NationStates Jolt Archive

then let me re-phrase.

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

it is relevant to his state of mind.It's really rude to ask something like that, though. If he wants to tell us, he can. We shouldn't ask.

Run to teacher. I haven't called him a baby killer. Quote me if I did.What you've said was really insulting and asking how many children he killed implies that he has done so. I've considered reporting you too, to be honest.

I disagree. They're an extremely dangerous child, but a child none-theless... Still doesn't excuse Kradlumania's remarks though.
If a kid under the age of 14 picks up a weapon, and starts firing at me, i'm not gonna have any qualms about shooting back.


Sounds like a recruiting slogan for the Lords Resistance Army.
the wha? :P

The news has reported that the Taliban in Afghanistan have been "drafting" (for a lack of a better word) young kids to be a part of their army.

Would you consider these children innocent deaths, Kradlumania?

What you've said was really insulting and asking how many children he killed implies that he has done so. I've considered reporting you too, to be honest.

Does it? Only if he says he did.

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


The difference is, one is a lie and an inflammatory statement, the other is very true.

It's really rude to ask something like that, though. If he wants to tell us, he can. We shouldn't ask.

ooh, dont want to be rude in a thread blasting a woman for what she did 40 years ago.

no, no, can't be RUDE.

golly gee.

lets face it, when you are called upon to defend the reasoning behind your attacks on someone, you have to expect that people will want to question your motives.

If he didnt want to be taken to task, he shouldnt have opened the thread.

If a kid under the age of 14 picks up a weapon, and starts firing at me, i'm not gonna have any qualms about shooting back.



the wha? :P

The news has reported that the Taliban in Afghanistan have been "drafting" (for a lack of a better word) young kids to be a part of their army.

Would you consider these children innocent deaths, Kradlumania?

I said civilian children. Like the ones that are still being killed today in Vietnam by ordnance left over from that war. Like those born with con-genital deformities today due to chemicals used in that war.

The difference is, one is a lie and an inflammatory statement, the other is very true.
Both are lies and inflamatory statements.

Calling people "babykillers" is no way to behave in a civilized discussion.

Calling people "traitors" is just as bad and undignified.

You should all realize that there are such things as libel suits and defamation of character. Some people in this thread could be in for a very hefty sum of money if some offended party decided to take legal actions.

The internet, especially a public forum, is not a carte blanche for personnal attacks on persons. There are such things as laws. I'm not sure about the legal repercussions of some comments made here, especially since I'm not living in England, but I know for a fact that some people are commiting some serious offenses acording to the law of where I live.

Think about it before you post.

If a kid under the age of 14 picks up a weapon, and starts firing at me, i'm not gonna have any qualms about shooting back.



the wha? :P

The news has reported that the Taliban in Afghanistan have been "drafting" (for a lack of a better word) young kids to be a part of their army.

Would you consider these children innocent deaths, Kradlumania?



I heard on the news they lost approximately 550 fighters or so in the past several months, so they're conscripting 1-2 males out of every family they come across.

If a kid under the age of 14 picks up a weapon, and starts firing at me, i'm not gonna have any qualms about shooting back.

the wha? :P

The news has reported that the Taliban in Afghanistan have been "drafting" (for a lack of a better word) young kids to be a part of their army.

Would you consider these children innocent deaths, Kradlumania?
You know, child soldiers have been around a lot longer than Afghanistan and a certain nation is blocking efforts to eradicate it.
I don't believe you'd have qualms, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a child. In a way, its your own choice whether you want to die or kill a child. It's a tough choice and I'd certainly regret shooting a kid to save myself. In way, yes, they are innocent deaths. You have no clue what kind of "drafting" goes on do you?

If a kid under the age of 14 picks up a weapon, and starts firing at me, i'm not gonna have any qualms about shooting back.



the wha? :P


Lord's Resistance Army is a Cult/Rebel group/Terrorist organization in Africa that is known for kidnapping children and forcing them to be soldiers. They often have the children kill their own relatives to harden their attitude and make them more brutal killers.

Does it? Only if he says he did.No, if you ask him how many children he's killed, it implies that he did kill some, whether he says so or not.

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.

Jeeez! I must say your honesty is 110% refreshing! I don't always get alot of it when the answers(if said honestly) support my statement, and I thank you.


again it's about perspective. I still think that Kerry had more to lose than these vets did.

He definitely had more to lose, but what did he do to justify that smear campaign? He told an unpopular truth 30 years ago?!?!? Was it when he said "reporting for duty" at the convention(if so, why is that a bad thing?)?!?

I just feel what was done was shameful. You have a priveleged kid(W) who never served in a way that could be compared to Kerry's(even if he didn't go AWOL. I'm willing to give that to him), and he succeeded in fooling a large swath of the population that what Kerry, who could've easily died, was some kind of sham, and his country club stay at the national guard wasn't an important issue. It's embarassing.


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.

Again, agreed on the silly concept that is the war on terror. It's something that will go on until we either realize that our foreign policy causes the real strife in that region, or we kill all of them, which will take decades and decades.

In regards to Iraq, I see your reasoning for your statement, and it's possible that could be the outcome. Noone knows for sure, and I really think it's 50/50 right now. Only time will tell....

I said civilian children. Like the ones that are still being killed today in Vietnam by ordnance left over from that war. Like those born with con-genital deformities today due to chemicals used in that war.

you say that like the only ordnace left over was from US forces. The North invaded S. Vietnam first.

I'm not gonna say that babies born w/ deformities isn't the fault of chemical use during the war, and it was definitely a bad move to go in, IMO (but the US was afraid of the spread of communism at the time so they saw reasons to do it), but the US didn't start the war, they attempted to finish it, but were unable to, so they eventually saw the error of their ways and pulled out.

ooh, dont want to be rude in a thread blasting a woman for what she did 40 years ago.

no, no, can't be RUDE.

golly gee.

lets face it, when you are called upon to defend the reasoning behind your attacks on someone, you have to expect that people will want to question your motives.

If he didnt want to be taken to task, he shouldnt have opened the thread.Really? So it's his fault Kradlumania abandoned manners? I mean, there's a lot of rudeness around, but Krad stepped over a moral boundary in my eyes.

No, if you ask him how many children he's killed, it implies that he did kill some, whether he says so or not.

Only in your head. If he answers none (which I expect is the truth, but then who actually takes responsibility for civilian deaths during and post-war?), then he's not a childkiller. Asking a question is a million miles away from making a statement.

Been nice sparring with y'all, but if I don't leave now, I'll miss the Tagesschau. It's one of the respectable news programs I mentioned to Neo R.

you say that like the only ordnace left over was from US forces. The North invaded S. Vietnam first.

I'm not gonna say that babies born w/ deformities isn't the fault of chemical use during the war, and it was definitely a bad move to go in, IMO (but the US was afraid of the spread of communism at the time so they saw reasons to do it), but the US didn't start the war, they attempted to finish it, but were unable to, so they eventually saw the error of their ways and pulled out.

Who did start the war between the US and Vietnam then? I don't recall Vietnamese advisors working in the US.

Threads dead!

I'm gone.......

It's nice to see an anti war activist still be one. I'm sick of hearing support the troops = support the war rhetoric from media and good celebrites like Heston, Stallone, Ah-nold . It's always the celebrities who have opinions that don't echo the state's who are always scrutinized and Fonda is not the only one Sarandon, Robbins, Garafalo, Sean Penn are always villified by the likes of O Reilly, Hannity and other cheerleading chicken hawks of the Bush junta. Why dosen't Toby Keith and all the other country singer war profiteers join the army. The army is having trouble recruiting and the support the troops crowd aren't lining up.

You have no clue what kind of "drafting" goes on do you?

what kind of drafting where?


He definitely had more to lose, but what did he do to justify that smear campaign? He told an unpopular truth 30 years ago?!?!? Was it when he said "reporting for duty" at the convention(if so, why is that a bad thing?)?!?

I just feel what was done was shameful. You have a priveleged kid(W) who never served in a way that could be compared to Kerry's(even if he didn't go AWOL. I'm willing to give that to him), and he succeeded in fooling a large swath of the population that what Kerry, who could've easily died, was some kind of sham, and his country club stay at the national guard wasn't an important issue. It's embarassing.

Funny part is is that i voted for Kerry :p, i liked that he actually served while bush's service was in question. However, being from Texas, i pretty much knew my vote would be useless (get rid of electoral college damnit!) But when you go to try and be President, your past comes to life, and unfortunately today's politics are filled with slander, so i'm not totally unsurprised something said 30 years ago came back to haunt him.


Again, agreed on the silly concept that is the war on terror. It's something that will go on until we either realize that our foreign policy causes the real strife in that region, or we kill all of them, which will take decades and decades.

In regards to Iraq, I see your reasoning for your statement, and it's possible that could be the outcome. Noone knows for sure, and I really think it's 50/50 right now. Only time will tell....
Personally, with the war on terror, i can see the point of taking the fight to them instead of dealing with it here in the US. If the battle was here, it wouldn't be US soldiers dying. I hope the president is done invading middle eastern countries. He needs to take care of Afghanistan and Iraq before trying any other such... "conquests." And if we do decide to invade another country, they will have actual proof and have the soldiers/equipment to do the job.

It may be 50/50 :P but i'm still an optimist on the outcome.

Lord's Resistance Army is a Cult/Rebel group/Terrorist organization in Africa that is known for kidnapping children and forcing them to be soldiers. They often have the children kill their own relatives to harden their attitude and make them more brutal killers.

That's unfortunate.

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 congret both you and Jane Fonda for showing the world that some people still use their brain and refuse to be belong to the fans of the new Goebbels: Karl Rove and his mob in Washington.

Who did start the war between the US and Vietnam then? I don't recall Vietnamese advisors working in the US.

again, i'll repeat, it's just not US ordnance on the field of battle.

The US went in to assist the South, hence the reasoning the US being there. Also, the fearmongering of democracy v. communsim is what fueled the US to be there.

I congret both you and Jane Fonda for showing the world that some people still use their brain and refuse to be belong to the fans of the new Goebbels: Karl Rove and his mob in Washington.

I use my brain, and i'm against Jane Fonda. Why is it to you only the anti-war ppl use their brain?

I use my brain, and i'm against Jane Fonda. Why is it to you only the anti-war ppl use their brain?
Because the rest of us are either babykillers or babykiller wannabes, didn't you know? :rolleyes:

I was one of the first people to actively oppose the war in Iraq. I wrote columns opposing it and I was branded a coward for it. Now, public opinion polls have swung against the war.

I suppose that puts me in the same category as Hanoi Jane, huh Eutrusca? :rolleyes:

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

WRONG!

I was one of the first people to actively oppose the war in Iraq. I wrote columns opposing it and I was branded a coward for it. Now, public opinion polls have swung against the war.

I suppose that puts me in the same category as Hanoi Jane, huh Eutrusca? :rolleyes:
Only if you traveled to Iraq so you could look through the rangefinder on one of Saddams anti-aricraft weapons, visited American POWs and believed that they were being treated humanely, then used both for publicity purposes, thus extending the war in Iraq.

If you would take a few moments and read the posts I've made in this thread, you would realize that I have no complaint about legitimate protest.

I was one of the first people to actively oppose the war in Iraq. I wrote columns opposing it and I was branded a coward for it. Now, public opinion polls have swung against the war.

I suppose that puts me in the same category as Hanoi Jane, huh Eutrusca? :rolleyes:

Yup, my husband (Zeppistan) and I were trying to fight like hell to inform people as fast as we could too, before they started the war in March 2003.. (On my birthday no less) But we didn't know what we were talking about (according to many) As it turned out, you, Zep, myself and many others were right on the money. We knew more than they did. That is not exactly a ringing edorsement of any government. However, in fairness at the time, Bush didn't really care what the truth was, in fact I think he still doesn't.

Because the rest of us are either babykillers or babykiller wannabes, didn't you know? :rolleyes:

eh. whatever floats their boats. One thing i will say is that i'm upset for the reasons given to go into Iraq, but i'm not upset we're there.

*edit*

and with that, i'm gonna go study now. catch ya'll later.

eh. whatever floats their boats. One thing i will say is that i'm upset for the reasons given to go into Iraq, but i'm not upset we're there.
I tend to agree.

Here is a site that tries to present what Jane Fonda actually did. I am not certain of it's reliability.

If what the article says is true than I would also consider Jane Fonda a traitor. She is lucky that Vietnam wasn't technically a war. That and the fact she was a famous woman may explain why she didn't get prosecuted all those years ago.

Here is the Site: http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

I can see if you lived through Vietnam with her rooting for the other side how you might not be able to trust that she would only voice her opinion rather than attack the soldiers. If anyone else has some good sites regarding Jane Fonda's visit to Vietnam please post them.

Just got back. After a phone conversation with the congressman and FBI officials it is decided that the best course of action against Hanoi Jane is petitioning government. To those that do not believe in what she's doing you can be assured that after her last bout her actions are being closely scrutinized. I went to the state capitol, home of the VA center. There I had a sit-down with some legal professionals. Crowd gathered and the outrage displayed... She isn't taking just a wack at a new crowd but opening up old wounds as well. The lawyer is writing the petition of his free will and time. If you see it being passed around it will have in bold type at the top Stop Hanoi Jane . All that care for our troops are urged to sign. Death by hanging would be nice if I could spit in her eye on the way down.

this is asinine

Here is a site that tries to present what Jane Fonda actually did. I am not certain of it's reliability.

If what the article says is true than I would also consider Jane Fonda a traitor. She is lucky that Vietnam wasn't technically a war. That and the fact she was a famous woman may explain why she didn't get prosecuted all those years ago.

Here is the Site: http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

I can see if you lived through Vietnam with her rooting for the other side how you might not be able to trust that she would only voice her opinion rather than attack the soldiers. If anyone else has some good sites regarding Jane Fonda's visit to Vietnam please post them.
And people wonder why most Vietnam veterans hate this bytch:

"To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law."

Ihatevacations']this is asinine

Well, there is that too. ;)

Just got back. After a phone conversation with the congressman and FBI officials it is decided that the best course of action against Hanoi Jane is petitioning government. To those that do not believe in what she's doing you can be assured that after her last bout her actions are being closely scrutinized. I went to the state capitol, home of the VA center. There I had a sit-down with some legal professionals. Crowd gathered and the outrage displayed... She isn't taking just a wack at a new crowd but opening up old wounds as well. The lawyer is writing the petition of his free will and time. If you see it being passed around it will have in bold type at the top Stop Hanoi Jane . All that care for our troops are urged to sign. Death by hanging would be nice if I could spit in her eye on the way down.

Death threat are a serious offense. Would I be working for Scotland Yard, you'd be recieving a visit from your local constabulary force.

Same goes with physical threat like spitting.

I really should go have a look at the British laws and the Jolt forum rules. Some people are way over the line.

Ihatevacations']this is asinine
We'll see.

Death threat are a serious offense. Would I be working for Scotland Yard, you'd be recieving a visit from your local constabulary force.

Same goes with physical threat like spitting.

I really should go have a look at the British laws and the Jolt forum rules. Some people are way over the line.
I agree. Calling people babykillers could be actionable. Perhaps I should follow "Hanoi Jane's" example and hire myself a lawyer. :D

I was one of the first people to actively oppose the war in Iraq. I wrote columns opposing it and I was branded a coward for it. Now, public opinion polls have swung against the war.


Depends on what opinion polls you read.. and opinion polls are sooo accurate *sarcasm*.. like in the 2004 election. :rolleyes:

Jane is just joining the ranks of ignorance.. with Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy and others. Let her go around being stupid, and people will see her for truly who she is.

people will see her for truly who she is.

Somebody who's not a boneheaded idiot that blindly supports her government.

We'll see.
no, this is entirely asinine. period. im really tired of your crap and crap like warboskis

Ihatevacations']no, this is entirely asinine. period. im really tired of your crap and crap like warboskis

A lot of us are. I was having small chat with Kanabia about this about three hours ago.

Somebody who's not a boneheaded idiot that blindly supports her government.

No, in fact she is a boneheaded idiot for not supporting the troops. She is the biggest idiot in this country right now.

It's nice to see an anti war activist still be one. I'm sick of hearing support the troops = support the war rhetoric from media and good celebrites like Heston, Stallone, Ah-nold . It's always the celebrities who have opinions that don't echo the state's who are always scrutinized and Fonda is not the only one Sarandon, Robbins, Garafalo, Sean Penn are always villified by the likes of O Reilly, Hannity and other cheerleading chicken hawks of the Bush junta. Why dosen't Toby Keith and all the other country singer war profiteers join the army. The army is having trouble recruiting and the support the troops crowd aren't lining up.


Hi, welcome to the forums. As a conservative, I'm glad you're here to help prove my point. As for the liberals, they probably want you to stop making them look bad.

Ihatevacations']no, this is entirely asinine. period. im really tired of your crap and crap like warboskis
Tough shit. Live with it.

I congret both you and Jane Fonda for showing the world that some people still use their brain and refuse to be belong to the fans of the new Goebbels: Karl Rove and his mob in Washington.


LOL. It's a rare occasion when a post has me literally laughing in my chair. Thanks for cheering me up!

A lot of us are. I was having small chat with Kanabia about this about three hours ago.
Tough shit. Live with it.

Just because you don't like something I said doesn't give you the right to silence me. Isn't that what you always accuse "the right" of doing? Strange that you should be just as guilty of attempting to silence people with whom you disagree as those you accuse. Life's a bitch, ain't it! Kinda like "Hanoi Jane." :D

I was of draft age during the Vietnam war. I had serious questions and reservations about our involvement, but was not anti-war in the sense that Jane and many of my friends were. I had friends in the service and friends who were radical protester types.

At the time Jane was idolized by the left and her actions were recognized as treason by common protesters - they thought that she would never be prosecuted and approved of her spitting in the eye of the government. These people also spat on my friends returning from 'Nam. That's when the protester types became my ex-friends.

As far as I'm concerned her actions were treasonous in spirit and intent. I didn't approve then nor do I now. I see no way to justify her actions. I wouldn't piss in her ear if her brain were on fire.

No, in fact she is a boneheaded idiot for not supporting the troops. She is the biggest idiot in this country right now.

Nope. You're a bonehead (and possibly a dickhead) when you blindly support things like, err... You guys.

As for the liberals, they probably want you to stop making them look bad.

No, we want you guys to stop making yourselves look bad. It's funny, yet utterly ridiculous.

I agree. Calling people babykillers could be actionable. Perhaps I should follow "Hanoi Jane's" example and hire myself a lawyer. :D
And, as I posted before, I would be behind you 100%.

You would have a hard time winning, though. His comments were vague enough and he did explain his motives. But that never stopped some litigations in the US before :D

We'll see.

I assume you understand how this works.. but in case you don't, let me try to explain.

Get all the anti-Jane Fonda people to yell and scream and make a big fuss, sign that petition , make sure the media knows just how upset you're about Jane Fonda getting back into the anti-war movement. Then of course you've just given her millions of dollars of free advertising that she will not have to pay for herself, thanks to people who feel the same way as you.

The Iraq war is VERY unpopular now, it always has been world wide, but now even in America. So go ahead, make a stink about it. There is no such thing as bad publicity, unless you're running for office, which I don't believe she is. It will just mean her message will reach many more people. Controversy is good in these things.

But her cause will certainly get a lot of attention won't it, and in part, she'll have people like you to thank for it. So knock yourself out hun! :)

Nonviolence means avoiding
not only external physical violence
but also internal violence of spirit.
You not only refuse to shoot a man,
but you refuse to hate him.

--Martin Luther King, Jr.

Nope. You're a bonehead (and possibly a dickhead) when you blindly support things like, err... You guys.


No, I'm sorry. I very much make my own mind up. I do support the war in Iraq and I support the troops. I'd much rather not support someone who is a complete traitor like Fonda. But really, nobody cares anymore about what she does. We aren't living in the 1970s. And personally if she wants to be an idiot it is fine by me.

"The Iraq war is VERY unpopular now, it always has been world wide, but now even in America."

I have to question that.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Perspectives%20on%20Iraq%20July%205.htm

I'll bring up newer polls in a bit.

Death threat are a serious offense. Would I be working for Scotland Yard, you'd be recieving a visit from your local constabulary force.

Same goes with physical threat like spitting.

I really should go have a look at the British laws and the Jolt forum rules. Some people are way over the line.

Death by hanging for treason. You know, the government sponsored kind of justice. Personally since death threats are below me and a person has too much to loose by making them you took my words out of context.

Tough shit. Live with it.

Couldn't come up with something more original?

Oh yeah, that's right. You backed out of our little argument some time ago (it was anti-climactic... so boring), so originality shouldn't really be expected of you.

Somebody who's not a boneheaded idiot that blindly supports her government.


You're right, she's a boneheaded idiot that blindly opposes her government.

No, I'm sorry. I very much make my own mind up. I do support the war in Iraq and I support the troops. I'd much rather not support someone who is a complete traitor like Fonda. But really, nobody cares anymore about what she does. We aren't living in the 1970s. And personally if she wants to be an idiot it is fine by me.

Also, no personal attacks.

1: Good, then.

2: This, I simply don't understand. Well, I do, but I'd rather not speak my mind about it, as I wish to remain on the forums.

3: Traitor, eh? The Cat-Tribe should arrive in this thread soon. He'll give us all a good definition of the term "traitor" (I'd do it myself, but he's the king of this sort of thing, so I *have* to let him do it); something Jane Fonda isn't.

4: True.

5: The term "idiot" is subjective. I find that people who support the Iraq War to be such things.

6: Personal attacks?

You're right, she's a boneheaded idiot that blindly opposes her government.

As opposed to the bonehead idiots who blindly follow their government?

You're right, she's a boneheaded idiot that blindly opposes her government.

No, those are poser Anarcho-Punks.

;)

I was of draft age during the Vietnam war. I had serious questions and reservations about our involvement, but was not anti-war in the sense that Jane and many of my friends were. I had friends in the service and friends who were radical protester types.

At the time Jane was idolized by the left and her actions were recognized as treason by common protesters - they thought that she would never be prosecuted and approved of her spitting in the eye of the government. These people also spat on my friends returning from 'Nam. That's when the protester types became my ex-friends.

As far as I'm concerned her actions were treasonous in spirit and intent. I didn't approve then nor do I now. I see no way to justify her actions. I wouldn't piss in her ear if her brain were on fire.
But ... but ... but according to the left, no Vietnam veterans were ever spat upon! You mean the left lied? OMG! :rolleyes:

1: Good, then.

2: This, I simply don't understand. Well, I do, but I'd rather not speak my mind about it, as I wish to remain on the forums.

3: Traitor, eh? The Cat-Tribe should arrive in this thread soon. He'll give us all a good definition of the term "traitor" (I'd do it myself, but he's the king of this sort of thing, so I *have* to let him do it); something Jane Fonda isn't.

As for number 2, you don't understand how I can support the troops and the war in Iraq? Care to enlighten me why I can't hold an opinion?

Jane Fonda most certainly is.


5: The term "idiot" is subjective. I find that people who support the Iraq War to be such things.

Yep, it is subjective. Because those who are against the war in Iraq fit into that category. Those who are for it, don't.

Jane is just joining the ranks of ignorance.. with Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy and others. Let her go around being stupid, and people will see her for truly who she is.Jane Fonda is ignorant but not for being against the war in Iraq. Why is someone ignorant for being against a war based on lies?

And for the record... Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy might have their faults but they are not ignorant. Don't be quick to insult people like that it doesn't do you any credit.

As opposed to the bonehead idiots who blindly follow their government?

Are you seriously advocating one over the other? Aren't both just as bad? There are those who have thought out their position, and then there are morons like Jane Fonda who deny the truth when it's staring them in the face. She could see a POW being tortured right in front of her and she would deny it!

Jane Fonda is ignorant but not for being against the war in Iraq. Why is someone ignorant for being against a war based on lies?

That's your opinion. I have my reasons for supporting the war in Iraq.

And for the record... Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy might have their faults but they are not ignorant. Don't be quick to insult people like that it doesn't do you any credit.

They are most certainly ignorant. I'm wondering.. a man who loves to make up his own reality and one who let a woman drown to save his sorry self... they aren't ignorant? Hmmm....

Couldn't come up with something more original?

Oh yeah, that's right. You backed out of our little argument some time ago (it was anti-climactic... so boring), so originality shouldn't really be expected of you.
Tsk! Surely you of all people can do better than that. Could it be you're running out of insults? Perhaps you need some new material. Oh, yeah. Cat-Tribe will soon be here with all sorts of new insults. Nice to have someone try to salvage what little remains of your, as you put it, "arguments." :D

Jane Fonda is ignorant but not for being against the war in Iraq. Why is someone ignorant for being against a war based on lies?

And for the record... Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy might have their faults but they are not ignorant. Don't be quick to insult people like that it doesn't do you any credit.


Did you just say Michael Moore isn't ignorant? I was constructing a reply to your first statement, but now I've lost all my will to argue...

But ... but ... but according to the left, no Vietnam veterans were ever spat upon! You mean the left lied? OMG! :rolleyes:

Eh?

As for number 2, you don't understand how I can support the troops and the war in Iraq? Care to enlighten me why I can't hold an opinion?

Jane Fonda most certainly is.

Yep, it is subjective. Because those who are against the war in Iraq fit into that category. Those who are for it, don't.

1: Well, it looks like you didn't read my post completely (or correctly, whichever).

2: No. There's not any hard evidence that she did anything that would make her a traitor, not even in the least.

3: Blind generalisations never fail to amuse!

1: Good, then.

2: This, I simply don't understand. Well, I do, but I'd rather not speak my mind about it, as I wish to remain on the forums.

3: Traitor, eh? The Cat-Tribe should arrive in this thread soon. He'll give us all a good definition of the term "traitor" (I'd do it myself, but he's the king of this sort of thing, so I *have* to let him do it); something Jane Fonda isn't.

4: True.

5: The term "idiot" is subjective. I find that people who support the Iraq War to be such things.

6: Personal attacks?


I'm going to become a lawyer, just so people on forums will worship me as a goddess :rolleyes:

Nope. You're a bonehead (and possibly a dickhead) when you blindly support things like, err... You guys.



No, we want you guys to stop making yourselves look bad. It's funny, yet utterly ridiculous.

I do not think this is a bonehead issue either way. In the context of what actually was perpertrated during the time of Vietnam by Jane Fonda. This thread is prefaced by those actions. This is not necessarily against those that are Anti-War but with those who are Anti-troop.

Of course there is free speech...of course people can differ in opinion. That is one of many things America is about. Be anti-government, be anti-war... I am cool with that. That is not where I see the crux of this argument/debate.

Can you actually read what she did back then and say she did nothing wrong? I just can't believe someone could or would do what she did. I mean I know people can be self deceived and think they are doing good but after the truth came out did she apologize for being wrong. No. There was a weak attempt a few years ago but that is all.

The reaction many Vietnam vets have to her is because they were personally affected by her actions in a profound and negative manner.There are very good reasons that she is looked upon with suspicion and in some cases hate.

If I was Anti-war... I would not want her as my spokeswoman. One of the group sure but the focal point. No way.

I assume you understand how this works.. but in case you don't, let me try to explain.

Get all the anti-Jane Fonda people to yell and scream and make a big fuss, sign that petition , make sure the media knows just how upset you're about Jane Fonda getting back into the anti-war movement. Then of course you've just given her millions of dollars of free advertising that she will not have to pay for herself, thanks to people who feel the same way as you.

The Iraq war is VERY unpopular now, it always has been world wide, but now even in America. So go ahead, make a stink about it. There is no such thing as bad publicity, unless you're running for office, which I don't believe she is. It will just mean her message will reach many more people. Controversy is good in these things.

But her cause will certainly get a lot of attention won't it, and in part, she'll have people like you to thank for it. So knock yourself out hun! :)

We'll see. [ big smile ]

*Laughs* It's still a wonder of how she can get away with directly promoting the actions of an enemy against her own nation in times of war. Now, disagreeing with your government's political actions politically can be justified, but directly promoting the actions of an enemy of her nation in times of war by posing in front of an NVA anti-aircraft gun is on the borderline of treason, if not treason itself. And for this reason, she cannot, and should not ever be, forgiven for this atrocious crime.

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.

Your constitution is poop.

Eh?



1: Well, it looks like you didn't read my post completely (or correctly, whichever).

2: No. There's not any hard evidence that she did anything that would make her a traitor, not even in the least.

3: Blind generalisations never fail to amuse!



Oh my goodness, are you actually denying that aiding and abedding the enemy is treason? Sheesh, some people...

Eh?



1: Well, it looks like you didn't read my post completely (or correctly, whichever).

2: No. There's not any hard evidence that she did anything that would make her a traitor, not even in the least.

3: Blind generalisations never fail to amuse!

Um, I don't know what you are replying to... what is number one replying to? What part of my post?

There is in fact evidence, including giving morale support for the enemy.

Twenty bucks she'll be in Iraq taking photos with insurgents! :rolleyes:

Blind generalisations never fail to amuse!
Hey, yeah. You're correct! Must be why most of us find you so amusing, huh! :D

I'm going to become a lawyer, just so people on forums will worship me as a goddess :rolleyes:

What does this have to do with anything?

Um, I don't know what you are replying to... what is number one replying to? What part of my post?

There is in fact evidence, including giving morale support for the enemy.

Twenty bucks she'll be in Iraq taking photos with insurgents! :rolleyes:
He's under the impression that making a list is somehow indicative of intellect and perspecacity. He forgets that it should have some relevance, no matter how minimal. :D

EDIT: No bet on the "Jalalabad Jane" thang. ;)

Twenty bucks she'll be in Iraq taking photos with insurgents! :rolleyes:

Sixty "bucks" says I'd support her for doing it.

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.

I do have one. (The Wizard granted it to me!) So far as the people of South Vietnam are concerned, it's debatable, to say the least, that the people of South Vietnam were any better off under the Thieu regime than under the Communists. But the point is moot in any event, as the war had NOTHING to do with the security of the United States, hence, we shouldn't have been there in the first place! And in the final analysis, U.S. involvement didn't keep the Communists from taking over anyway. All it did was expend lives, American as well as Vietnamese, be they Communist or not.

Sixty "bucks" says I'd support her for doing it.

To be totally honest, that's just sick in the head.

Sixty "bucks" says I'd support her for doing it.
No takers on that either. What a surprise! :D

I am an airman on active duty in the Air Force. I would just like to state my perspective on this issue.

I believe what Jane Fonda did back in Vietnam was wrong. I believe that she was too ignorant to realize it. Fonda was, and is, a tool.

Even if you don't support a war, you should at least show the people who are fighting it respect. They are willing and capable to do a job you are not. Keep in mind, it's not the guys on the ground, clearing caves, cities, and villages making the descisions. It's not the men and women running the supply convoys, being attacked constanly, loosing thier friends to IED's in a split second. It's not the men and women loading and refueling aircraft. It's not the men and women rebuilding schools, hospitals, telephone and communication systems, water purification facilities, hydro-electric dams, and roads. It's the men and women in Washington D.C. that have the ultimate say in it.

In other words; if you aren't happy with this war, or any other, take it up with your representative(s) in the federal government. If that doesn't satisfy you, effect change starting on a local level. If enough people agree with you it won't take long for you're point to get across. And once that happens it's a snowball effect. You'd be surprised how quickly a senator will change sides when re-election rolls around.

What does this have to do with anything?


Grr! Just wait until Cat Tribe gets on! He'll show you all! Cat Tribe is always right!

.

I am an airman on active duty in the Air Force. I would just like to state my perspective on this issue.

I believe what Jane Fonda did back in Vietnam was wrong. I believe that she was too ignorant to realize it. Fonda was, and is, a tool.

Even if you don't support a war, you should at least show the people who are fighting it respect. They are willing and capable to do a job you are not. Keep in mind, it's not the guys on the ground, clearing caves, cities, and villages making the descisions. It's not the men and women running the supply convoys, being attacked constanly, loosing thier friends to IED's in a split second. It's not the men and women loading and refueling aircraft. It's not the men and women rebuilding schools, hospitals, telephone and communication systems, water purification facilities, hydro-electric dams, and roads. It's the men and women in Washington D.C. that have the ultimate say in it.

In other words; if you aren't happy with this war, or any other, take it up with your representative(s) in the federal government. If that doesn't satisfy you, effect change starting on a local level. If enough people agree with you it won't take long for you're point to get across. And once that happens it's a snowball effect. You'd be surprised how quickly a senator will change sides when re-election rolls around.
[ applauds ]

Oh my goodness, are you actually denying that aiding and abedding the enemy is treason? Sheesh, some people...

No... we are saying that you have failed to proove that she did the aiding and abedding part.

Time for a Thread Summary!!!!!

I am an airman on active duty in the Air Force. I would just like to state my perspective on this issue.

I believe what Jane Fonda did back in Vietnam was wrong. I believe that she was too ignorant to realize it. Fonda was, and is, a tool.

Even if you don't support a war, you should at least show the people who are fighting it respect. They are willing and capable to do a job you are not. Keep in mind, it's not the guys on the ground, clearing caves, cities, and villages making the descisions. It's not the men and women running the supply convoys, being attacked constanly, loosing thier friends to IED's in a split second. It's not the men and women loading and refueling aircraft. It's not the men and women rebuilding schools, hospitals, telephone and communication systems, water purification facilities, hydro-electric dams, and roads. It's the men and women in Washington D.C. that have the ultimate say in it.

In other words; if you aren't happy with this war, or any other, take it up with your representative(s) in the federal government. If that doesn't satisfy you, effect change starting on a local level. If enough people agree with you it won't take long for you're point to get across. And once that happens it's a snowball effect. You'd be surprised how quickly a senator will change sides when re-election rolls around.

Do you believe that what Fonda did was treason and should be put to death?

Sixty "bucks" says I'd support her for doing it.


You could at least have prolonged this discussion and denied being evil :rolleyes:

No... we are saying that you have failed to proove that she did the aiding and abedding part.
Oh, get serious! You wouldn't accept anything we offer as proof. :rolleyes:

I am an airman on active duty in the Air Force. I would just like to state my perspective on this issue.

I believe what Jane Fonda did back in Vietnam was wrong. I believe that she was too ignorant to realize it. Fonda was, and is, a tool.

Even if you don't support a war, you should at least show the people who are fighting it respect. They are willing and capable to do a job you are not. Keep in mind, it's not the guys on the ground, clearing caves, cities, and villages making the descisions. It's not the men and women running the supply convoys, being attacked constanly, loosing thier friends to IED's in a split second. It's not the men and women loading and refueling aircraft. It's not the men and women rebuilding schools, hospitals, telephone and communication systems, water purification facilities, hydro-electric dams, and roads. It's the men and women in Washington D.C. that have the ultimate say in it.

In other words; if you aren't happy with this war, or any other, take it up with your representative(s) in the federal government. If that doesn't satisfy you, effect change starting on a local level. If enough people agree with you it won't take long for you're point to get across. And once that happens it's a snowball effect. You'd be surprised how quickly a senator will change sides when re-election rolls around.

There's never been a question of being nonsupportive of the servicemen during an otherwise unpopular war. They're following orders, and are not a fault for merely doing their job. I'm sorry if you perceived a different attitude here. Btw, I was in the Air Force, too. :)

No... we are saying that you have failed to proove that she did the aiding and abedding part.


She encouraged the North Vietnamese directly, had her photograph taken with them while grinning and peering through an anti-aircraft cannon (Lord knows what she was implying :rolleyes: ), treated our soldiers despicably, gave the North Vietnamese her utmost respect, etc.


Sounds like treason to me.

She encouraged the North Vietnamese directly, had her photograph taken with them while grinning and peering through an anti-aircraft cannon (Lord knows what she was implying :rolleyes: ), treated our soldiers despicably, gave the North Vietnamese her utmost respect, etc.


Sounds like treason to me.

Then why wasn't she tried? I hate to break it to you, but as much as you bluster about it, it was all legal activity. I'm sorry if freedom of speech and expression upsets you so, but that's America for you!

She encouraged the North Vietnamese directly, had her photograph taken with them while grinning and peering through an anti-aircraft cannon (Lord knows what she was implying :rolleyes: ), treated our soldiers despicably, gave the North Vietnamese her utmost respect, etc.


Sounds like treason to me.
Give it up. Potaria and the others won't accept anything we could possiblly offer as "proof." Like many others on "the left" they're "always right." :rolleyes:

Sixty "bucks" says I'd support her for doing it.

Seriously the Insurgents would probably behead her. I don't think they feel they need Jane Fonda as a spokeswoman.

Think about it. They beheaded the one woman who worked and lived in the country. She was also married to an Iraqi. She loved Iraq and actually was a part of it unlike Jane Fonda.

Oh, get serious! You wouldn't accept anything we offer as proof. :rolleyes:
If only you tried me. :rolleyes: But no, you fell instantly in the fallback position that I can't be convinced.

I have yet to see a reasonable argument as to why she should be tried as a traitor. Find me one and I'll be signing whatever petition you want. So far what I've seen does not point to treason though.


You could at least have prolonged this discussion and denied being evil

Since when is supporting someones right to go wherever she pleases and express her opinion however she pleases is "evil"?

Geeze... the "freedom" concept sure has taken a different meaning these days.

Time for a Thread Summary!!!!!


Trusc and many others hate Jane Fondas (and John Kerrys) guts for a variety of reasons. Most of the liberal minded folk could give a shit less about Fonda but are for the anti-war movements for Vietnam and Iraq and made tremendously strong point in defense of Kerry which were never refuted by the pro-war crowd. Some people actually support Jane Fonda but I think mainly because she is anti-war although a few don't mind some of the stupider things she has done. A few people left to do other things. A lot of slander was tossed about. I high fived Trusc for not losing his temper on teh Fonda issue. Neo Rogalia (is this Cornilius sister?) makes many silly statements and I'm sure the pro-war crowd wishes she would just shut up and quit trying to help. More flaming and flaimbaiting. I made a Summary.

Then why wasn't she tried? I hate to break it to you, but as much as you bluster about it, it was all legal activity. I'm sorry if freedom of speech and expression upsets you so, but that's America for you!



Following that logic, then why hasn't President Bush been tried for "lying to the nation"? You can't have your cake and eat it ;)

Hoos Bandoland, I appreciate what you had to say. It means a lot.

Now, I don't care about Jane Fonda. What she did doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that we left people over there.

I don't have the statistics on hand and I don't have them off the top of my head, but I do know that we still have quite a few American men and women in Vietnam. No, I'm not talking about POWs. I'm talking about our dead.

When you swear into any service, part of your oath deals with your conduct as a POW/casualty. Basically, if you become a POW, the federal government will do everything it can to get you back. In the meantime, they will make sure your family is taken care of. This holds even if you are dead. You are an American service member, and Americans don't leave anyone behind.

Did you see "Blackhawk Down"? Rememeber the part when they cut the Warrant Officer Walcot out of his cockpit, even though he was dead? That's exactly what happened, and that's the way it should be.

There are instances when all that has been brought back from Vietnam (to be specific) was a flight suit with someone's name on it? Well, if that is what remains of that man or woman, then so be it. Bring them home.

If only you tried me. :rolleyes: But no, you fell instantly in the fallback position that I can't be convinced.

I have yet to see a reasonable argument as to why she should be tried as a traitor. Find me one and I'll be signing whatever petition you want. So far what I've seen does not point to treason though.




Since when is supporting someones right to go wherever she pleases and express her opinion however she pleases is "evil"?

Geeze... the "freedom" concept sure has taken a different meaning these days.


Read Potaria's previous posts, he wasn't defending her right to free speech. He was defending her position and her actions. He supported what she said, not her right to say it!

Time for a Thread Summary!!!!!


Trusc and many others hate Jane Fondas (and John Kerrys) guts for a variety of reasons. Most of the liberal minded folk could give a shit less about Fonda but are for the anti-war movements for Vietnam and Iraq and made tremendously strong point in defense of Kerry which were never refuted by the pro-war crowd. Some people actually support Jane Fonda but I think mainly because she is anti-war although a few don't mind some of the stupider things she has done. A few people left to do other things. A lot of slander was tossed about. I high fived Trusc for not losing his temper on teh Fonda issue. Neo Rogalia (is this Cornilius sister?) makes many silly statements and I'm sure the pro-war crowd wishes she would just shut up and quit trying to help. More flaming and flaimbaiting. I made a Summary.


Pointing out how her actions were treason is silly, but supporting those actions, regardless of their legality, isn't? My friend, if that is the definition of silly, then I suppose I'm proud to be court jester.

She encouraged the North Vietnamese directly, had her photograph taken with them while grinning and peering through an anti-aircraft cannon (Lord knows what she was implying :rolleyes: ), treated our soldiers despicably, gave the North Vietnamese her utmost respect, etc.


Sounds like treason to me.
Will it sound the same for an American court, that's the question... was there a similar prosecution for treason in the US legal history? I doubt that.

Read Potaria's previous posts, he wasn't defending her right to free speech. He was defending her position and her actions. He supported what she said, not her right to say it!
And in what way is that "evil"?

Explain to me what is inherently evil in the proposed actions in the hypothetical situation described.

Pointing out how her actions were treason is silly, but supporting those actions, regardless of their legality, isn't? My friend, if that is the definition of silly, then I suppose I'm proud to be court jester.

Oh yeah supporting stupid actions is silly too. But I'm not just talking about those statements. BTW, arguing that what she did wasn't treason is not the same as supporting her actions. Many have said that they thought her actions were stupid but cannot be defined as treason. You have a whole host of sillyness . I'd go back over the thread but in all honesty, your statements are worth nothing more than a good laugh for me so it's not worth it. It's not as if I woulg expect you to retort with something worthwhile.

Following that logic, then why hasn't President Bush been tried for "lying to the nation"? You can't have your cake and eat it ;)


Give us time, we're workign on that. When you are the the most powerful man in the world, you can pull a few strings.

Time for a Thread Summary!!!!!


Trusc and many others hate Jane Fondas (and John Kerrys) guts for a variety of reasons. Most of the liberal minded folk could give a shit less about Fonda but are for the anti-war movements for Vietnam and Iraq and made tremendously strong point in defense of Kerry which were never refuted by the pro-war crowd. Some people actually support Jane Fonda but I think mainly because she is anti-war although a few don't mind some of the stupider things she has done. A few people left to do other things. A lot of slander was tossed about. I high fived Trusc for not losing his temper on teh Fonda issue. Neo Rogalia (is this Cornilius sister?) makes many silly statements and I'm sure the pro-war crowd wishes she would just shut up and quit trying to help. More flaming and flaimbaiting. I made a Summary.


Yeah... I think that is a pretty decent summary :D

Oh yeah supporting stupid actions is silly too. But I'm not just talking about those statements. BTW, arguing that what she did wasn't treason is not the same as supporting her actions. Many have said that they thought her actions were stupid but cannot be defined as treason. You have a whole host of sillyness . I'd go back over the thread but in all honesty, your statements are worth nothing more than a good laugh for me so it's not worth it. It's not as if I woulg expect you to retort with something worthwhile.



If I remember correctly, Potaria stated that he did support her actions though lol.

Following that logic, then why hasn't President Bush been tried for "lying to the nation"? You can't have your cake and eat it ;)

???? Apparently we operate on two different systems of logic. Your statement doesn't even make sense to me.

If I remember correctly, Potaria stated that he did support her actions though lol.

Potaria, if you hate the United States so much, why do you live here?

And in what way is that "evil"?

Explain to me what is inherently evil in the proposed actions in the hypothetical situation described.



Treating men and women who fought and sometimes died to protect us as if they were worms at the bottom of the pond IS evil.

If I remember correctly, Potaria stated that he did support her actions though lol.

Well then it depends on what actions but to agree with some of them is silly. See I'm an equal opportunity finger pointer of sillyness, or uh, whatever.

???? Apparently we operate on two different systems of logic. Your statement doesn't even make sense to me.



You, or whoever it was I was responding to, basically stated that if we haven't tried a person for a crime, it must have not been a crime. I just find that absurd.

5: The term "idiot" is subjective. I find that people who support the Iraq War to be such things.

6: Personal attacks?



see #5. i support the troops, you're calling me an idiot. Dream on.

Treating men and women who fought and sometimes died to protect us as if they were worms at the bottom of the pond IS evil.
I don't see protesting a unjust and illegal war as "treating men and women who fought (sic) ... the pond".

Your view on a legitimate protest and on a totally legal activity is twisted, to say the least. Stop throwing "evil" and "traitor" around and build a decent argumentation. In the meantime, saying someone is evil without any justification is libel and defamation of character.

Potaria COULD sue your ass off. We have incriminating evidence right here. Let's just hope that, like Eutrusca did, he will find the notion of ruining a live over some internet post is beneath him/her.

Potaria, if you hate the United States so much, why do you live here?
And leave only people who think like you? We can't do that to our own country!

Then why wasn't she tried? I hate to break it to you, but as much as you bluster about it, it was all legal activity. I'm sorry if freedom of speech and expression upsets you so, but that's America for you!
Obviously you have either not been reading what has been posted to this thread already, or are having trouble comprehending it, so let me break it down into baby-steps for you.

1. There are numerous audio recordings, photographs, eyewitness accounts, and even multiple news reports of Hanoi Jane:

A. Making propaganda broadcasts for the North Vietnamese.

B. Sighting through a North Vietnmese rocket launcher used to shoot down American aircraft.

C. Applauding the North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners.

C. Not only passing along acknowledged North Vietnamese propaganda concering the abuse and torture of American POWs ( POW means Prisoner Of War ), but attacking the same POWs when they attempted to set the record straight.

2. The above qualifies, by law, as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

3. There is nothing in the Constitution which requires the US to be in a formally declared war for actions to qualify as treasonous.

4. Ergo, whether tried for "treason" or not, Hanoi Jane ( or, if you prefer, "Jalalabad Jane" ) has committed acts for which she could legitimately be charged as being treasonous acts.

5. As to why she was never actually prosecuted, it probably has to do with the fact that the war was winding down, she was a "celebrity" in certain circles, she was rich, and she was female. All of these were probably factors in her never having been brought up on charges. The fact remains that she easily could have been prosecuted and that her acts fall well within the guidelines for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

I seriously doubt this will affect your ability to comprehend this issue, but I had to try. Someone who might not know the facts and who posseses a modicum of rationality might be interested.

And leave only people who think like you? We can't do that to our own country!

What's wrong with the way i think? i like to think i'm fairly moderate. But i'm not gonna disagree w/ what's going on in Iraq. Mebbe the reasons we went there, but not because we're there. I see this incident as a jumpstart to stabilizing that region, i hope it works.

You, or whoever it was I was responding to, basically stated that if we haven't tried a person for a crime, it must have not been a crime. I just find that absurd.

Actions that the world knew about over 30 years ago and could not be denied haven't been tried in court for ANYTHING. I would say it's more absurd to be arguing that she commited a crime on those grounds. Using the same argument for Bush is silly because we are still tryign to get all teh facts.

Even though I feel Jane Fonda is speaking out to fuel her reputation and sell her books, I still think you are in the wrong, Eutrusca.

Sooner or later you will figure out that working to pull troops out of danger is the way some people support the troops.

Obviously you have either not been reading what has been posted to this thread already, or are having trouble comprehending it, so let me break it down into baby-steps for you.

1. There are numerous audio recordings, photographs, eyewitness accounts, and even multiple news reports of Hanoi Jane:

A. Making propaganda broadcasts for the North Vietnamese.

B. Sighting through a North Vietnmese rocket launcher used to shoot down American aircraft.

C. Applauding the North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners.

C. Not only passing along acknowledged North Vietnamese propaganda concering the abuse and torture of American POWs ( POW means Prisoner Of War ), but attacking the same POWs when they attempted to set the record straight.

2. The above qualifies, by law, as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

3. There is nothing in the Constitution which requires the US to be in a formally declared war for actions to qualify as treasonous.

4. Ergo, whether tried for "treason" or not, Hanoi Jane ( or, if you prefer, "Jalalabad Jane" ) has committed acts for which she could legitimately be charged as being treasonous acts.

5. As to why she was never actually prosecuted, it probably has to do with the fact that the war was winding down, she was a "celebrity" in certain circles, she was rich, and she was female. All of these were probably factors in her never having been brought up on charges. The fact remains that she easily could have been prosecuted and that her acts fall well within the guidelines for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

I seriously doubt this will affect your ability to comprehend this issue, but I had to try. Someone who might not know the facts and who posseses a modicum of rationality might be interested.
See? That's what I was talking about: building a case.

Evidently you used language that was helping your cause in all of your points.

Your point 2 is a logical leap and is not based in the current interpretation of the law. Otherwise, you are on the right track. But since the point 2 is so tantamount to the case, I have to remain respectfully in a disagreement with your view.

I don't see protesting a unjust and illegal war as "treating men and women who fought (sic) ... the pond".

I hope you read Eut's last post, as that is what Jane Fonda did, not just "protesting an unjust and illegal war"

See? That's what I was talking about: building a case.

Evidently you used language that was helping your cause in all of your points.

Your point 2 is a logical leap and is not based in the current interpretation of the law. Otherwise, you are on the right track. But since the point 2 is so tantamount to the case, I have to remain respectfully in a disagreement with your view.

point 2 is where the argument would be. i'll agree w/ that, but it probably was an argument that could have been won (unless fonda at the time pulled an o.j. simpson)

I don't see protesting a unjust and illegal war as "treating men and women who fought (sic) ... the pond".

Your view on a legitimate protest and on a totally legal activity is twisted, to say the least. Stop throwing "evil" and "traitor" around and build a decent argumanetation. In the meantime, saying someone is evil without any justification is libel and defamation of character.

Potaria COULD sue your ass off. We have incriminating evidence right here. Let's just hope that, like Eutrusca did, he will find the notion of ruining a live over some internet post is beneath him/her.
LOL! You really are something else, you know??

Please do at the very least try to differentiate between being against what a protester says from being against protest in general. Quite a few on here seem to be getting those confused.

If you think Potaria has grounds for bringing a libel and/or defamation of character suit against someone, by all means have him ( her? ) consult a lawyer. I rather suspect you will both be disappointed. :)

Now ... I did what? "Ruining a live?" What does that mean? :confused:

That's your opinion. I have my reasons for supporting the war in Iraq.That is my opinion and those are my reasons for not supporting this war. There are no WMD's in Iraq. Iraq has nothing to do with international terrorism as established by the 9-11 comission.

They are most certainly ignorant. I'm wondering.. a man who loves to make up his own reality IIt's called fiction, not ignorance. JR. Tolkien made up his own reality and he is certainly not ignorant.

and one who let a woman drown to save his sorry self...I personally find it to be incorrect to blame someone's behaviour in a life threatening situation. He pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of the accident in court, when he finally came to himself.

(...)I've lost all my will to argue...That's not my problem.

You know Eut, I don't like JF and I respect what you went through, but sometimes I think you let passion overshadow reason. While her actions during the war were deplorable, there is much evidence that she has mellowed and there is no reason to believe she will behave similarly regarding Iraq.

LOL! You really are something else, you know??

Please do at the very least try to differentiate between being against what a protester says from being against protest in general. Quite a few on here seem to be getting those confused.

If you think Potaria has grounds for bringing a libel and/or defamation of character suit against someone, by all means have him ( her? ) consult a lawyer. I rather suspect you will both be disappointed. :)

She called potaria evil. That is defamation of character. It's a simple as that.

Now ... I did what? "Ruining a live?" What does that mean? :confused:
You didn't read my sentence coorectly. I was saying that you decided that being called "babykiller" was not worth suing over.

I was giving you a compliment for Christ's sake.

are you so geared towards confrontation that you have to interpret what other people say in the worse light possible all the time?

...

2. The above qualifies, by law, as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

3. There is nothing in the Constitution which requires the US to be in a formally declared war for actions to qualify as treasonous.
...
2 - Indeed a leap in logic.

3 - The previous cases of 'adhering to enemy' and 'giving aid and comfort', AFAIK, always involved standing declarations of war, and this is a legal precedent.

What's wrong with the way i think? i like to think i'm fairly moderate. But i'm not gonna disagree w/ what's going on in Iraq. Mebbe the reasons we went there, but not because we're there. I see this incident as a jumpstart to stabilizing that region, i hope it works.
I hope it works too. But the way we're going about doing it is incredibly bad. I'm just sick of people telling us that we're either with them or with the terrorists. I'm sick of people telling us that if we don't support the war, we automatically hate the troops. I'm sick of people telling us that if we don't like America, we should move to France/Canada. I'm sick of the lies dammit!

The way Bush will be judged by history is a peace-bringer to the Middle East, which I really hope that is the case because the other way he could be judged is a perpetual-warmongering Christian fanatic who led the most powerful country to war based on lies. It's best to be pessimistic but not lose all sight of hope, because that way you'll be pleseantly surprised more than disappointed.

Even though I feel Jane Fonda is speaking out to fuel her reputation and sell her books, I still think you are in the wrong, Eutrusca.

Sooner or later you will figure out that working to pull troops out of danger is the way some people support the troops.



Cheering on the soldier's enemies, implying you want the soldiers dead, etc. isn't how I would define supporting the troops.

4. Ergo, whether tried for "treason" or not, Hanoi Jane ( or, if you prefer, "Jalalabad Jane" ) has committed acts for which she could legitimately be charged as being treasonous acts.

5. As to why she was never actually prosecuted, it probably has to do with the fact that the war was winding down, she was a "celebrity" in certain circles, she was rich, and she was female. All of these were probably factors in her never having been brought up on charges. The fact remains that she easily could have been prosecuted and that her acts fall well within the guidelines for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."


Perhaps, but actual trials for treason are extremely rare. There have only been about 30 cases in all of America's history. The last one to be heard by the Supreme Court was the trial of Hans Max Haupt in 1947. He gave his son land and a car during WWII, even though he knew his son was a German spy (Incidentally, the son had already been convicted and executed). Even so, the government only gave him life in prison.

How does this pertain? Even with damning evidence and obvious support of a declared and hated enemy, the Supreme Court gave only life in prison. Were the actions of Hanoi Jane deplorable? Yes. Is giving an undeclared enemy indirect propaganda help provably treasonous beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law? Ehhh...not exactly a slam dunk. Even had we declared war on the North Vietnamese, it would be a difficult case to win. That's probably why it's never been attempted.

I hope it works too. But the way we're going about doing it is incredibly bad. I'm just sick of people telling us that we're either with them or with the terrorists. I'm sick of people telling us that if we don't support the war, we automatically hate the troops. I'm sick of people telling us that if we don't like America, we should move to France/Canada. I'm sick of the lies dammit!


I'm sick of Bush smirking when he talks about the cost of the war in Iraq. There is one child of a Congressperson serving in Iraq, and none from the Senate. Seems disingenuous.

See? That's what I was talking about: building a case.

Evidently you used language that was helping your cause in all of your points.

Your point 2 is a logical leap and is not based in the current interpretation of the law. Otherwise, you are on the right track. But since the point 2 is so tantamount to the case, I have to remain respectfully in a disagreement with your view.
Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution contains language which was intended to be determinatory, and which is clear on the face of it:

Section 3.
1. 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.

[ emphasis added ]

Cheering on the soldier's enemies, implying you want the soldiers dead, etc. isn't how I would define supporting the troops.
Ach? And how is she cheering on the enemy? How is she implying she wants them dead?

She called potaria evil. That is defamation of character. It's a simple as that.



No, it is not defamation of character. It's as simple as that. Try to get an attorney to sue someone for having called a person "evil". Try to get the jury to understand just how that vicious slur hurt said persons' good name.

Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution contains language which was intended to be determinatory, and which is clear on the face of it:

Section 3.
1. 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.

[ emphasis added ]
What qualifies as aid? She wasn't giving them beds or anything. What she did was wrong, but did she "aid" them enough for it to be treason?

Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution contains language which was intended to be determinatory, and which is clear on the face of it:

Section 3.
1. 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.

[ emphasis added ]
And what she did is not considered giving them Aid and Comfort by the current jurisprudence and law. You can argue until you are blue, it just isn't.

At best you can have a case for unwillingly giving Aid and Comfort. It is still not treason. Just like involuntary manslaughter is not murder.

Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution contains language which was intended to be determinatory, and which is clear on the face of it:

Section 3.
1. 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.

[ emphasis added ]

The problem lies in the definition of "Enemies". If we haven't declared war, are they enemies? You'd say yes. I'd say as long as they are killing Americans, they are our enemies. However, in strict legal terms, they are not enemies of the State until the State says so. It wouldn't even be treason had she picked up a rifle and started shooting our soldiers. Murder yes, treason no. This defense would be difficult to argue against in court.

"The U.S. Constitution, Article VIII, Section III, declares, that adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, shall be treason. These words, as they are to be understood in the constitution, have not received a full judicial construction. They import, however, help, support, assistance, countenance, encouragement."

From http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a173.htm

Cheering on the soldier's enemies, implying you want the soldiers dead, etc. isn't how I would define supporting the troops.

I did not catch that from the initial post. Can you direct me to an article that quotes her as wanting US troops to die?

Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution contains language which was intended to be determinatory, and which is clear on the face of it:

Section 3.
1. 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.

[ emphasis added ]

Well, I think then that should put an end to the argument. Jane Fonda's actions may of been a little over the top, agreed. However, she in no way committed treason. Seems like the end of the story for me. As she did no such thing as give "Aid nor Comfort" to the enemy. Someone took her picture while she was in "Nam observing, it's as simple as that. Hardly treason. In fact nothing she did was even criminal, let alone treason. History speaks for itself, she was never charged with anything, and not because they didn't want to. Lets all not forget the hate the FBI under Hoover had on for her, if they could of nailed her with something, they would of.

wow, sorry to be part of the dogpile, Eutrusca

I'm just sick of people telling us that we're either with them or with the terrorists. I'm sick of people telling us that if we don't support the war, we automatically hate the troops. I'm sick of people telling us that if we don't like America, we should move to France/Canada. I'm sick of the lies dammit!That reminds me of Ron Kovic, from born on the 4th of july. The oliver stone movie based on Ron Kovic's war and homecoming experience.


"People say that if you don't love America, then get the hell out. Well, I love America. But as far as the administration goes it stops right there. I cannot express how much the government of this country sickens me." - Ron Kovic


Ron Kovic today is still an active anti Iraq-War protestor.

... It wouldn't even be treason had she picked up a rifle and started shooting our soldiers. Murder yes, treason no. This defense would be difficult to argue against in court.
That would be 'levying war'... and treason--but Ms Fonda didn't take a rifle.

That would be 'levying war'... and treason--but Ms Fonda didn't take a rifle.

Without a formal declaration, it is not a war (legally). Therefore, you cannot be guilty of 'levying' it.

The problem lies in the definition of "Enemies". If we haven't declared war, are they enemies? You'd say yes. I'd say as long as they are killing Americans, they are our enemies. However, in strict legal terms, they are not enemies of the State until the State says so. It wouldn't even be treason had she picked up a rifle and started shooting our soldiers. Murder yes, treason no. This defense would be difficult to argue against in court.
Well, Mr. Don't-have-pants, most legal experts seem to disagree, since shooting at US citizens on a consistent, organized basis is generally considered to mean that you are an "enemy" of the US.

Following that logic, then why hasn't President Bush been tried for "lying to the nation"? You can't have your cake and eat it

Freedom of speech does not cover for lying just as it doesn't cover shouting FIRE in the cinema. It does cover for idiotic statements made by the uninformed however.

Treating men and women who fought and sometimes died to protect us as if they were worms at the bottom of the pond IS evil.

What in the name of Balaams donkey's bollocks are you saying? That the North Vietnamese were going to invade the US next?

Without a formal declaration, it is not a war (legally). Therefore, you cannot be guilty of 'levying' it.
It would be constructive levying of war by Ms Jane Fonda against the US, with a presumable purpose to defeat the US and overthrow its government single-handedly... No kidding.

You didn't read my sentence coorectly. I was saying that you decided that being called "babykiller" was not worth suing over.

I was giving you a compliment for Christ's sake.

are you so geared towards confrontation that you have to interpret what other people say in the worse light possible all the time?
Oh. Sorry. I just didn't understand what you were driving at. My bad.

Thankyou! :D

Well, Mr. Don't-have-pants, most legal experts seem to disagree, since shooting at US citizens on a consistent, organized basis is generally considered to mean that you are an "enemy" of the US.

Really? They do? I mean, you clearly must have talked to most legal experts to have made this statement. Do you have any literature to back this claim up?

Well, Mr. Don't-have-pants, most legal experts seem to disagree, since shooting at US citizens on a consistent, organized basis is generally considered to mean that you are an "enemy" of the US.
Not quite, or the DC snipers are the enemies of the US.:rolleyes:

It would be constructive levying of war by Ms Jane Fonda against the US, with a presumable purpose to defeat the US and overthrow its government single-handedly... No kidding.

Good luck proving that in court.

You, or whoever it was I was responding to, basically stated that if we haven't tried a person for a crime, it must have not been a crime. I just find that absurd.

For people who have gained the notoriety of Jane Fonda, had she committed a crime she would surely have been tried for it. Yes, crimes are committed every day for which no one is ever charged, but that's usually due to the crime going unnoticed or unsolved.

2 - Indeed a leap in logic.

3 - The previous cases of 'adhering to enemy' and 'giving aid and comfort', AFAIK, always involved standing declarations of war, and this is a legal precedent.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, to name just one case. There were many cases of treason during the "cold war." No war was ever declared, yet there were several cases successfully prosecuted.

Not quite, or the DC snipers are the enemies of the US.:rolleyes:
Whatever. How about if I add "... as part of an opposing force?" Happy now?

Good luck proving that in court.
No problem. Ex parte Bollman, decided by the Supreme Court in 1807.

It is not the intention of the court to say that no individual can be guilty of this crime who has not appeared in arms against his country.
The Chief Justice definitely implies that anyone who appeared in arms against his country is a traitor.

No problem. Ex parte Bollman, decided by the Supreme Court in 1807.


The Chief Justice definitely implies that anyone who appeared in arms against his country is a traitor.

Yes, but does sitting on an anti-aircraft gun constitute "in arms against his country"? Also, here's Wikipedia's take on that ruling:

The Constitutional definition of treason is limited to actual, direct, and concrete involvement in an attempt to forcefully overthrow the government.
That is, treason is essentially a "military" offense. For instance, no amount of anti-government speech can qualify as treason, although giving away military secrets might.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, to name just one case. There were many cases of treason during the "cold war." No war was ever declared, yet there were several cases successfully prosecuted.
You are mistaken. Rosenbergs weren't prosecuted as traitors--after all, the US was at peace with the USSR, even though the American and Soviet fighter pilots fought each other above Korea.

Yes, but does sitting on an anti-aircraft gun constitute "in arms against his country"? ...
Of course, it doesn't.

Well, I think then that should put an end to the argument. Jane Fonda's actions may of been a little over the top, agreed. However, she in no way committed treason. Seems like the end of the story for me. As she did no such thing as give "Aid nor Comfort" to the enemy. Someone took her picture while she was in "Nam observing, it's as simple as that. Hardly treason. In fact nothing she did was even criminal, let alone treason. History speaks for itself, she was never charged with anything, and not because they didn't want to. Lets all not forget the hate the FBI under Hoover had on for her, if they could of nailed her with something, they would of.
Sigh. So making pro-North Vietnam propaganda broadcasts isn't treasonous? Tell that to Tokyo Rose. :p

You are mistaken. Rosenbergs weren't prosecuted as traitors--after all, the US was at peace with the USSR, even though the American and Soviet fighter pilots fought each other above Korea.
Then what, pray tell, were they executed for?

Sigh. So making pro-North Vietnam propaganda broadcasts isn't treasonous? Tell that to Tokyo Rose. :p
Iva Toguri was broadcasting when there was a state of war in place, and her conviction was a bit erm... unsafe, if we are to believe this-- http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20020221.html

That reminds me of Ron Kovic, from born on the 4th of july. The oliver stone movie based on Ron Kovic's war and homecoming experience.


"People say that if you don't love America, then get the hell out. Well, I love America. But as far as the administration goes it stops right there. I cannot express how much the government of this country sickens me." - Ron Kovic


Ron Kovic today is still an active anti Iraq-War protestor.


You know....this kind of talk really pisses me off. Does every anti-war protester out there realize that a radical terrorist would kill you in a heartbeat even if you don't support war. Do you honestly think they if everyone in this country said "nevermind, sorry guys...we'll never send our troops anywhere again" that these people would stop trying to come up with ways of killing innocent people. NO!!..... they would be even bolder. The fact remains that whether you support war or not, you can't control that fact that we have not evolved far enough as a species to take natural selection out of the equation. Sometimes you have no choice but to go after and stop people from doing something, otherwise none of us would be here having this discussion right now. If history has taught us anything at all, it's that ignoring a problem or trying to "wish it away with positive thinking" has never done anything but make it worse. We tried to stay out of world war 2 and it cost us american lives at pearl harbor. People who wish to do other innocent people harm don't give a damn about morals or picking and choosing based on whether we support war or not.........so in saying that, then technically yes, you are either with us "free innocent people around the world, not just the U.S." or you are with them.

Then what, pray tell, were they executed for?
They were convicted of violating the Espionage act of 1917, and I presume that they were executed for it.

That reminds me of Ron Kovic, from born on the 4th of july. The oliver stone movie based on Ron Kovic's war and homecoming experience.


"People say that if you don't love America, then get the hell out. Well, I love America. But as far as the administration goes it stops right there. I cannot express how much the government of this country sickens me." - Ron Kovic


Ron Kovic today is still an active anti Iraq-War protestor.

As long as Anti-War does not mean Anti-Troop. I imagine Ron Kovic could agree with that.

<Translation>

*Fearmongering rant about how OMFG the ragheads are under the bed they want us all dead but we're the inocent victims!!one!eleven.*

*George Bush approved 'For us or against us' rhetoric.*

</Translation>

If that's all true then you may as well hang Potaria, Fonda, Moore and everyone else who doesn't support the war. Call it 40% of the US population. And you'll have to kill their over-ten kids in case they have been indoctrinated by their pansy-ass parents. Then declare martial law to stop yourself being overthrown by every surviving patriot.

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 hate Fonda so very much. Too bad no one takes her out. She really is evil.

As long as Anti-War does not mean Anti-Troop. I imagine Ron Kovic could agree with that.Anti-War never means anti-troop. Having said that I believe that Jane Fonda is an idiot.

You know....this kind of talk really pisses me off. Does every anti-war protester out there realize that a radical terrorist would kill you in a heartbeat even if you don't support war.Yes they do realize that. What do radical terrorists have to do with Iraq though?

Do you honestly think they if everyone in this country said "nevermind, sorry guys...we'll never send our troops anywhere again" that bla bla bla...That isn't the message that war protestors convey. WAR yes bet when it is justified.
We should be at war with Al-Qaeda and not Iraq.

If history has taught us anything at all, it's that ignoring a problem or trying to "wish it away with positive thinking" has never done anything but make it worse. Then why has Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda been ignored and been set as a second priority to Saddam Hussein?

I just want to know what gives Jane Fonda - or any celebrity in her position - any special insight into the war or makes their viewpoint any better than anyone else's who is not involved in the day-to-day operations of the military and the threat of terrorism - I much prefer Paul McCartney's approach who when asked about Iraq said "I'm a bloody musician, not a politician or soldier - ask them."

That reminds me of Ron Kovic, from born on the 4th of july. The oliver stone movie based on Ron Kovic's war and homecoming experience.

"People say that if you don't love America, then get the hell out. Well, I love America. But as far as the administration goes it stops right there. I cannot express how much the government of this country sickens me." - Ron Kovic

Ron Kovic today is still an active anti Iraq-War protestor.
And one of the few Vietnam veterans who are. I suspect that Ron's wartime trauma affected his mind.

I just want to know what gives Jane Fonda - or any celebrity in her position - any special insight into the war or makes their viewpoint any better than anyone else's who is not involved in the day-to-day operations of the military and the threat of terrorism - I much prefer Paul McCartney's approach who when asked about Iraq said "I'm a bloody musician, not a politician or soldier - ask them."
That flies in the face of the PC approach ... all opinions are equal, it's just that leftist opinions are more equal than rightist ones. :)

<Translation>

*Fearmongering rant about how OMFG the ragheads are under the bed they want us all dead but we're the inocent victims!!one!eleven.*

*George Bush approved 'For us or against us' rhetoric.*

</Translation>

If that's all true then you may as well hang Potaria, Fonda, Moore and everyone else who doesn't support the war. Call it 40% of the US population. And you'll have to kill their over-ten kids in case they have been indoctrinated by their pansy-ass parents. Then declare martial law to stop yourself being overthrown by every surviving patriot.


If it lets us hang Fonda and Moore, make it so :p

:mp5:
i cant stand that vapid bimbo,and therefore, i could care less about what her opinions are on anything.she is,like you said..all good points about her doing what is popular ,and getting her pampered face some news time,without actually doing anything to earn anyones respect is pathetic.
bet her book sales are sagging,public opinion is turning against the war,abracadabra,out pops super twit,to get some publicity.
she is a useless,worn out old rich(deleted)that wants to be the center of attention,yet probably knows little or nothing about what she babbles about.
i hope her stupid bus tour keeps getting flats,the a/c keeps shutting off,the motor blows and she keeps getting stuck in dink towns full of hostile veterens that she spit on.
that would be sweet revenge for her bs during vietnam.i wish no one ill will or harm especially,but to see her sobbing because everything"just keeps going wrong"would be priceless,and in no small amount deserved.



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.

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.
Oh, buddy.
Calm down. That's democracy, and that's freedom. Freedom to say the Government's policy stinks. Freedom to say that those people shouldn't be fighting at all.

I just cannot believe that Americans can't get over her. She had an opinion back then, and she used her celebrity status to get it out there.
Those NVA soldiers weren't her enemies. She's a civilian, she isn't at war with anyone.
Vietnam wasn't a war like it was in WWII in Germany. It wasn't the American people against the Vietnamese people. It was the US Military against the NVA and the VC (and I'm afraid to say, many civilians too - in Laos and in Cambodia, who had preciously little to do with Vietnam politically).

Her opinion is valid today as it was then. To stop her from campaigning for it is, what would you call it, un-American.

:sniper: Nueva Ganja officially declares war on Hanoi Jane Fonda!! As a military vet and son, grandson and great-grandson of military vets, she...along with America's extreme left, have greatly mistaken free speech with idiocy and self-grandeur. I salute the Vietnam-Vet who spat chew juice in her face! It was his way of expressing his right to free speech!!

Oh, buddy.
Calm down. That's democracy, and that's freedom. Freedom to say the Government's policy stinks. Freedom to say that those people shouldn't be fighting at all.

I just cannot believe that Americans can't get over her. She had an opinion back then, and she used her celebrity status to get it out there.
Those NVA soldiers weren't her enemies. She's a civilian, she isn't at war with anyone.
Vietnam wasn't a war like it was in WWII in Germany. It wasn't the American people against the Vietnamese people. It was the US Military against the NVA and the VC (and I'm afraid to say, many civilians too - in Laos and in Cambodia, who had preciously little to do with Vietnam politically).

Her opinion is valid today as it was then. To stop her from campaigning for it is, what would you call it, un-American.
I think it speaks volumes that two of the people on this thread have called me "a babykiller." Hanoi Jane is already having the effects she seeks.

It would help if you could read most, or at least some of the posts.

:sniper: Nueva Ganja officially declares war on Hanoi Jane Fonda!! As a military vet and son, grandson and great-grandson of military vets, she...along with America's extreme left, have greatly mistaken free speech with idiocy and self-grandeur. I salute the Vietnam-Vet who spat chew juice in her face! It was his way of expressing his right to free speech!!
Sic 'em, amigo! En los cojones! :D

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.

"Started" the war between the North and South?

Or "continued the war they'd been fighting since the 1940s, to liberate their country"?

Vietnam would have been amalgamated if the US and France hadn't conspired at the post Dien Bien Phu peace talks to halve it, because they were afraid of Ho being swept to power.

15 years later, hundreds of thousands of deaths later, wonder what happened?

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."
Still dredging up the same BS?

Prove that she "laughingly peered through the sights of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun".

COMMENTARY: Well, the poster child for anti-war idiocy is at it again.
She has a right to "free" speech?

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!
What would you do if she visited North Carolina? Spit on her?

Still dredging up the same BS?

Prove that she "laughingly peered through the sights of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun".
I don't need to. Someone else has already posted a link to that photo, which you would realize if you bothered to read the thread, rather than simply launching into a diatribe against everything I post. :)

She has a right to "free" speech?

What would you do if she visited North Carolina? Spit on her?
As I stated earlier in this thread in response to someone who asked the same question: "Ya don' kno, do ya!" :D

-snip-
You don't expect me to read through 28 pages, do you?
I read some of it, but I didn't find the part where they called you a babykiller... :D
I assume you didn't kill any babies. Three-year olds don't count as babies, do they?

Anyways, I don't know Jane Fonda. I have never seen any of her movies, or anything else she has ever done. The only thing I know about her is that she has a strong conscience that makes her dislike wars like these, and that she was on a tour in Vietnam that time.
I assume the NVA knew even less about her, so you really can't speak of giving aid or comfort to the enemy. More like "discomfort to the own leadership".

But if even McNamara can forgive her (I saw that on the news lately), then you should too.

And as so many of your own camp have already proclaimed, Iraq is completely different from Vietnam.
Isn't it?

You don't expect me to read through 28 pages, do you?
I read some of it, but I didn't find the part where they called you a babykiller... :D
I assume you didn't kill any babies. Three-year olds don't count as babies, do they?

Anyways, I don't know Jane Fonda. I have never seen any of her movies, or anything else she has ever done. The only thing I know about her is that she has a strong conscience that makes her dislike wars like these, and that she was on a tour in Vietnam that time.
I assume the NVA knew even less about her, so you really can't speak of giving aid or comfort to the enemy. More like "discomfort to the own leadership".

But if even McNamara can forgive her (I saw that on the news lately), then you should too.

And as so many of your own camp have already proclaimed, Iraq is completely different from Vietnam.
Isn't it?
What's my "camp?"

What's my "camp?"
the warmongering neocons and their sheep

And one of the few Vietnam veterans who are. I suspect that Ron's wartime trauma affected his mind.You have no clue as to this man is do you? Ron Kovic? Otherwise what exactly are you trying to say or insinuate?

Not to mention that there are few vietnam veterans who are in favour of the War in Iraq and not the other way around.

And one of the few Vietnam veterans who are. I suspect that Ron's wartime trauma affected his mind.
You have got to be kidding me.

If he doesn't agree with you he has trauma? Are you that incapable of understanding that your experience and the viewpoint you have might not be universal? That someone could go through that war and think "You know what? We aught to hold the people who start these wars responsable for them," without that being trauma?

Are you still snipping at people being knee-jerk idealoges? Because if you are...glass houses and all....

I know this post will get deleted but I dont care. I have only one thing to say

Fuck Jane Fonda!

I know this post will get deleted but I dont care. I have only one thing to say

Fuck Jane Fonda!
No thanks. Maybe back when she starred in Barbarella, but I no longer find her attractive. ;)

the warmongering neocons and their sheep


:rolleyes:

For the record... I despise Jane Fonda and what she did in Hanoi.

You have got to be kidding me.

If he doesn't agree with you he has trauma? Are you that incapable of understanding that your experience and the viewpoint you have might not be universal? That someone could go through that war and think "You know what? We aught to hold the people who start these wars responsable for them," without that being trauma?

Are you still snipping at people being knee-jerk idealoges? Because if you are...glass houses and all....
Hi, CTN! I hope you had a nice day. :)

Hi, CTN! I hope you had a nice day. :)
I did, thank you. Your messages where very kind.


Still doesn't get you off the hook, though.

EDIT:
I should say, though, that no way am I getting too deep into this one. I checked the first and last pages and that's about it. It's like looking in threads about Micheal Moore, Sound and fury et. al

I've come to the conclusion that you guys can shout yourselves blue about this and if a reasonable person asks I'll explain how documentaries are made or what not and it will all be clear.

On a more serious note. It's not the fact that she protested the Vietnam war. It's the fact that she went to the enemy, boosted their moral, and decreased ours. You dont protest a war by going to the enemy's camp and taking pictures.

Protest a war, but never, NEVER, take it out on the soliders of that war.

LOL. It's a rare occasion when a post has me literally laughing in my chair. Thanks for cheering me up!

Well laughing like a idiot in need of professional help has allways been the sign of the stupid (you)

I know this post will get deleted but I dont care. I have only one thing to say

Fuck Jane Fonda!

She can save her charms for the enemy, I wouldn't touch her.

Protest a war, but never, NEVER, take it out on the soliders of that war.

That goes for the Waffen SS to?
Ok for me, since they were not the Algemeine SS that garded the camps or belonged to the "einszatsgruppe" that killed people/citizens in east EU and Russia. But pure fascisme as proven by about every non blind in the US torture prisons in Afghanistan, Cuba and Iraq is showing us a kind of gangsters that only can be executed to have a decent penalty. Why not, the US is after all executing minors (only state together with Iran that does this, but in Iran it is not systematicly) and mentaly disabled, so why not justice for the innocent people that are tortured to death? Like they say in Germany after WWII: "Siegerjustitze" ( Sorry for the bad Deutsch).

Well laughing like a idiot in need of professional help has allways been the sign of the stupid (you)

Thanks, I haven't had a decent laugh in a while! :)

Let me just begin by saying I believe there to be no person on this planet more worthy of respect than the policeman (the good ones), the fireman (especially the volunteers), the teacher, the social worker etc. and, first and foremost, the soldier. I find the comments about the impossibility of respecting "people who join the army to kill Iraq-ees" to be in extremely poor taste, and the result of severely distorted cognition. Read up about the recent incident of dozens of Iraqi children who were killed in an explosion while accepting candy from a U.S. soldier. Believe it or not, the candy was not poisoned, the children were not being herded into a Christian capitalist indoctrination center, it was just a good act by a good person toward good children who were murdered by a sick fuck who'd been manipulated with quasi-religious lies. There are, unfortunately, some people beyond hope, whose views and intentions have become so twisted, whose aims so violent and immoral, that imprisonment or death is the only solution, the absence of which will only lead to the death of innocent life. Other than that, believe it or not, we are not there to kill indiscriminately. It does not serve our interests, it does not serve the Iraqi people's interests (whose interests we now share), we are there to enforce a peace until the Iraqi people are ready to do so themselves. At this late date, to view the common soldier heading to Iraq as a bucktoothed, slack jawed yokel looking to kill ragheads is a sophomoric and juvenile position not even really worth disproving. Respect them as men, respect them as women, with the best of intentions, who, as often as possible, carry out those good intentions. If you DO find a starry eyed recruit aiming to "kill as many sand niggers as ah can, YEEEEEHAW!", which I strongly doubt you will, by all means disrespect them, do what you will. To disrespect a group of which you know nothing on a ubiquitous basis, however? Poor taste. Disagree with perspectives, by all means, but show respect to others as human beings inherently worthy of respect, if nothing else.

Certainly, there is an inevitability of Abu-Ghraib "bad apples" (often reserves) and poor commanders such as Gen. Janice Karpinski who cast a poor light on the effort, but it must be realized that for every scumbag such as those involved in such scandals, there are vast multitudes of soldiers who don't make the news, but are actually very decent people who are there to assist the Iraqi people in achieving democratic autonomy; not to enforce our ideals or assist in empire-building, but to allow a suffering people a chance at achieving a level of dignity, safety, and freedom which is yet unrealized in the region. The various Downing street memos, accusations of White House contractual nepotism, and accusations of neoconservative agendas have no bearing on the common soldier. He or she has been asked by her country to serve, and he or she has performed the greatest duty one can perform, by answering that call. The portrayal of enlisted soldiers as sadistic savages worthy of no respect, seeking to kill innocents is, I suspect, the result of osmosis through peer group thought, and the following of populist demagoguery, rather than a widespread empirical analysis of the various mindsets of armed forces members after an extensive interview process and psychological profile. But, then again, perhaps I overstep my bounds in making such a bold prognostication.

The current is as good as any time to debate the justification of the war in the interest of repeating or curtailing such efforts in the future, but it is not the time to debate the continuation of the transition effort. Colin Powell's pottery barn theory of "You break it, you fix it" holds true. It is easy to predict the future of Iraq if abandoned for the sake of self-sovereignty at the current stage; the job is not done. Factional rivalries would almost undoubtedly lead to civil war, the coals of which the insurgency has long attempted to stoke. There is little doubt an autocratic theocracy resembling or likely surpassing the Taliban in suppression of rights and brutality would result, whose authoritarianism would almost certainly surpass the Ba'athist regime's. Active ideological, operational, and financial support for terrorism would be a given in such a scenario. Therefore, debate on various exit strategies is healthy and constructive, but the assertion that, basing itself on the theory of an unjust war, it is time to end said war by simply pulling out, is a juvenile and naive argument.

My personal view? I am slightly less outraged by the lack of finding WMD's and various theories of neoconservative conspiracy to trump up and fabricate evidence of weapons and chemical/biological agent programs, because I knew at the time that it was merely a pretext. The real reason, besides the debatable issues of oil, corporate hegemony, and the infamous "try to assassinate MY father, will you!?" theory is of course the purpose of installing a democratic nation in a troubled region which can serve as a beacon of hope for reform movements elsewhere, etc. etc. I don't believe it was ever seriously believed that Saddam was directly supporting terror, as it was well known he was secular and considered radical Islam a threat to his power, but it was believed that terrorism was spawned from conditions of oppression, leading to general unrest, violence, and terrorism. I am well aware that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, (obviously Afghanistan), Pakistan, and other countries are much better targets using such parameters, and I do fault the administration for turning its attention away from Osama (though he has been in Pakistan since Tora Bora, where we are not allowed) toward a non-terrorist supporting state, but the matter of intentionally "hijacking our grief and flying it into Iraq" is the real issue. Certainly, the WMD issue was overplayed, and partially trumped up, but the international community at large certainly was also under the impression that Saddam had SOMETHING going on behind the curtains, just not with enough certainty to act (and rightfully so). Nevertheless, the gloating over not having found WMD's is ridiculous. The man had months of warning, did anyone expect us to march into a warehouse with Saddam on the toilet with 5,000 canisters of Zyklon-B behind him? It's very easy to hide things if you have time to do so.

There are good aspects of the Iraq War, there are bad aspects of it. War itself is a detestable thing, there can be no doubt, but the Ba'ath regime was no picnic either. War should be a last consequence, only when a threat can be proven, but it is also true that without this war, Saddam would still be in power, with Qusay ready to take over. Many innocents have died as a result of this war that would not have otherwise died, but many innocents have also lived as a result of it, that would not have otherwise lived. The high majority of the innocents who have died are a result of Iraqis and foreign insurgents themselves, not baby-stomping imperialist redneck Marines. Costly is the price of freedom, especially in such a region. Supporting democratic reform movements from without is a noble and legitimate cause for democracies to encourage freedom in despotically ruled countries, but at a certain point, the noose is tight enough that the mere result is execution of "subversives" by the regime, which itself results in loss of innocent life, but with no gain. The Iraqi people did not and could not have overthrown Saddam, but if they had, in a typical revolutionary fashion, the Ba'athist grip on power was strong enough that it would have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, as opposed to even the most egregiously overestimated figures, which are much lower. A quick look at history will prove there to be something of a dearth of wars fought for the sake of freeing other people, the Civil War and World War II being in a large minority. "The War of the Spanish Succession", "The Hundred Years War", "The Punic Wars"....wars have been fought for far, FAR less justified reasons than ever the worst, most conspiratorial view that can be taken of the Iraqi War, and no war has ever been fought with more precision and care to avoid risking innocent life, AT the risk of our own lives (with nonetheless far too many, and incredibly regrettable on a level with our casualties, losses of innocent lives) Therefore, it is true that a great many things can be said against the cause, many of which I partially or totally agree with, but a great many legitimate supporting factors can also be cited. To wholeheartedly support or oppose such an affair is a stubborn, close minded approach.

In terms of the war itself, I regret to say that I believe it has been poorly run. I believe a great deal of simultaneous hubris and incompetence among Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and their cronies has sadly led to the unnecessary deaths of Americans. The sarcastic quote, "Senator, I HARDLY think it would take more troops to occupy a country than invade it" by Paul Wolfowitz continues to irk me to this day in its incredibly obtuse nature and misunderstanding of war. I, myself, am a historian, and am under the impression that a great number of civilian would-be armchair generals could benefit from not only the teachings of the various Sun-Tzu's and Von Klausewitzes, but specific battle studies, most particularly in the Arab region. Various aspects of the war remind of of Crassus at Carrhae. What exactly it was about the obsession with conducting the war with the absolute minimum amount of troops possible continues to vex me, and it saddens me that a man like Shinseki, with all his years of service, would be fired by arrogant idiots for defying their supposed logic.

As for Jane Fonda? I dislike the woman, I disagree with her views, and I find her to have severely overstepped the bounds of reasonable expression of conscience by mocking our armed forces through the act of essentially simulating fire toward American pilots. Do I hate that she expressed dissent? No, I love that she expressed dissent. Her ability to be an idiot, to be a douchebag(ette), to say whatever the hell she wants to say, no matter how idiotic, is the only thing we've ever fought for (I'd like to think). That ability is what makes us who we are. I understand patriotism, I myself am a fierce patriot, but when loyalty to a particular administration or party becomes intermingled and confused with loyalty to the country, all that we have fought for and all that we have ever been becomes for naught. Therefore, supporting everything that is done by our government for the sake of supporting it, rather than an objective empirical analysis of various justifications, becomes blindness, submission, and leads only to absolution. It is sad that people do take advantage of free societies and debase themselves and their families by spitting on and slandering those they view as perpetrators of death, but ALL views which do not cause physical harm or conspire to overthrow the government must be allowed. No matter how egregious, even the most extreme of views must be accepted, for when it is not, a pincer results where the field of views which are determined to be acceptable narrows and narrows until only homogeny of thought exists.

I know, I know, I'm notoriously longwinded, but sometimes I gotta weigh in on some poor unsuspecting debate and interject some ridiculously loquacious and unnecessary post which largely goes ignored :P.


Eutrusca, I'm often rather observant and obfuscated in such debates, but I just wanted to say I admire your service and the service of all your compatriots to our country, and to say thank you. My father recently retired a full Colonel in the National Guard, and served as a Battalion Commander in the Army during Vietnam ('70), losing one single person in his unit during his tour, despite being on constant patrol (and was listed in a newspaper clipping as being part of the first division to officially enter Cambodia). He is truly my hero, but merely a reflection of the greater heroism of those who have had the courage to choose the path less traveled and step up when they were needed. Thank you again.

Thanks, I haven't had a decent laugh in a while! :)

Huh, you guys are the same? :p
Yep,you are and you like the topic reply notification. (wow, you only have 3 posts, must be a puppet). Busted:D :D :D

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???
Perhaps the most logical point in this entire thread. :)

Most of the anti-Jane rhetoric really has no basis in any kind of "facts", and that is the problem.

Huh, you guys are the same? :p
Yep,you are and you like the topic reply notification. (wow, you only have 3 posts, must be a puppet). Busted:D :D :D

Say what now?

Busted? I don't comprehend.

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."
Wow, that's some pretty rampant guilt by association! So if she supports aid for Niger would you be against that? I don't like her. "Barbarella" was good, but hanging around with people as bad as the North Vietnamese and attacking veterans is treacherous.

But still, it is a rather twisted moral view to be against something just because she supports it. Who's to say that every organisation she supports wants her support? Why is her status more important than that of the good people who support these causes? Does her status as a virtual traitor make her more important than other people?

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.
Keruvalia who lives in Texas, is also a veteran against the war.

She should have been tried for treason. She doesn't deserve to call herself an American. I can have no sympathy for her.
Vietnam was an undeclared war so legally it is impossible, but from a moral standpoint I agree.

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:

Oliver North ....geez! Couldn't you get a better source? He as much of a traitor as she is, and a far more despicable man.

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

Seriously? The North Vietnamese?

And why would it be a bad thing anyway? The North Vietnamese weren't the ones at fault, the US was the instigator.
That's not actually the case. The US was drawn in to help the French in Vietnam when the North decided to invade the South.

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! ;)
True, true. By your political compass, you're actually a liberal person. I feel similar in many ways, because most of the people who agree with my opinions on domestic policy strongly disagree with me on issues of security and foreign policy.

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?
1. Most soldiers are rather more intelligent than this.

2. Good, let communication reign free!

3. Yes. To help kill those who are destroying the world. Also, many soldiers actively help people in the form of building infrastructure.

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]
Broadly, I respect soldiers. But I agree that there is no real glory in what they do. I disagree that self-defense is the only acceptable reason for violence. Is it violence not justified to defend other people? Do you honestly think that killing people is never justified?

So is helping Pinochet get into power. But no one will ever be held legally responsible for that, so tough.
Unless Henry Kissinger visits Spain!

Don't forget Suharto! A kill-list of 3,000 communists, supplied directly by the CIA.

An "observer" doesn't get her photograph taken with enemy soldiers with a smile on her face....
And why was she smiling? Unless you can answer that question, your point is moot?

snip

wow, i agree wholeheartedly. Very good post.

And why was she smiling? Unless you can answer that question, your point is moot?

because she was happy?

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.

How the fuck is interrogating POWs, posing on anti-aircraft artillery, etc. "free speech" and "dissent?" There's an extremely fine line between "dissent" and "treason." Opposing a war, marching against it, et. al., is dissent. What she did was treason.

I don't need to. Someone else has already posted a link to that photo, which you would realize if you bothered to read the thread, rather than simply launching into a diatribe against everything I post. :)
But Eutrusca, YOU are the main man....YOU started this thread, and all I asked was for YOU to post proof that Jane was "laughingly peered through the sights of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun". The reason I asked YOU to provide proof, is that in a previous anti-Jane thread, you posted a quote from a web site (that was clearly anti-Jane, making a very serious charge in nature), and the quote was proven false. It proves that when one is full of hatred towards a person, that one is willing to go to any lengths to make that person look bad, and the consequences be damned.

I was wondering if you were kinda going in that same direction again, because if it is the same picture that I am thinking of, it does not support your contention that she was ""laughingly peered through the sights of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun".

It appears that you anti-Jane types have but a handful of pictures and a serious helping of hate in your hearts. You state that you are a defender of the "freedom of speech", but in your case, it depends on who is speaking?

Let it go and move on with your life and enjoy it while you can. If your goal is to make negative headlines should Jane Fonda go to North Carolina, and I certainly hope not, then you will be committing a huge disservice to your country.

because she was happy?
Happy about what, and what does this prove?

Colonel Oliver North.Oliver was Gay.

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

*Watches as Rogolia gets hit in the face by high velocity cookies (approx: 800+kph). Looks at the bleeding mass on the floor.*

Never stand in front of a speeding bus. Or a cookie. Enough speed can turn just about anything into a deadly missile you know.

*Laughs*


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

Riiiiiiiiight. And if the entire US administration during the cold war had that kind of attitude, you wouldn't be here to yak about it. You would either be dead or trying to live in a post apocalyptic world and beating away them pesky mutants.

You only want that kind of attitude when they CAN'T bomb you back.

Hypocrite.

How the fuck is interrogating POWs, posing on anti-aircraft artillery, etc. "free speech" and "dissent?" There's an extremely fine line between "dissent" and "treason." Opposing a war, marching against it, et. al., is dissent. What she did was treason.
Now all you have to do is prove it? Might be kinda difficult, seeing that she wasn't even charged?

Man, always bust my ass to write the best post I can, and always gets ignored :/. Thanks though, Mirchaz.

But Eutrusca, YOU are the main man....YOU started this thread, and all I asked was for YOU to post proof that Jane was "laughingly peered through the sights of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun". The reason I asked YOU to provide proof, is that in a previous anti-Jane thread, you posted a quote from a web site (that was clearly anti-Jane, making a very serious charge in nature), and the quote was proven false. It proves that when one is full of hatred towards a person, that one is willing to go to any lengths to make that person look bad, and the consequences be damned.

It appears that you anti-Jane types have but a handful of pictures and a serious helping of hate in your hearts. You state that you are a defender of the "freedom of speech", but in your case, it depends on who is speaking?

.

Well that is Eutrusca, first time you notice? Just ignore extremists or that kind of arrogant propagandist that will tell every lie (like you well analysed) to reach their political goals. He is a proven marginal. Ignore that kind of trolling better next time because you'll never have a respectfull debate, you will respect his opinion but he'll never be respectfull to you.

As for Jane Fonda? I dislike the woman, I disagree with her views, and I find her to have severely overstepped the bounds of reasonable expression of conscience by mocking our armed forces through the act of essentially simulating fire toward American pilots.
Prove that she "mocking our armed forces through the act of essentially simulating fire toward American pilots".

No, I love that she expressed dissent. Her ability to be an idiot, to be a douchebag(ette), to say whatever the hell she wants to say, no matter how idiotic, is the only thing we've ever fought for (I'd like to think). That ability is what makes us who we are.
BRAVO!!

I understand patriotism, I myself am a fierce patriot, but when loyalty to a particular administration or party becomes intermingled and confused with loyalty to the country, all that we have fought for and all that we have ever been becomes for naught. Therefore, supporting everything that is done by our government for the sake of supporting it, rather than an objective empirical analysis of various justifications, becomes blindness, submission, and leads only to absolution.
More BRAVO!!

It is sad that people do take advantage of free societies and debase themselves and their families by spitting on and slandering those they view as perpetrators of death, but ALL views which do not cause physical harm or conspire to overthrow the government must be allowed. No matter how egregious, even the most extreme of views must be accepted, for when it is not, a pincer results where the field of views which are determined to be acceptable narrows and narrows until only homogeny of thought exists.
I agree to a degree.

I know, I know, I'm notoriously longwinded, but sometimes I gotta weigh in on some poor unsuspecting debate and interject some ridiculously loquacious and unnecessary post which largely goes ignored :P.
It is a long post and you made some good points, and at least one that requires some proof, but all in all pretty good.

My father recently retired a full Colonel in the National Guard, and served as a Battalion Commander in the Army during Vietnam ('70), losing one single person in his unit during his tour, despite being on constant patrol (and was listed in a newspaper clipping as being part of the first division to officially enter Cambodia). He is truly my hero, but merely a reflection of the greater heroism of those who have had the courage to choose the path less traveled and step up when they were needed.
Congrats to your father and your hero. :)

Well that is Eutrusca, first time you notice? Just ignore extremists or that kind of arrogant propagandist that will tell every lie (like you well analysed) to reach their political goals. He is a proven marginal. Ignore that kind of trolling better next time because you'll never have a respectfull debate, you will respect his opinion but he'll never be respectfull to you.
Well Eutrusca and I have danced quite a few times before and he does tend to step on my foot a lot, but I like to try and keep him honest, despite his extreme reluctance to play along. :)

Well Eutrusca and I have danced quite a few times before. :)

Must be Tap Dance ;)
(btw I danced with him to in discussions before, that is why I posted towards you)

B. Sighting through a North Vietnmese rocket launcher used to shoot down American aircraft.


I'm going to have to call you in on that one. I saw the pictures and that damn well didn't look like a rocket launcher. It looked like an AAA gun setup to me.

Well Eutrusca and I have danced quite a few times before and he does tend to step on my foot a lot, but I like to try and keep him honest, despite his extreme reluctance to play along. :)
Oh yeah? So's yer momma! :p ( Hehehe! )

Prove that she "mocking our armed forces through the act of essentially simulating fire toward American pilots".

Heh, come on man, I got a headache, I'm on a dialup, it's late, I'm a lazy bastard...you know you can find that picture in two seconds, it ain't a damn court of law or something where I gotta provide a link to every damn thang :P. Either way, it's hardly the crux of that post; the point was that she stepped over the line in my opinion, but that neither my opinion nor that of anyone else should be a viable ground for limiting her freedom to express herself however she likes, so ultimately my opinion of HER opinion is merely that and nothing more, an opinion, and should be as such. The main reason I should of course feel that way is that if, on the inverse, I wanted to state that Jane Fonda is a moron, and that I love my country, or whatever jibbety jabbety, I should have to listen to her as well, or at least recognize her right to fellate Ayman Al-Zawahari or whatever she feels like doing. Expecting to be able to voice your opinion but be able to silence that of the opposition has obvious results. Alright, I'm done stating how well I grasp the obvious.


Congrats to your father and your hero. :)

Heh, because I'm a over-defensive/confrontational person and always assuming people are attacking me, I wonder if there is sarcasm and condescension in that, but I don't think you're that virulently leftist. Anyway, I'm an old, balding fat man with bad knees, if I gave the "My daddy is my heeeeero!" impression :P. My old man is damn near infallible, though, I must say; all the self-discipline of a career soldier, providing a great example, yet at the same time rather easy going, humorous, and learned. Never curses, never seen a cigarette or drink in his hand...it's like all the best qualities of Vito Corleone without the whole...borgata thing.

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.

Hmm, JF in a roaming bus should do the job...LOL

< major snippage >

Eutrusca, I'm often rather observant and obfuscated in such debates, but I just wanted to say I admire your service and the service of all your compatriots to our country, and to say thank you. My father recently retired a full Colonel in the National Guard, and served as a Battalion Commander in the Army during Vietnam ('70), losing one single person in his unit during his tour, despite being on constant patrol (and was listed in a newspaper clipping as being part of the first division to officially enter Cambodia). He is truly my hero, but merely a reflection of the greater heroism of those who have had the courage to choose the path less traveled and step up when they were needed. Thank you again.
No, thank you! Both for a very well thought-out post and for being considerate of those who choose to serve.

I support the troops, even if i don't agree with the war, if someone disagrees with the war it doesn't mean they hate the soldiers.

Perhaps the most logical point in this entire thread. :)

Most of the anti-Jane rhetoric really has no basis in any kind of "facts", and that is the problem.
Please explain to me exactly what you would consider to be "facts." A multitide of facts have been presented in this thread, including one very good, unbiased article on Snopes.com, apparently none of which you seem to accept as "facts.

I support the troops, even if i don't agree with the war, if someone disagrees with the war it doesn't mean they hate the soldiers.
I totally agree.

For a MILF, you gotta admit Jane Fonda IS a hottie.

For a MILF, you gotta admit Jane Fonda IS a hottie.

hahaha :D this is so needed in this thread, smilies all around.

I'm not usually one to -snip- but....



Bravo! For the half that I did manage to read before my ADD got the better of me, I agree wholeheartedly! We need more posters with your viewpoints!

For a MILF, you gotta admit Jane Fonda IS a hottie.
Not since she starred in Barbarella! :rolleyes:

But Eutrusca, YOU are the main man....YOU started this thread, and all I asked was for YOU to post proof that Jane was "laughingly peered through the sights of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun". The reason I asked YOU to provide proof, is that in a previous anti-Jane thread, you posted a quote from a web site (that was clearly anti-Jane, making a very serious charge in nature), and the quote was proven false. It proves that when one is full of hatred towards a person, that one is willing to go to any lengths to make that person look bad, and the consequences be damned.

I was wondering if you were kinda going in that same direction again, because if it is the same picture that I am thinking of, it does not support your contention that she was ""laughingly peered through the sights of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun".

It appears that you anti-Jane types have but a handful of pictures and a serious helping of hate in your hearts. You state that you are a defender of the "freedom of speech", but in your case, it depends on who is speaking?

Let it go and move on with your life and enjoy it while you can. If your goal is to make negative headlines should Jane Fonda go to North Carolina, and I certainly hope not, then you will be committing a huge disservice to your country.



We're the haters!? What about her!? She openly admits to hating veterans!!!!

We're the haters!? What about her!? She openly admits to hating veterans!!!!

how has she openly hated veterans?

also, it is clear that she is sorry for what she did.

*Watches as Rogolia gets hit in the face by high velocity cookies (approx: 800+kph). Looks at the bleeding mass on the floor.*

Never stand in front of a speeding bus. Or a cookie. Enough speed can turn just about anything into a deadly missile you know.

*Laughs*



Riiiiiiiiight. And if the entire US administration during the cold war had that kind of attitude, you wouldn't be here to yak about it. You would either be dead or trying to live in a post apocalyptic world and beating away them pesky mutants.

You only want that kind of attitude when they CAN'T bomb you back.

Hypocrite.



You adjust tactics depending on the situation. If they can nuke you back, then you wouldn't be in the situation in the first place lol. I was referring to getting them BEFORE they had nukes. If they already have them, we wouldn't be talking about this lol.

Please explain to me exactly what you would consider to be "facts." A multitide of facts have been presented in this thread, including one very good, unbiased article on Snopes.com, apparently none of which you seem to accept as "facts.
I was referring to the one that you quoted on Post # 5 in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9320456&postcount=5), and I asked you for proof, and you still haven't provided it.

"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."

The reason that you cannot provide proof, is that it is not in fact true? You cannot prove that as fact from that picture.

BTW, from Snopes.com:

Jane Fonda provided no tangible military assistance to the North Vietnamese: she divulged no military secrets, she gave them no money or material, and she did not interfere with the operations of the American forces. Her actions, offensive as they were to many, were primarily of propaganda value only.

I totally agree.
Really? It seems like virtually every war supporter thinks all those that oppose the war automatically hate the troops, though we are actually out to uncover the truth as to why their lives are being put in danger. I guess you're an exception! :D

Let me just begin by saying I believe there to be no person on this planet more worthy of respect than the policeman (the good ones), the fireman (especially the volunteers), the teacher, the social worker etc. and, first and foremost, the soldier. I find the comments about the impossibility of respecting "people who join the army to kill Iraq-ees" to be in extremely poor taste, and the result of severely distorted cognition. Read up about the recent incident of dozens of Iraqi children who were killed in an explosion while accepting candy from a U.S. soldier. Believe it or not, the candy was not poisoned, the children were not being herded into a Christian capitalist indoctrination center, it was just a good act by a good person toward good children who were murdered by a sick fuck who'd been manipulated with quasi-religious lies. There are, unfortunately, some people beyond hope, whose views and intentions have become so twisted, whose aims so violent and immoral, that imprisonment or death is the only solution, the absence of which will only lead to the death of innocent life. Other than that, believe it or not, we are not there to kill indiscriminately. It does not serve our interests, it does not serve the Iraqi people's interests (whose interests we now share), we are there to enforce a peace until the Iraqi people are ready to do so themselves. At this late date, to view the common soldier heading to Iraq as a bucktoothed, slack jawed yokel looking to kill ragheads is a sophomoric and juvenile position not even really worth disproving. Respect them as men, respect them as women, with the best of intentions, who, as often as possible, carry out those good intentions. If you DO find a starry eyed recruit aiming to "kill as many sand niggers as ah can, YEEEEEHAW!", which I strongly doubt you will, by all means disrespect them, do what you will. To disrespect a group of which you know nothing on a ubiquitous basis, however? Poor taste. Disagree with perspectives, by all means, but show respect to others as human beings inherently worthy of respect, if nothing else.

Certainly, there is an inevitability of Abu-Ghraib "bad apples" (often reserves) and poor commanders such as Gen. Janice Karpinski who cast a poor light on the effort, but it must be realized that for every scumbag such as those involved in such scandals, there are vast multitudes of soldiers who don't make the news, but are actually very decent people who are there to assist the Iraqi people in achieving democratic autonomy; not to enforce our ideals or assist in empire-building, but to allow a suffering people a chance at achieving a level of dignity, safety, and freedom which is yet unrealized in the region. The various Downing street memos, accusations of White House contractual nepotism, and accusations of neoconservative agendas have no bearing on the common soldier. He or she has been asked by her country to serve, and he or she has performed the greatest duty one can perform, by answering that call. The portrayal of enlisted soldiers as sadistic savages worthy of no respect, seeking to kill innocents is, I suspect, the result of osmosis through peer group thought, and the following of populist demagoguery, rather than a widespread empirical analysis of the various mindsets of armed forces members after an extensive interview process and psychological profile. But, then again, perhaps I overstep my bounds in making such a bold prognostication.

The current is as good as any time to debate the justification of the war in the interest of repeating or curtailing such efforts in the future, but it is not the time to debate the continuation of the transition effort. Colin Powell's pottery barn theory of "You break it, you fix it" holds true. It is easy to predict the future of Iraq if abandoned for the sake of self-sovereignty at the current stage; the job is not done. Factional rivalries would almost undoubtedly lead to civil war, the coals of which the insurgency has long attempted to stoke. There is little doubt an autocratic theocracy resembling or likely surpassing the Taliban in suppression of rights and brutality would result, whose authoritarianism would almost certainly surpass the Ba'athist regime's. Active ideological, operational, and financial support for terrorism would be a given in such a scenario. Therefore, debate on various exit strategies is healthy and constructive, but the assertion that, basing itself on the theory of an unjust war, it is time to end said war by simply pulling out, is a juvenile and naive argument.

My personal view? I am slightly less outraged by the lack of finding WMD's and various theories of neoconservative conspiracy to trump up and fabricate evidence of weapons and chemical/biological agent programs, because I knew at the time that it was merely a pretext. The real reason, besides the debatable issues of oil, corporate hegemony, and the infamous "try to assassinate MY father, will you!?" theory is of course the purpose of installing a democratic nation in a troubled region which can serve as a beacon of hope for reform movements elsewhere, etc. etc. I don't believe it was ever seriously believed that Saddam was directly supporting terror, as it was well known he was secular and considered radical Islam a threat to his power, but it was believed that terrorism was spawned from conditions of oppression, leading to general unrest, violence, and terrorism. I am well aware that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, (obviously Afghanistan), Pakistan, and other countries are much better targets using such parameters, and I do fault the administration for turning its attention away from Osama (though he has been in Pakistan since Tora Bora, where we are not allowed) toward a non-terrorist supporting state, but the matter of intentionally "hijacking our grief and flying it into Iraq" is the real issue. Certainly, the WMD issue was overplayed, and partially trumped up, but the international community at large certainly was also under the impression that Saddam had SOMETHING going on behind the curtains, just not with enough certainty to act (and rightfully so). Nevertheless, the gloating over not having found WMD's is ridiculous. The man had months of warning, did anyone expect us to march into a warehouse with Saddam on the toilet with 5,000 canisters of Zyklon-B behind him? It's very easy to hide things if you have time to do so.

There are good aspects of the Iraq War, there are bad aspects of it. War itself is a detestable thing, there can be no doubt, but the Ba'ath regime was no picnic either. War should be a last consequence, only when a threat can be proven, but it is also true that without this war, Saddam would still be in power, with Qusay ready to take over. Many innocents have died as a result of this war that would not have otherwise died, but many innocents have also lived as a result of it, that would not have otherwise lived. The high majority of the innocents who have died are a result of Iraqis and foreign insurgents themselves, not baby-stomping imperialist redneck Marines. Costly is the price of freedom, especially in such a region. Supporting democratic reform movements from without is a noble and legitimate cause for democracies to encourage freedom in despotically ruled countries, but at a certain point, the noose is tight enough that the mere result is execution of "subversives" by the regime, which itself results in loss of innocent life, but with no gain. The Iraqi people did not and could not have overthrown Saddam, but if they had, in a typical revolutionary fashion, the Ba'athist grip on power was strong enough that it would have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, as opposed to even the most egregiously overestimated figures, which are much lower. A quick look at history will prove there to be something of a dearth of wars fought for the sake of freeing other people, the Civil War and World War II being in a large minority. "The War of the Spanish Succession", "The Hundred Years War", "The Punic Wars"....wars have been fought for far, FAR less justified reasons than ever the worst, most conspiratorial view that can be taken of the Iraqi War, and no war has ever been fought with more precision and care to avoid risking innocent life, AT the risk of our own lives (with nonetheless far too many, and incredibly regrettable on a level with our casualties, losses of innocent lives) Therefore, it is true that a great many things can be said against the cause, many of which I partially or totally agree with, but a great many legitimate supporting factors can also be cited. To wholeheartedly support or oppose such an affair is a stubborn, close minded approach.

In terms of the war itself, I regret to say that I believe it has been poorly run. I believe a great deal of simultaneous hubris and incompetence among Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and their cronies has sadly led to the unnecessary deaths of Americans. The sarcastic quote, "Senator, I HARDLY think it would take more troops to occupy a country than invade it" by Paul Wolfowitz continues to irk me to this day in its incredibly obtuse nature and misunderstanding of war. I, myself, am a historian, and am under the impression that a great number of civilian would-be armchair generals could benefit from not only the teachings of the various Sun-Tzu's and Von Klausewitzes, but specific battle studies, most particularly in the Arab region. Various aspects of the war remind of of Crassus at Carrhae. What exactly it was about the obsession with conducting the war with the absolute minimum amount of troops possible continues to vex me, and it saddens me that a man like Shinseki, with all his years of service, would be fired by arrogant idiots for defying their supposed logic.

As for Jane Fonda? I dislike the woman, I disagree with her views, and I find her to have severely overstepped the bounds of reasonable expression of conscience by mocking our armed forces through the act of essentially simulating fire toward American pilots. Do I hate that she expressed dissent? No, I love that she expressed dissent. Her ability to be an idiot, to be a douchebag(ette), to say whatever the hell she wants to say, no matter how idiotic, is the only thing we've ever fought for (I'd like to think). That ability is what makes us who we are. I understand patriotism, I myself am a fierce patriot, but when loyalty to a particular administration or party becomes intermingled and confused with loyalty to the country, all that we have fought for and all that we have ever been becomes for naught. Therefore, supporting everything that is done by our government for the sake of supporting it, rather than an objective empirical analysis of various justifications, becomes blindness, submission, and leads only to absolution. It is sad that people do take advantage of free societies and debase themselves and their families by spitting on and slandering those they view as perpetrators of death, but ALL views which do not cause physical harm or conspire to overthrow the government must be allowed. No matter how egregious, even the most extreme of views must be accepted, for when it is not, a pincer results where the field of views which are determined to be acceptable narrows and narrows until only homogeny of thought exists.

I know, I know, I'm notoriously longwinded, but sometimes I gotta weigh in on some poor unsuspecting debate and interject some ridiculously loquacious and unnecessary post which largely goes ignored :P.


Eutrusca, I'm often rather observant and obfuscated in such debates, but I just wanted to say I admire your service and the service of all your compatriots to our country, and to say thank you. My father recently retired a full Colonel in the National Guard, and served as a Battalion Commander in the Army during Vietnam ('70), losing one single person in his unit during his tour, despite being on constant patrol (and was listed in a newspaper clipping as being part of the first division to officially enter Cambodia). He is truly my hero, but merely a reflection of the greater heroism of those who have had the courage to choose the path less traveled and step up when they were needed. Thank you again.


I had to read it twice to make sure I got it all, having done so, I must say, this is without a doubt one of the most articulate, well written, logical, non-inflammatory and incredibly reasoned posts I've ever read on the NS boards. Thank you for being rational and not an idealouge.

P.S. Ignore the flames that you will surely get from the extreme left and right.

We're the haters!?
You are a Jane Fonda hater? Hmmmm

What about her!? She openly admits to hating veterans!!!!
Where does she openly admit to hating veterans?

how has she openly hated veterans?

also, it is clear that she is sorry for what she did.



Ask Eutresca, he posted it a while back in the thread.

I was referring to the one that you quoted on Post # 5 in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9320456&postcount=5), and I asked you for proof, and you still haven't provided it.



The reason that you cannot provide proof, is that it is not in fact true? You cannot prove that as fact from that picture.

BTW, from Snopes.com:

Jane Fonda provided no tangible military assistance to the North Vietnamese: she divulged no military secrets, she gave them no money or material, and she did not interfere with the operations of the American forces. Her actions, offensive as they were to many, were primarily of propaganda value only.


Propaganda counts too, just look at Tokyo Rose :)

Really? It seems like virtually every war supporter thinks all those that oppose the war automatically hate the troops, though we are actually out to uncover the truth as to why their lives are being put in danger. I guess you're an exception! :D
Perhaps, although I don't think so. There are many, many American military presonnel who understand that one of the primary reasons for their existence, qua military personnel, is to protect things the Republic has struggled long and hard to preserve, including the right to speak your mind and to petition for the redress of whatever you see as grievance.

I see some few who are still unable to differentiate between the message and the messenger, but there's a truly healthy trend in America to grant military personnel respect even though you may not agree with the missions selected for them by civilian authority. I suspect events during and after Vietnam may be responsible for this sea change, at least in part. It's very gratifying. :)

Ask Eutresca, he posted it a while back in the thread.we are asking you because you posted it.

hearsay is not a valid source.

Heh, because I'm a over-defensive/confrontational person and always assuming people are attacking me, I wonder if there is sarcasm and condescension in that, but I don't think you're that virulently leftist. Anyway, I'm an old, balding fat man with bad knees, if I gave the "My daddy is my heeeeero!" impression :P. My old man is damn near infallible, though, I must say; all the self-discipline of a career soldier, providing a great example, yet at the same time rather easy going, humorous, and learned. Never curses, never seen a cigarette or drink in his hand...it's like all the best qualities of Vito Corleone without the whole...borgata thing.
Quit being so defensive? My father and his three brothers all served in WW 2. They volunteered in Sept. 1939, and all came home in 1945. I was being sincere in my congrats.

Ask Eutresca, he posted it a while back in the thread.
Here's the link again, although I don't recall saying specifically that Hanoi Jane "hates veterans."

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

Quoting parts of the article:

"The most prominent example of a clash between private citizen protest and governmental military policy in recent history occurred in July 1972, when actress Jane Fonda arrived in Hanoi, North Vietnam, and began a two-week tour of the country conducted by uniformed military hosts. Aside from visiting villages, hospitals, schools, and factories, Fonda also posed for pictures in which she was shown applauding North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners, was photographed peering into the sights of an NVA anti-aircraft artillery launcher, and made ten propagandistic Tokyo Rose-like radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as "war criminals." She also spoke with eight American POWs at a carefully arranged "press conference," POWs who had been tortured by their North Vietnamese captors to force them to meet with Fonda, deny they had been tortured, and decry the American war effort. Fonda apparently didn't notice (or care) that the POWs were delivering their lines under duress or find it unusual the she was not allowed to visit the prisoner-of-war camp (commonly known as the "Hanoi Hilton") itself. She merely went home and told the world that "[the POWs] assured me they were in good health. When I asked them if they were brainwashed, they all laughed. Without exception, they expressed shame at what they had done." She did, however, charge that North Vietnamese POWs were systematically tortured in American prison-of-war camps."

http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/9190/hanoijane0ny.png (http://imageshack.us) http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/665/hanoijane20rh.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

"To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law."

This honestly does not sound to me like a patriot who simply disagrees with the policies of a particular Administration.

Propaganda counts too, just look at Tokyo Rose :)
Yet Jane Fonda was never charged with treason? And you didn't answer the question....are you admitting to hating Jane Fonda?

I had to read it twice to make sure I got it all, having done so, I must say, this is without a doubt one of the most articulate, well written, logical, non-inflammatory and incredibly reasoned posts I've ever read on the NS boards. Thank you for being rational and not an idealouge.

P.S. Ignore the flames that you will surely get from the extreme left and right.

Thanks man, I appreciate it. No flames so far, I don't expect too many; tried to incorporate some of both perspectives and some of my own, don't think it was too offensive to anyone in particular. Thanks also to Eutrusca and whoever else mentioned my post.


Quit being so defensive? My father and his three brothers all served in WW 2. They volunteered in Sept. 1939, and all came home in 1945. I was being sincere in my congrats..

I figured as much; it's just my paranoid/defensive/confrontational side trying to rear his head; I have to beat him down on a daily basis. I hear the "don't be so defensive" line all the time. Like I said, though, I figured you meant it, it's just hard to tell sometimes. With guys like Potaria saying the common soldier basically deserves to be defocated upon for being a cold hearted killer, it's hard to know what to expect of people on this forum sometimes. Good to hear about your relatives in WWII; Canada put in a hell of a contribution in during that war, as did Poland (at Driel, etc.), both of which I think unfortunately go largely recognized but are certainly appreciated by me.

"If 200 people marched on Washington, they made it 200,000. We learned how to deal with the numbers. Of course, every protest, every anti-war speech made by a person such as McGovern, Jane Fonda, Galbraith, all of those only encouraged the Vietnamese, prolonged the war, worsened our condition and cost the lives of more Americans on the battlefield." - Robinson Risner, POW, 1965-1973, quoted in VIETNAM: A Television History Peace is at Hand (1968-1973) Transcript

"In a debriefing following his years of imprisonment and torture in Vietnam, Arizona Sen. John McCain said he felt 'hatred' for antiwar activists like Jane Fonda who traveled to Hanoi, and feared 'becoming violent' if he met them, according to a never-released Pentagon report reviewed by Newsweek." - Dec. 19, 1999, /PRNewswire/.

"I was shown a picture taken in Cuba of the "Lump," who was with an American anti-war group. Yes, it was the same person who had interrogated me in 1970. I was told by a Congressional Investigator that he was the man who was in charge of funneling Soviet KGB money to American anti-war groups and activists, such as Jane Fonda." - ex-POW Michael Benge testifying about Cuban torturers in North Vietnam in Testimony of Michael D. Benge before the House International Relations Committee Chaired by the Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, November 4, 1999.

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." ]
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.
My mother served 20 years in the Navy and she opposes the war as well. So, there you go. There's another.

As for my father.. well... He served 20 years in the Navy too (and five years of the British army). And he supports the war, like you. But his exact statements have been, "Everbody knew the intelligence was bullshit. But the fact is, Hussein needed to be taken care of. The civilians? Fuck 'em. I don't give a shit about any of them."

His exact words.

So, the warmongering stereotype sometimes fits, but not always.