshopper?

You choose to be a soldier. You choose to join a profession that will in all likelihood involved the taking of lives. I can not respect a person who would make that sort of choice. I wouldn't spit on them, or insult them, or have anything to do with them really...but neither would I feel it appropriate to glorify them. Self-defense is the only justification for limited violence. Pre-emptive self-defense is not defense. It's aggression.

I don't give two shits about Jane Fonda other than to be amused at the amount of hatred Eut, and others seem to feel for her. She's never murdered someone. Many of the soldiers you've held up as heroes have. [/rant] [return to the more reasonable Sinuhue]

While I may not agree with the initial post I'm going to have to applaud Euts calmness and sense of humor while debating something as contentious to him as Jane Fonda and the anti-war movement. *hi5*

but Eut, I think it is probably more like the Jane will be the one getting spit on... again.
Thank you! Coming from you, that means a lot. :)

Hanoi Jane? Getting spit upon? Oh, the horror! [ Film at eleven! ] :D

You choose to be a soldier. You choose to join a profession that will in all likelihood involved the taking of lives. I can not respect a person who would make that sort of choice. I wouldn't spit on them, or insult them, or have anything to do with them really...but neither would I feel it appropriate to glorify them. Self-defense is the only justification for limited violence. Pre-emptive self-defense is not defense. It's aggression.

I don't give two shits about Jane Fonda other than to be amused at the amount of hatred Eut, and others seem to feel for her. She's never murdered someone. Many of the soldiers you've held up as heroes have. [/rant] [return to the more reasonable Sinuhue]

Hmm, the entire post seemed really reasonable to me... This seemed unnecessary!

[SIZE=2]AUDIO:

Announcer: They served their country with courage and distinction. They’re the men who served with John Kerry in Vietnam.

Announcer: They’re his entire chain of command, most of the officers in Kerry’s unit. Even the gunner from his own boat.

Announcer: And they’re the men who spent years in North Vietnamese prison camps.

Announcer: Tortured for refusing to confess what John Kerry accused them of. . . of being war criminals.

Announcer: They were also decorated. Many very highly. But they kept their medals.

Announcer: Today they are teachers, farmers, businessman, ministers, and community leaders. And of course, fathers and grandfathers.

Announcer: With nothing to gain for themselves, except the satisfaction that comes with telling the truth, they have come forward to talk about the John Kerry they know.

Announcer: Because to them honesty and character still matters. . . especially in a time of war.

Announcer: Swift Vets and POW’s for Truth are responsible for the content of this advertisement.

I'll give you one guess as to which Vietnam Vet they're smearing :(
So telling the truth is now considered a "smear." Talk about doublespeak! :(

Thank you! Coming from you, that means a lot. :)

Hanoi Jane? Getting spit upon? Oh, the horror! [ Film at eleven! ] :D

heh

I must say though that you must be in a pretty damn good mood today since you even attempted to approach this subject. :cool:

You choose to be a soldier. You choose to join a profession that will in all likelihood involved the taking of lives. I can not respect a person who would make that sort of choice. I wouldn't spit on them, or insult them, or have anything to do with them really...but neither would I feel it appropriate to glorify them. Self-defense is the only justification for limited violence. Pre-emptive self-defense is not defense. It's aggression.

I don't give two shits about Jane Fonda other than to be amused at the amount of hatred Eut, and others seem to feel for her. She's never murdered someone. Many of the soldiers you've held up as heroes have. [/rant] [return to the more reasonable Sinuhue]One of the reasons why I never joined the military and why I would have gone for social service had the German army wanted me. I don't want to learn how to kill people.
But the fact that we have some that don't mind to take that burden on themselves isn't despicable. While I agree that pre-emptive self-defense isn't acceptable, that wasn't the soldiers' choice. My disagreement is with the administration. Iraq is a bad example for good soldiering, but the US is also involved in conflicts where they are actually solving problems they didn't help create, though the Bush administration doesn't pursue these as much as it did Iraq.
We need people willing to risk their lives and kill for their country as much as we need the people that protest against that.

I don't know if I should feel insulted or honored :p I know what the animal is, but why are you referring to me as a Grasshopper?
LOL! It's actually a kind of humorous compliment. It's taken from an old series called "Kung Fu" where the Master sometimes tells the young Cain, whom he refers to as "Grasshopper," that he is on the path to true wisdom. :D

EDIT: Starred David Carridine as the adult Cain, I think.

Hmm, the entire post seemed really reasonable to me... This seemed unnecessary!
Point of view. Plus, even though I find their profession reprehensible, I can still get past that and like the people themselves if they are decent people.

So telling the truth is now considered a "smear." Talk about doublespeak! :(

I'm always so curious as to who is lying in this case, Kerry vs The Swift boat vets.

My biggest question is this: If they were all familiar with Kerry's stance(which they must've been, seeing as he made his infamous statements over 30 years ago), and they insist that he's lying about all of the veterans, why did they keep silent about it until a war mongering president needed to beat him in an election?

Really! Can I get a logical explanation for this?

I'm a vet, and I'm against the war.

Congradulations; you've now met one.

Now you can quit this pretense that all vets are of the same war-mongering infantile mentality; as your own.

I'm also an anti-Iraq war vet. In fact, I served during the Vietnam era and was against that war as well. Wars should only be fought when there is a direct threat to this country, and even then should be used only as a last resort. I didn't see that threat in Vietnam, and I don't see it in Iraq either.

heh

I must say though that you must be in a pretty damn good mood today since you even attempted to approach this subject. :cool:
Don't know if you saw the post I made the other day about "Good morning, Campers!" but I explained in it that I was feeling great, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that a very close friend of mine who had been diagnosed with cancer called me with the truly amazing news that a checkup had disclosed not only that it was in remission, but that there was no trace of it whatsoever! Man, I was floatin'! :D

LOL! It's actually a kind of humorous compliment. It's taken from an old series called "Kung Fu" where the Master sometimes tells the young Cain, whom he refers to as "Grasshopper," that he is on the path to true wisdom. :DDang, I haven't seen that series in a long long time! Thanks then :D

So telling the truth is now considered a "smear." Talk about doublespeak! :(

I don't know Forrest, was it the truth? Do we know that for fact? I don't think we ever did.

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.. (forget who said it, but he was right on the money)

You choose to be a soldier. You choose to join a profession that will in all likelihood involved the taking of lives. I can not respect a person who would make that sort of choice. I wouldn't spit on them, or insult them, or have anything to do with them really...but neither would I feel it appropriate to glorify them. Self-defense is the only justification for limited violence. Pre-emptive self-defense is not defense. It's aggression.

I don't give two shits about Jane Fonda other than to be amused at the amount of hatred Eut, and others seem to feel for her. She's never murdered someone. Many of the soldiers you've held up as heroes have. [/rant] [return to the more reasonable Sinuhue]



I think that supporting the enemy is an indirect form of murder.

Considering his attitude? Something that might land him in jail probably. Can't really say for certain.

No, he's all talk.

I'm always so curious as to who is lying in this case, Kerry vs The Swift boat vets.

My biggest question is this: If they were all familiar with Kerry's stance(which they must've been, seeing as he made his infamous statements over 30 years ago), and they insist that he's lying about all of the veterans, why did they keep silent about it until a war mongering president needed to beat him in an election?

Really! Can I get a logical explanation for this?
Whether we like him or not, Kerry is indeed a veteran. Veterans don't attack veterans without good cause. Apparently the Swift Boat Veterans felt he would be a bad choice for President of the United States.

I don't know Forrest, was it the truth? Do we know that for fact? I don't think we ever did.

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.. (forget who said it, but he was right on the money)

Was it this guy?

"....In my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
- George W Bush

I'm also an anti-Iraq war vet. In fact, I served during the Vietnam era and was against that war as well. Wars should only be fought when there is a direct threat to this country, and even then should be used only as a last resort. I didn't see that threat in Vietnam, and I don't see it in Iraq either.

I'm with you all the way! With the exception that I'm not against the "vet" I'm against the administration who sends young men & women off to die for ideology instead of threat. Other than that, I agree with you 100%

I'm always so curious as to who is lying in this case, Kerry vs The Swift boat vets.

My biggest question is this: If they were all familiar with Kerry's stance(which they must've been, seeing as he made his infamous statements over 30 years ago), and they insist that he's lying about all of the veterans, why did they keep silent about it until a war mongering president needed to beat him in an election?

Really! Can I get a logical explanation for this?

There IS no logical explanation, it was an out-and-out smear campaign of the most vile variety. The sad part is, the election got bogged down on that "issue" instead of on the economy, which SHOULD have been the main issue. Had it been, Bush would have lost for sure!

I think that supporting the enemy is an indirect form of murder.And demanding unconditional support for government action is fascism. You could argue that protesting against the war is support for the enemy, as I feel you are (I might be wrong, but I doubt it). In that case, I'd rather be an indirect murderer than a fascist.

Whether we like him or not, Kerry is indeed a veteran. Veterans don't attack veterans without good cause. Apparently the Swift Boat Veterans felt he would be a bad choice for President of the United States.

So you're saying they were lying because they didn't want him to get elected? Because that was my question.......

I think that supporting the enemy is an indirect form of murder.

You really need to look into the concept of logic and making sense, because that there really is intellectualy poppycock.

Was it this guy?

"....In my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
- George W Bush

Nope, just looked it up..

A lie told often enough becomes the truth. -- Lenin
Russian Communist politician & revolutionary (1870 - 1924)

I think that supporting the enemy is an indirect form of murder.
So is helping Pinochet get into power. But no one will ever be held legally responsible for that, so tough.

You rally need to look into the concept of logic and making sense, because that there really is poppycock.



Apparently, those who defined treason tend to disagree.

There IS no logical explanation, it was an out-and-out smear campaign of the most vile variety. The sad part is, the election got bogged down on that "issue" instead of on the economy, which SHOULD have been the main issue. Had it been, Bush would have lost for sure!

More unfortunate genius from the 'turd blossom'!

I think he's evil, and I despise his neo-con ideaology, but he's one smart fella.......

1: Yes, that's the idea. Any idiot who thinks joining a war to "kill them eye-rackies" deserves my insults.

2: No, I think I'll do whatever I please on General, so long as it's within the rules.

3: So, your definition of a "good" person is one who goes off to a foreign country to help kill people?

i don't think the people who join the military think they're going over there just to kill "eye-rackies." They're there either because they were looking at the military as a way to get a better life (education, etc) or over there because they believe in the cause of the "War on Terror." Any one who's joined because of your 1st reason deserve to be ridiculed, and need to be reevaluated and kicked outta the military.

You have the right to do what you want on these forums, just don't be surprised if you get ignored.

Your 3rd reason is dubious, see my first paragraph in explanation. They're not killing civilians(on purpose) they're attempting to stop the terrorist ideals of destroying the western society. And instead of taking the fight on western soil, they're doing it in the middle east.

I'm an optimist and believe that once Iraq stabilizes as a democratic country, the USA will pull out and continue their fight on terror elsewhere. And that should be a warning to any nation states that harbor terroristic dreams. (would like to see them do it closer to home, but eh, peons definitely can't choose where)

I'm also an anti-Iraq war vet. In fact, I served during the Vietnam era and was against that war as well. Wars should only be fought when there is a direct threat to this country, and even then should be used only as a last resort. I didn't see that threat in Vietnam, and I don't see it in Iraq either.
So we wait until another 9/11, or another Peral Harbor, or a nuclear strike against the US, or a biological attack, or chemicals in the drinking water? Totally unacceptable, IMHO.

If you are indeed a veteran, I'm willing to bet you were a draftee.

Apparently, those who defined treason tend to disagree.

No, no they don't. (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=treason)

So we wait until another 9/11, or another Peral Harbor, or a nuclear strike against the US, or a biological attack, or chemicals in the drinking water? Totally unacceptable, IMHO.

If you are indeed a veteran, I'm willing to bet you were a draftee.

Wrong again! (Don't you ever tire of being wrong?) I enlisted, served four years. (1969-73)

And demanding unconditional support for government action is fascism. You could argue that protesting against the war is support for the enemy, as I feel you are (I might be wrong, but I doubt it). In that case, I'd rather be an indirect murderer than a fascist.


Actually, I was arguing that getting photographed with the enemy in an anti-air battery willingly and providing them with a morale boost is support for the enemy. Feel free to protest a war, I disagree in this case but that is not treason. This, on the other hand, is.

I don't know Forrest, was it the truth? Do we know that for fact? I don't think we ever did.

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.. (forget who said it, but he was right on the money)
All of those veterans were lying? Hmmm. MOST unlikely, IMHO.

So we wait until another 9/11, or another Peral Harbor, or a nuclear strike against the US, or a biological attack, or chemicals in the drinking water? Totally unacceptable, IMHO.

If you are indeed a veteran, I'm willing to bet you were a draftee.
But how did invading Iraq protect people from terrorism? As we can see in London, it's only made the problem worse.

COMMENTARY: Well, the poster child for anti-war idiocy is at it again. I suppose stirring up hatred against Vietnam veterans wasn't enough. Now she's tying to start the Nation down that same road for Iraqi veterans. Over my dead body! God, I hope she visits North Carolina! Hehehe!


Hopefully this time her protesting won't rise to the level of committing treason.

So we wait until another 9/11, or another Peral Harbor, or a nuclear strike against the US, or a biological attack, or chemicals in the drinking water? Totally unacceptable, IMHO.

.

So what's your solution? Bomb everyone who we think MIGHT attack us somewhere down the road? That'll make us a LOT of friends, I'm sure.

So we wait until another 9/11, or another Peral Harbor, or a nuclear strike against the US, or a biological attack, or chemicals in the drinking water? Totally unacceptable, IMHO.

Just out of curiosity, tell me again what the war in Iraq had to do with 9/11?

All of those veterans were lying? Hmmm. MOST unlikely, IMHO.

So then you think it was Kerry that was lying?

It's gotta be one or the other........

You choose to be a soldier. You choose to join a profession that will in all likelihood involved the taking of lives. I can not respect a person who would make that sort of choice....

There are many jobs in the military which don't require taking lives. There are even jobs that you are there to help people. (take for example the medic that was shot, and then performed first aid on the guy who shot him).

Unfortunately some professions (such as pararescue in the air force) require medical staff to jump into "hot zones" and perform first aid in the middle of a firefight, would you rather these guys go in w/o weapons? I wouldn't.

No, no they don't. (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=treason)


Yes, yes they do. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason)

Actually, I was arguing that getting photographed with the enemy in an anti-air battery willingly and providing them with a morale boost is support for the enemy. Feel free to protest a war, I disagree in this case but that is not treason. This, on the other hand, is.I wouldn't consider it treasonous, just grossly tactless. While the Vietnam war may have been immoral, that doesn't make the North Vietnamese good people.

So you're saying they were lying because they didn't want him to get elected? Because that was my question.......
Um ... nooooo. I think they were telling the truth. Assuming that all those veterans, most of whom risked vituperation or worse, were lying simply doesn't compute.

All of those veterans were lying? Hmmm. MOST unlikely, IMHO.

A lot of the veterans who served with him also supported him, especially the man whose life he saved. Obviously one of these groups is lying, so you have to ask yourself which group has an agenda?

Um ... nooooo. I think they were telling the truth. Assuming that all those veterans, most of whom risked vituperation or worse, were lying simply doesn't compute.

Then you think Kerry was lying?

So what's your solution? Bomb everyone who we think MIGHT attack us somewhere down the road? That'll make us a LOT of friends, I'm sure.



A lot better than watching them get ready to bomb us without acting, and thus getting bombed I would say.

If they were all familiar with Kerry's stance(which they must've been, seeing as he made his infamous statements over 30 years ago), and they insist that he's lying about all of the veterans, why did they keep silent about it until a war mongering president needed to beat him in an election?

i'm gonna guess and say this was because Kerry decided to run for president. It just so happened to be against Bush. if it had been against someone else, i think they still would have cropped up. Hell, for all we know, when he ran for senator of Mass. he probably had anti-war ppl against him.

All of those veterans were lying? Hmmm. MOST unlikely, IMHO.

So then does that also mean that all those Texas Air National Guard were lying too about never seeing Bush? So was it also true that all the bread crumbs led back to Bush lying about his service in the guard? You can't have it both ways my dear!

There are many jobs in the military which don't require taking lives. There are even jobs that you are there to help people. (take for example the medic that was shot, and then performed first aid on the guy who shot him).

Unfortunately some professions (such as pararescue in the air force) require medical staff to jump into "hot zones" and perform first aid in the middle of a firefight, would you rather these guys go in w/o weapons? I wouldn't.All honor to the medics, but I've never met one that could be considered "sane", and I've met a couple.

Wrong again! (Don't you ever tire of being wrong?) I enlisted, served four years. (1969-73)
( shrug ) I'm just as human as the rest of mankind, and sometimes prone to error. I remember I was wrong once before. Back in 1971, I think it was; on a Sunday, at about noon. :D

A lot better than watching them get ready to bomb us without acting, and thus getting bombed I would say.So it's better to kill innocents and make them enemies and thus increase the chance that someone will try to bomb us?

So then does that also mean that all those Texas Air National Guard were lying too about never seeing Bush? So was it also true that all the bread crumbs led back to Bush lying about his service in the guard? You can't have it both ways my dear!

Whatever the true story is about Kerry in Vietnam, the fact is that he actually WENT there and was in a combat zone. W, on the other hand, hell even he can't verify where he was most of the time he was supposedly "serving" in the Texas Air Guard.

i'm gonna guess and say this was because Kerry decided to run for president. It just so happened to be against Bush. if it had been against someone else, i think they still would have cropped up. Hell, for all we know, when he ran for senator of Mass. he probably had anti-war ppl against him.

So were they really about spreading truth, or slandering Kerry?

I just find it odd that it took decades to come out, long after the congressional hearing containing Kerry's testimonial.

So, I guess my next question would be.........

How was Kerry lying? Are you insisting that there wasn't a single US soldier that commited some kind of atrocity in Vietnam?

All honor to the medics, but I've never met one that could be considered "sane", and I've met a couple.

haha, that's the field i'm thinking about going into. haven't 100% yet decided on whether or not i should join tho.

So it's better to kill innocents and make them enemies and thus increase the chance that someone will try to bomb us?

That seems to be his (her?) point.

Yes, yes they do. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason)
How did Mrs Fonda manage to violate her allegiance?

So it's better to kill innocents and make them enemies and thus increase the chance that someone will try to bomb us?


The difference between "us" and "them":


We target their military

They target our civilians

Whatever the true story is about Kerry in Vietnam, the fact is that he actually WENT there and was in a combat zone. W, on the other hand, hell even he can't verify where he was most of the time he was supposedly "serving" in the Texas Air Guard.

Well during that time, Bush was too busy getting high and drunk, so I'm not surprised.

But I agree, Kerry could of taken the easy way out, like 99% of the current administration. But he didn't. He served, and he didn't have to.

Mean while for some reason all the vets (not all but a lot) seemed to respect Bush more than Kerry, while Kerry was in "Nam and Bush was protecting the skies of Texas from the North Vietnamese. (when and if he showed up)

I'm not sure exactly what the hell people were thinking. But it sure didn't make a whole lot of sense to me at the time.

Anyway, getting back to Jane Fonda, I read her book and, although she regretted being seen as a tool of the North Vietnamese, her anti-war views were and still are sincere, and as an American she certainly has the right to express them publically, as do we all! If not, then what in the hell are we "defending America" for???

How did Mrs Fonda manage to violate her allegiance?


"....or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. "

haha, that's the field i'm thinking about going into. haven't 100% yet decided on whether or not i should join tho.Meh, we have US army medics in the summer camp in Germany I used to work at. They'd get rotated through, so I've met a few. They were ALL wacko in some way... the two worst ones used syringes to squirt their blood on walls when they were drunk (shudder)

So were they really about spreading truth, or slandering Kerry?

I just find it odd that it took decades to come out, long after the congressional hearing containing Kerry's testimonial.

So, I guess my next question would be.........

How was Kerry lying? Are you insisting that there wasn't a single US soldier that commited some kind of atrocity in Vietnam?

Have you checked into the history of when Kerry ran for senator? as i said, mebbe some vets did it then too, but since it wasn't national, it may have only made local news (may research later). But i don't think it's odd because Kerry came into the national spotlight... if you find that so odd, do you not also find it odd that Bush's service didn't come into question until the same election? How come it didn't come into question the first one? They (the candidates for presidency) decided what platforms they were running their campaigns on, and since it was about war, they talked about how each served their time in the military. I think that's why it came up when it did.

As far as the atrocities in Vietnam, I never insisted or attempted to insist that US soldiers didn't commit crimes. But i believe it's history and we have (or should have) learned from it.

"....or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. "
The US was at peace with North Vietnam. No declaration of war, thus no enemy.

I'm not sure exactly what the hell people were thinking. But it sure didn't make a whole lot of sense to me at the time.

It STILL doesn't make any sense to me.

By the way, last summer I met a very nice lady in Kennebuckport, Maine, who grew up with the Bushes. She described W as an obnoxious, arrogant drunk. But maybe she was just slandering him, as Bush did Kerry. ;)

The US was at peace with North Vietnam. No declaration of war, thus no enemy.



Yes, and I suppose all those North Vietnamese soldiers and Viet Cong just snuck through the jungles to attend a lovely little tea party with us :rolleyes:

Anyway, getting back to Jane Fonda, I read her book and, although she regretted being seen as a tool of the North Vietnamese, her anti-war views were and still are sincere, and as an American she certainly has the right to express them publically, as do we all! If not, then what in the hell are we "defending America" for???

She sure she has the right to express her opinion publicly, but why did she need to go to N. Vietnam to do it?

The difference between "us" and "them":


We target their military

They target our civiliansTheir "military"? Puleeze. I mean this isn't the fault of the US soldiers, but there isn't much of a visible difference between "their military" and civilians.

Meh, we have US army medics in the summer camp in Germany I used to work at. They'd get rotated through, so I've met a few. They were ALL wacko in some way... the two worst ones used syringes to squirt their blood on walls when they were drunk (shudder)

ROFLMAO

as funny as i find that, i don't think i would ever do that if i became one :P

Eutrusca,


I don't give a damn what your motives were to go to Vietnam -- if you volunteered, you have no reason to complain about the treatment you got afterwards.

If you did not volunteer, you are in the same situation as the soldiers who were forced to fight for Hitler.

You know, nobody has sympathy with the Nazi soldiers, why do you request it for yourself????

Now go and throw a tantrum.

"....or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. "

Wasn't she an observer when she went there? I thought she was. I don't recall her giving money or "support" to the "enemy" She was there to observe and that is what she did. Lets not forget what that war was, a cluster-fuck by both Republican & Democrat administrations.

I have mentioned this before and I will mention it again for those who might not know or for those of you who have forgot. Look up "The Pentagon Papers" that is all you will ever need to know about the war in Vietnam.

Their "military"? Puleeze. I mean this isn't the fault of the US soldiers, but there isn't much of a visible difference between "their military" and civilians.


At the beginning of the war, their military was quite easy to recognize. They were the ones sitting in all the tanks guarding Baghdad :D

Yes, and I suppose all those North Vietnamese soldiers and Viet Cong just snuck through the jungles to attend a lovely little tea party with us :rolleyes:

Well the US was never in a state of war with Iraq either.

War was never declared by Congress.

Yes, and I suppose all those North Vietnamese soldiers and Viet Cong just snuck through the jungles to attend a lovely little tea party with us :rolleyes:
Legally it could full well be so. I'm not joking.

BTW, that was the reason why Rosenbergs weren't prosecuted as traitors--the US was at peace with the USSR, even though the American and Soviet fighter pilots fought each other above Korea.

Then you think Kerry was lying?
Yes, with a certainty just shy of 100%

Yes, and I suppose all those North Vietnamese soldiers and Viet Cong just snuck through the jungles to attend a lovely little tea party with us :rolleyes:

Actually, it was the U.S. who "snuck through the jungles." The Vietnamese were already there we the U.S. army arrived. We were invading THEIR turf, not vice-versa. Not surprisingly, they fought back.

Wasn't she an observer when she went there? I thought she was. I don't recall her giving money or "support" to the "enemy" She was there to observe and that is what she did. Lets not forget what that war was, a cluster-fuck by both Republican & Democrat administrations.

I have mentioned this before and I will mention it again for those who might not know or for those of you who have forgot. Look up "The Pentagon Papers" that is all you will ever need to know about the war in Vietnam.



An "observer" doesn't get her photograph taken with enemy soldiers with a smile on her face....

Their "military"? Puleeze. I mean this isn't the fault of the US soldiers, but there isn't much of a visible difference between "their military" and civilians.

That's definitely not the fault of the US military. If you want to lay the blame on someone for their "military" not looking like normal military, blame the persons who are fighting to destabilize the region.

Actually, it was the U.S. who "snuck through the jungles." The Vietnamese were already there we the U.S. army arrived. We were invading THEIR turf, not vice-versa. Not surprisingly, they fought back.



Guess again, we were defending South Vietnam from the agressors, who were, suprise suprise, North Vietnam.

So then does that also mean that all those Texas Air National Guard were lying too about never seeing Bush? So was it also true that all the bread crumbs led back to Bush lying about his service in the guard? You can't have it both ways my dear!
[ refers you to Dan Rather ] :D

She sure she has the right to express her opinion publicly, but why did she need to go to N. Vietnam to do it?

She didn't have to go and nowadays largely regrets having done so. Even so, she STILL had the right!

She sure she has the right to express her opinion publicly, but why did she need to go to N. Vietnam to do it?
An interesting point, really... was there a US law, prohibiting travel to North Vietnam, in place in 1972? I don't know...

[ refers you to Dan Rather ] :D

He used bad documents, but it was still the truth, that has never been disputed. Weak Forrest, really weak..lol ;)

Guess again, we were defending South Vietnam from the agressors, who were, suprise suprise, North Vietnam.

Yes, and that corrupt regime was soooooo worth defending! :rolleyes:

Yes, yes they do. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason)

That dictionary.com link said nothing my link didn't (it actually referenced my link!). It's apparent you didn't even read what I linked to.

In any case, nothing there makes your statement about "indirect murder" any less a piece of illogical poppycock.

Oh, and before you start spouting off with feeble references to the US constitution, there is such thing as case law. The Cat-Tribe sums it up very well here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8725781&postcount=200)

So, no treason by Jane Fonda, and your comment still remains poppycock.

At the beginning of the war, their military was quite easy to recognize. They were the ones sitting in all the tanks guarding Baghdad :DNow that the military is beaten and the mission is accomplished, can our GIs come home?
I don't think they should. The job isn't done.

haha, that's the field i'm thinking about going into. haven't 100% yet decided on whether or not i should join tho.
Kewl! Very demading occupation, when done right. I was an Army medic for a mercifully brief period. Heh!

That dictionary.com link said nothing my link didn't (your actually referenced my link). It's apparent you didn't even read what I linked to.

In any case, nothing there makes your statement about "indirect murder" any less a piece of illogical poppycock.

Oh, and before you start spouting off with feeble references to the US constitution, there is such thing as case law. The Cat-Tribe sums it up very well here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8725781&postcount=200)

So, no treason by Jane Fonda, and your comment still remains poppycock.



I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume that you willingly overlooked the difference. Yours refers to harming or overthrowing the state/sovereign leader. Mine refers to aiding the enemy which is much more specific.

Have you checked into the history of when Kerry ran for senator? as i said, mebbe some vets did it then too, but since it wasn't national, it may have only made local news (may research later). But i don't think it's odd because Kerry came into the national spotlight... if you find that so odd, do you not also find it odd that Bush's service didn't come into question until the same election? How come it didn't come into question the first one? They (the candidates for presidency) decided what platforms they were running their campaigns on, and since it was about war, they talked about how each served their time in the military. I think that's why it came up when it did.

As far as the atrocities in Vietnam, I never insisted or attempted to insist that US soldiers didn't commit crimes. But i believe it's history and we have (or should have) learned from it.

As far as Kerry's campaigns for Senate, I'm unaware of any slandering of his military record, and I'm from Massachusetts.

As far as W's service, I remember scant mention of it during his first campaign(not that it was a serious issue in the campaign), that came along with all of the other "youthful indescretions" he committed. The reason thier service came into play in '04 was because Kerry was trying to give the impression that he's not one who will be handling the military with no idea of what it's like to be on the front lines(ie a chickenhawk), and W, knowing that his service wasn't comparable to Kerry's(even if we say he didn't go AWOL), initiated a campaign to demean his opponents honorable act.

The reason why I wonder about your opinion regarding atrocities is this: It comes down to 2 groups, Kerry and the SBVets. Kerry says there were atrocities, they say he's lying. Someone is lying here, and I see a much larger ulterior motive for the SBVets. If there were atrocities committed in Nam(which is the case, there are atrocities committed in every war), then I can't see any other conclusion than they were being facetious to help out the "gung-ho American" already in office.

Well the US was never in a state of war with Iraq either.

War was never declared by Congress.
It's a bit more complicated--the Congress authorized the use of military force to oust Saddam... and no one authorized anybody to remove Uncle Ho. The US was openly negotiating with North Vietnam since 1968, and you don't do it with an enemy--imagine erm... Kathmandu negotiations with Hitler and Tojo representatives between, say, 1942 and 1945! Our world is a strange place... :)

The difference between "us" and "them":


We target their military

They target our civilians

Lets compare. How many civilians died as a result of american military action in Iraq?

How many civilians died as a result of Iraqi actions in America?

Screw Jihad Jane!

I Hope Her Veggie Oil Bio Diesel Fueled Bus Swings By Dallas!!!!

Well the US was never in a state of war with Iraq either.

War was never declared by Congress.

Doesn't matter. What your congress says is quite irrelevant outside of your own boarders. Yes, there was a declaration of war.

According to the Hague conventions of war (which the US is most certainly a signatory member) you declare war in 3 different ways.

1) Out right act of war against a sovereign nation (check)

2) An actual declaration of war (nope)

3) Giving a sovereign nation an ultimatum to follow or be attacked (check)

2 out of 3.. the US most definitely declared war on Iraq.

That's definitely not the fault of the US military. If you want to lay the blame on someone for their "military" not looking like normal military, blame the persons who are fighting to destabilize the region.You know, that's what I said in my post. I was mainly attacking the fact that there seem to be an intense amount of dead Iraqi civilians due to American operations (you don't need to remind me that more die in suicide attacks, that's not the point) than American civilians due to bomb attacks lately.

How many kids did you kill in the war Eutrusca?

Anyway, getting back to Jane Fonda, I read her book and, although she regretted being seen as a tool of the North Vietnamese, her anti-war views were and still are sincere, and as an American she certainly has the right to express them publically, as do we all! If not, then what in the hell are we "defending America" for???


HEAR, HEAR!

I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume that you willingly overlooked the difference. Yours refers to harming or overthrowing the state/sovereign leader. Mine refers to aiding the enemy which is much more specific.No its not. It just defines it differently.

Yes, and that corrupt regime was soooooo worth defending! :rolleyes:


Oh, and I suppose that, because the government was corrupt, we should allow the people to suffer even more than they already were by being overtaken by a false communist regime? Get a heart.

How many kids did you kill in the war Eutrusca?


That was sarcasm, right? I have a hard time telling what is and what isn't on these forums.

Kewl! Very demading occupation, when done right. I was an Army medic for a mercifully brief period. Heh!

nodnod. right now i work in the computer end of healthcare, monitoring and helping fix the network of a hospital. And i didn't realize the need for medical professionals and how much money they can make until i started working there. So i was kinda hoping in getting a free education for military service :P

And i also understand the dangers of joining the military (for those who may think i don't)

did you know a nurse can make upwards of 100k a year?

I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume that you willingly overlooked the difference. Yours refers to harming or overthrowing the state/sovereign leader.

Still, nothing to support your statement of indirect murder. Do you know what poppycock is?

Mine refers to aiding the enemy which is much more specific.


The Cat-Tribe sums it up very well here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8725781&postcount=200) Please, start reading and educate yourself. Your feeble references to the constitution are worthless in light of case law. What is and is not treason has very cleary been defined, and Jane Fonda's actions do not fall under that heading.

*sits and waits for you to reply without reading, yet again*

Meh, we have US army medics in the summer camp in Germany I used to work at. They'd get rotated through, so I've met a few. They were ALL wacko in some way... the two worst ones used syringes to squirt their blood on walls when they were drunk (shudder)
Just like in Russia... The people of medical profession have so much in common! :)

How many kids did you kill in the war Eutrusca?
You shouldn't be asking something like that, seriously.

Meh, we have US army medics in the summer camp in Germany I used to work at. They'd get rotated through, so I've met a few. They were ALL wacko in some way... the two worst ones used syringes to squirt their blood on walls when they were drunk (shudder)
ROFL!!! We use to go on maneuvers in 90-100 degree weather. When it got too much to tolerate, we would ice down the normal saline solution IV bags and give ourselves infusions of cold! :D

You know, that's what I said in my post. I was mainly attacking the fact that there seem to be an intense amount of dead Iraqi civilians due to American operations (you don't need to remind me that more die in suicide attacks, that's not the point) than American civilians due to bomb attacks lately.



And, if not for preemption, far more American civilians would be dead.

How many kids did you kill in the war Eutrusca?
Kradlumania, don't you think you're out of line with that?

Just like in Russia... The people of medical profession have so much in common! :)




*scared*....must oppose draft for females....if that fails....must never get injured..... :eek:

And, if not for preemption, far more American civilians would be dead.I seriously doubt that. There isn't much Saddam could have done to breach whatever defenses we have up around the states.

Oh, and I suppose that, because the government was corrupt, we should allow the people to suffer even more than they already were by being overtaken by a false communist regime? Get a heart.

OMG, do people still believe this? It was a pissing contest between the USA & Russia (USSR) in fact all the war was in Vietnam was a civil war. The US, France, USSR, China had no business being there. It was ONLY a civil war. Or at least that's all it was until.....

An "observer" doesn't get her photograph taken with enemy soldiers with a smile on her face....


Oh yeah, getting her picture taken

Boy, that's supporting the enemy, for sure!

ROFL!!! We use to go on maneuvers in 90-100 degree weather. When it got too much to tolerate, we would ice down the normal saline solution IV bags and give ourselves infusions of cold! :D
I spose that's another insane medic I can add to my list :D

this thread has really evolved...
just curious...does anyone think that anything good has come from the US going into Iraq?

And, if not for preemption, far more American civilians would be dead.

More than the current amount of casualties/injured in Iraq?

1781 dead

13438 injured

Those are some high numbers. Not to mention the fact that there are now more middle-easteners willing to become 'terrorists', and we now have more of our troops there than on 9/11, which is the cause of the first part of this sentence.

Still, nothing to support your statement of indirect murder. Do you know what poppycock is?




The Cat-Tribe sums it up very well here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8725781&postcount=200) Please, start reading and educate yourself. Your feeble references to the constitution are worthless in light of case law. What is and is not treason has very cleary been defined, and Jane Fonda's actions do not fall under that heading.

*sits and waits for you to reply without reading, yet again*



I try to take Cat-Tribe's citations with a grain of salt. After all, as the only known lawyer on these forums, he does wield quite a degree of power that the rest of us don't have. We really need a lawyer with opposing viewpoints to debate him....

As far as Kerry's campaigns for Senate, I'm unaware of any slandering of his military record, and I'm from Massachusetts.
i read a bit on wikipedia, and it didn't mention any slandering of his military record during his campaigns in Mass.

The reason why I wonder about your opinion regarding atrocities is this: It comes down to 2 groups, Kerry and the SBVets. Kerry says there were atrocities, they say he's lying. Someone is lying here, and I see a much larger ulterior motive for the SBVets. If there were atrocities committed in Nam(which is the case, there are atrocities committed in every war), then I can't see any other conclusion than they were being facetious to help out the "gung-ho American" already in office.

It's all perspective i guess. I didn't know the the SBvets were saying that NO atrocities took place (I agree that atrocities happen in all wars). You see the ulterior motive in the SBvets, but some would say that Kerry's was larger, i mean, he was attempting to become President of the USA. who had the larger goal? SBV or Kerry? I think Kerry did. But again, that's perspective.
what's wrong w/ being gung-ho american? Is that not another term for pro-american?

I seriously doubt that. There isn't much Saddam could have done to breach whatever defenses we have up around the states.



We have no missile defenses as of yet, excluding patriots which can't really do much of anything against an ICBM.

this thread has really evolved...
just curious...does anyone think that anything good has come from the US going into Iraq?Lots of money from the budget went to American companies to rebuild what got destroyed. I find it immoral, but that's not necessarily "bad".

We have no missile defenses as of yet, excluding patriots which can't really do much of anything against an ICBM.

Of which Iraq had none. Zero. Nought. 0. One big fat pile of nothing.

this thread has really evolved...
just curious...does anyone think that anything good has come from the US going into Iraq?
Saddam's out, that's kinda good, but unless a stable democratic and at least somewhat secular government can be built in Iraq then I'm pretty sure that the harm done by the invasion will outweigh the good of eliminating Saddam.

More than the current amount of casualties/injured in Iraq?

1781 dead

13438 injured

Those are some high numbers. Not to mention the fact that there are now more middle-easteners willing to become 'terrorists', and we now have more of our troops there than on 9/11, which is the cause of the first part of this sentence.



Yes, more. We would eventually have to engage in battle with our adversaries, wouldn't it be more logical to do so before they can acquire more power and thus inflict more casualities on us?

Kradlumania, don't you think you're out of line with that?

No. Eutrusca is constantly bleating on about how the current Iraq war is just, how the Vietnam war was just. Half the world disagrees with him. Half the world remembers that it wasn't just soldiers who died in these wars, but civilians and civilian children. Children are still dying in Vietnam today as a result of the Vietnam war. It's a fair question.

We have no missile defenses as of yet, excluding patriots which can't really do much of anything against an ICBM.And exactly how many ICBMs did Saddam have targeting American metropolises? How many did he own that could have reached the US? Care to take a guess?

Of which Iraq had none. Zero. Nought. 0. One big fat pile of nothing.


The war was based upon intelligence suggesting they were trying to get the capabilities to manufacture said weapons.

Yes, more. We would eventually have to engage in battle with our adversaries, wouldn't it be more logical to do so before they can acquire more power and thus inflict more casualities on us?
Neo, Saddam had no ability to attack the US. Even if he did, he wouldn't have used it.

Saddam wasn't an idealogue like Osamma. He was a gangster. A gangster doesn't shoot at the police station because dealing with the swat team is bad for business.

OMG, do people still believe this? It was a pissing contest between the USA & Russia (USSR) in fact all the war was in Vietnam was a civil war. The US, France, USSR, China had no business being there. It was ONLY a civil war. Or at least that's all it was until.....
Unfortunately, I have to admit that there's an element of truth to that. Sigh. :(

No. Eutrusca is constantly bleating on about how the current Iraq war is just, how the Vietnam war was just. Half the world disagrees with him. Half the world remembers that it wasn't just soldiers who died in these wars, but civilians and civilian children. Children are still dying in Vietnam today as a result of the Vietnam war. It's a fair question.
No its not. It's damn insulting for any member of the service to be asked whether they've killed someone. Take a guess at how bad asking them how many children they killed would be.

An interesting point, really... was there a US law, prohibiting travel to North Vietnam, in place in 1972? I don't know...

Neither do i, but apparently not, otherwise she wouldn't have gone. (but then, we did say flying to cuba was illegal/still is?, but it's not like it's hard to get around that)

Yes, more. We would eventually have to engage in battle with our adversaries, wouldn't it be more logical to do so before they can acquire more power and thus inflict more casualities on us?
Wouldn’t it be more logical to use the amount of troops in Iraq here, to protect our own soil?

The war was based upon intelligence suggesting they were trying to get the capabilities to manufacture said weapons.
No it wasn't. You need to read the British memos that stated that this wasn't the case and that they asked the Americans how they were going to convince the world that it was.

Neo, Saddam had no ability to attack the US. Even if he did, he wouldn't have used it.

Saddam wasn't an idealogue like Osamma. He was a gangster. A gangster doesn't shoot at the police station because dealing with the swat team is bad for business.



He would have been like North Korea, which is making demands and bullying us with his nukes. Eventually, we would have to draw a line and that is when an attack becomes probable.

Am I sensing that someone thinks it would be better for the US to withdraw it troops??!?

There actually are quite a few Iraq "War" Vets (last I heard, we didn't declare war) who are against the war. They actually experienced the war, and realized when seeing some of their anti-Muslim, anti-Arab comrades indiscriminately kill random people that this war is stupid and has no purpose.

No. Eutrusca is constantly bleating on about how the current Iraq war is just, how the Vietnam war was just. Half the world disagrees with him. Half the world remembers that it wasn't just soldiers who died in these wars, but civilians and civilian children. Children are still dying in Vietnam today as a result of the Vietnam war. It's a fair question.

So because you disagree with his interpretation of historical events and current events you feel justified in calling him a babykiller? Ok, I see. I don't agree with your judgement on his character, so maybe I'll call you a bigot.

How many minorities did you lynch today, Kradlumania?

See how stupid it sounds?

No it wasn't. You need to read the British memos that stated that this wasn't the case and that they asked the Americans how they were going to convince the world that it was.


Were those memos part of the many supposed "proof of lies" that were discredited? It's hard to discern, what with the mountain of fallacious "evidence" put forth by the conspiracy theorists.

He would have been like North Korea, which is making demands and bullying us with his nukes. Eventually, we would have to draw a line and that is when an attack becomes probable.North Korea can just barely reach the west coast. How close do you think Iraq is compared to that? Do you think Bush really would have given a damn if Saddam threatened to hit a European city to get him to do something? Saddam wasn't anywhere near the stage North Korea was at anyway.

i read a bit on wikipedia, and it didn't mention any slandering of his military record during his campaigns in Mass.



It's all perspective i guess. I didn't know the the SBvets were saying that NO atrocities took place (I agree that atrocities happen in all wars). You see the ulterior motive in the SBvets, but some would say that Kerry's was larger, i mean, he was attempting to become President of the USA. who had the larger goal? SBV or Kerry? I think Kerry did. But again, that's perspective.
what's wrong w/ being gung-ho american? Is that not another term for pro-american?

Well what exactly did they say? They were calling him a liar, based on what he said when he testified to congress after returning from Nam. That's always been my understanding.

As far as agenda's and/or ulterior motives, Kerry's testimonial was in the 70's!
And now they come waltzing out decades later, when it just so happens that an incumbent president who is pro-war and 'pro-American' is campaigning against the anti-war and 'anti-American'.

How many times have I read, in the past year or two, of pro-war nam vets hollering about how internal dissent was the cause of Nam going bad? Those same people are already saying that it's going to bring down the efforts in Iraq, giving them a nice scapegoat to avoid taking responsibility for their 'gung-ho' attitude that threw us into a war that can't really be won.

Were those memos part of the many supposed "proof of lies" that were discredited? It's hard to discern, what with the mountain of fallacious "evidence" put forth by the conspiracy theorists.
I mean the six memos from the British government that got leaked. And besides, just because Faux news says so, doesn't mean that something is true.

Wouldn’t it be more logical to use the amount of troops in Iraq here, to protect our own soil?


Why take that risk when one can prevent the problem from becoming a major issue in the first place?

Were those memos part of the many supposed "proof of lies" that were discredited? It's hard to discern, what with the mountain of fallacious "evidence" put forth by the conspiracy theorists.

Well since it was an official memo from within the British Government I think the term 'well-informed' applies.

It's as good evidence as was put forwards by the conspiracy theorists who say Saddam was building eapons to strike the US.

Why take that risk when one can prevent the problem from becoming a major issue in the first place?You mean Iraq was more of a problem before? Try to run that by me again. :rolleyes:

I mean the six memos from the British government that got leaked. And besides, just because Faux news says so, doesn't mean that something is true.


I would take the opinion of a respectable news agency above that of admitted anti-war activists looking for evidence to impeach Bush.

No. Eutrusca is constantly bleating on about how the current Iraq war is just, how the Vietnam war was just. Half the world disagrees with him. Half the world remembers that it wasn't just soldiers who died in these wars, but civilians and civilian children. Children are still dying in Vietnam today as a result of the Vietnam war. It's a fair question.

How are children still dying today because of the Vietnam war?

and as far as you asking the question, this image is for you:

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1586/troll8yd.jpg

How many times have I read, in the past year or two, of pro-war nam vets hollering about how internal dissent was the cause of Nam going bad? Those same people are already saying that it's going to bring down the efforts in Iraq, giving them a nice scapegoat to avoid taking responsibility for their 'gung-ho' attitude that threw us into a war that can't really be won.
Even the North Vietnamese will agree that they won the war in the media and through the anit-war protestors.

Why take that risk when one can prevent the problem from becoming a major issue in the first place?

So why shouldn't every country just try to take over the earth to prevent any major issues from happening then?

He would have been like North Korea, which is making demands and bullying us with his nukes. Eventually, we would have to draw a line and that is when an attack becomes probable.
He had WMD at one point. He never threatened to use them on the USA. He used them to maintain control over his territory. Saddam would have been more likely to make deals with the USA for greater power and wealth than to try to attack the USA.

Oh, and much of "our best intelligence" was fabricated by the white house. Look at the current Valerie Plame controversy. The white house lied about Saddam trying to buy uranium ore in Niger. When the US ambasador to Niger tried to set the record straight, Karl Rove revealed his wife's (a CIA operative) name for revenge.

I would take the opinion of a respectable news agency above that of admitted anti-war activists looking for evidence to impeach Bush.
There's a respectable news agency?

North Korea can just barely reach the west coast. How close do you think Iraq is compared to that? Do you think Bush really would have given a damn if Saddam threatened to hit a European city to get him to do something? Saddam wasn't anywhere near the stage North Korea was at anyway.



And North Korea is working to upgrade their missiles as we speak. If this continues, they could hit anywhere in the US. I'm moving to the countryside so I can be less of a target.

I would also like to know how many innocents and children Eutrusca killed while he was in Nam.

I think it IS a relevant question, enabling us to speculate why he hates Jane Fonda so much. Does her existence remind him of the horrible things he did in Nam? Does her stance challenge his justification for what he did?


Is his nice little explanation for why he killed people who had done nothing to america, and held no threat towards america so thin and so fragile that some silly movie star getting her picture taken would shake that up?


Why else would someone hold such a grudge against someone else for something she did 40 years ago, and who has stated regret for her actions? It's not like Jane Fonda was the only one to ever spit on a soldier. It's not like she was selling arms to the enemy, (oh yeah, who sold arms to Iraq in the first place?), or killing americans alongside them.

I bet ol' Eu even loses sleep over the Dixie Chicks. YOu know, since they are such big policy makers, like Jane was.

I repeat: GET OVER IT. if you are still harping on Jane Fonda's actions of 40 years ago, you need psychiatric help.

I would take the opinion of a respectable news agency above that of admitted anti-war activists looking for evidence to impeach Bush.Good, cause Faux isn't a respectable news agency. Period. It is very difficult to get a good news agency that relies on commercials for subsistence. To be honest, I don't watch just one news channel, I watch three, even if they tell me things I don't want to hear.

Yes, more. We would eventually have to engage in battle with our adversaries, wouldn't it be more logical to do so before they can acquire more power and thus inflict more casualities on us?

WOWZA! OK, a couple of questions:

1) How do you know there would be more? How could you possibly conclude something that hasn't happened, would've happened? Or is it just what you think(makes it easier to fall asleep)?

2) It would be monumentously more logical to fight them on thier turf. So why are we in Iraq?

Please give me answers that have been pre-approved by someone other than just yourself.

And North Korea is working to upgrade their missiles as we speak. If this continues, they could hit anywhere in the US. I'm moving to the countryside so I can be less of a target.Now, why is North Korea upgrading its missiles? I'll tell you why: Someone in the administration thought it more important to go after the "folks that wanted to kill my daddy" than the person that would soon be able to threaten the West Coast. North Korea was a threat. Iraq wasn't.

No its not. It's damn insulting for any member of the service to be asked whether they've killed someone. Take a guess at how bad asking them how many children they killed would be.

He's proud of his service. Kids died in a war that was no business of the US. Kids are dying in another war that is no business of the US. Why should I care if I insult Eutrusca? He's insulting Jane Fonda, someone who is trying to stop an unjust war, someone who tried to stop a previous unjust war.

If the US had invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, my opinions might be different.

I would also like to know how many innocents and children Eutrusca killed while he was in Nam.

I think it IS a relevant question, enabling us to speculate why he hates Jane Fonda so much. Does her existence remind him of the horrible things he did in Nam? Does her stance challenge his justification for what he did?


Is his nice little explanation for why he killed people who had done nothing to america, and held no threat towards america so thin and so fragile that some silly movie star getting her picture taken would shake that up?


Why else would someone hold such a grudge against someone else for something she did 40 years ago, and who has stated regret for her actions? It's not like Jane Fonda was the only one to ever spit on a soldier. It's not like she was selling arms to the enemy, (oh yeah, who sold arms to Iraq in the first place?), or killing americans alongside them.

I bet ol' Eu even loses sleep over the Dixie Chicks. YOu know, since they are such big policy makers, like Jane was.

I repeat: GET OVER IT. if you are still harping on Jane Fonda's actions of 40 years ago, you need psychiatric help.

When I heard about Jane Fonda up in arms again, traveling the country in her silly veggie bus, all I could think of were the social security numbers those POW's handed her...all for her to turn around and hand to her hosts. Am I mistaking? Did that not happen?

He had WMD at one point. He never threatened to use them on the USA. He used them to maintain control over his territory. Saddam would have been more likely to make deals with the USA for greater power and wealth than to try to attack the USA.

Oh, and much of "our best intelligence" was fabricated by the white house. Look at the current Valerie Plame controversy. The white house lied about Saddam trying to buy uranium ore in Niger. When the US ambasador to Niger tried to set the record straight, Karl Rove revealed his wife's (a CIA operative) name for revenge.


The yellow cake thing was actually proven to be true, if memory serves.

He's proud of his service. Kids died in a war that was no business of the US. Kids are dying in another war that is no business of the US. Why should I care if I insult Eutrusca? He's insulting Jane Fonda, someone who is trying to stop an unjust war, someone who tried to stop a previous unjust war.

If the US had invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, my opinions might be different.Just because he's proud of his service doesn't mean he's a baby-killer. You seriously should never ask someone something like that.

Why would a US invasion of Saudi Arabia be better than the invasion of Iraq?

Well what exactly did they say? They were calling him a liar, based on what he said when he testified to congress after returning from Nam. That's always been my understanding.
That could have been the case, unfortunately i didn't pay to much attention the SBVs to listen to what they were saying :P So you're most likely right in what they were saying.

As far as agenda's and/or ulterior motives, Kerry's testimonial was in the 70's! And now they come waltzing out decades later, when it just so happens that an incumbent president who is pro-war and 'pro-American' is campaigning against the anti-war and 'anti-American'.
again it's about perspective. I still think that Kerry had more to lose than these vets did.

How many times have I read, in the past year or two, of pro-war nam vets hollering about how internal dissent was the cause of Nam going bad? Those same people are already saying that it's going to bring down the efforts in Iraq, giving them a nice scapegoat to avoid taking responsibility for their 'gung-ho' attitude that threw us into a war that can't really be won.
I dunno, but you don't think that internal dissent caused some of the problems in Vietnam? If the politicians would have let the generals run the war, you think that the outcome would have been the same?
The war on terror is the war that can't be won. Terrorists can only be curtailed.. What's going on in Iraq can be turned around. When Iraq has a stable gov't and asks the US to leave and we do, that's when we've won there. So i think it is winnable.

The yellow cake thing was actually proven to be true, if memory serves.Memory must be a traitor then because it aided the enemy.

So because you disagree with his interpretation of historical events and current events you feel justified in calling him a babykiller? Ok, I see. I don't agree with your judgement on his character, so maybe I'll call you a bigot.

How many minorities did you lynch today, Kradlumania?

See how stupid it sounds?
Don't worry about it. I've become use to it. One of the very first things anyone said to me when I came home the first time was to call me a "babykiller."

Don't worry about it. I've become use to it. One of the very first things anyone said to me when I came home the first time was to call me a "babykiller."It gives liberals like us a bad name though. We'd be wrong not to attack him for it.

He's proud of his service. Kids died in a war that was no business of the US. Kids are dying in another war that is no business of the US. Why should I care if I insult Eutrusca? He's insulting Jane Fonda, someone who is trying to stop an unjust war, someone who tried to stop a previous unjust war.

If the US had invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, my opinions might be different.



You were actually serious? Ok, I'm reporting you to moderation for your baby-killers comment.

I would also like to know how many innocents and children Eutrusca killed while he was in Nam.

Once a child picks up a weapon, they are no longer a child.

We get called babykillers when we support abortion rights, what's the difference?

The yellow cake thing was actually proven to be true, if memory serves.
Memory must not serve. It was definately proven false. Revealing the lie got Valarie Plame's name leaked.

The yellow cake thing was actually proven to be true, if memory serves.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

where in the world do you get your news? Rush Limbaugh?

hahahahhahahaha

Once a child picks up a weapon, they are no longer a child.
I disagree. They're an extremely dangerous child, but a child none-theless... Still doesn't excuse Kradlumania's remarks though.

The yellow cake thing was actually proven to be true, if memory serves.

No, it wasn't. It was known to be false before Bush used it as an excuse to war. That's why he's called a liar.

We get called babykillers when we support abortion rights, what's the difference?It's just as immoral. The difference would be us doing it.

Once a child picks up a weapon, they are no longer a child.
Sounds like a recruiting slogan for the Lords Resistance Army.

When I heard about Jane Fonda up in arms again, traveling the country in her silly veggie bus, all I could think of were the social security numbers those POW's handed her...all for her to turn around and hand to her hosts. Am I mistaking? Did that not happen?

No, this didn't happen. If you like, i can provide you a snopes.com link (just too lazy to look it up right now)

Once a child picks up a weapon, they are no longer a child.

then let me re-phrase.

i would like to know how many unarmed people he killed.

it is relevant to his state of mind.

You were actually serious? Ok, I'm reporting you to moderation for your baby-killers comment.

Run to teacher. I haven't called him a baby killer. Quote me if I did.