Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on April 20, 2005, 03:27:49 pm
-
http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/4396975/detail.html
Just think when Vietnam Vets came back, young hippies spat on them. Now Vietnam Vets get their chance.
-
Jetmech Approves of this.
-
I've always thought spitting was one of humanities more disgusting habits, no matter who's doing it, you wouldn't believe how many diseases can be transmitted through saliva.
-
Do it in Glasgow and you won't be spitting again any time soon.
-
I don't recall Jane Fonda actually spitting on anyone, but I guess that doesn't really matter.
Anyway, I applaud this man for demonstrating that he is just as much a yahoo as the people he despises, and thank him for supplying us with the intellectual masturbation fodder.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Do it in Glasgow and you won't be spitting again any time soon.
...Well, possibly a few teeth straight afterwards ;)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I've always thought spitting was one of humanities more disgusting habits, no matter who's doing it, you wouldn't believe how many diseases can be transmitted through saliva.
Can be kind of necessary playing footie, though.
-
...what?
-
True, athletes etc need to get rid of overbuilds of saliva, but at least they do it onto the floor (and it still makes me feel sick, but that's just me - I do have a particular thing about spitting).
Strictly speaking, spitting at someone is considered assault by law, at least in the UK, simply because of the potential for transferring several blood disorders among other things.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I don't recall Jane Fonda actually spitting on anyone, but I guess that doesn't really matter.
Anyway, I applaud this man for demonstrating that he is just as much a yahoo as the people he despises, and thank him for supplying us with the intellectual masturbation fodder.
Well she didn't spit in anyones eye, but she is basically the embodyment of everything Vietnam Vets hate.
And to put my self in his shoes, I can understand his resentment of Jane Fonda; not that spitting on her exactly shows your self to be the better person.
-
Yeah, going by that article I don't really think she's sorry. I've seen people act exactly like her - she just wanted to put the guy down and get back at him for spitting on her. :)
I've only vaguely heard of her, but going by this article, I'm glad she's not someone I'm acquainted with.
-
This might ring a bell, WMC. The whole thing was a publicity stunt. POWs were even betten when they refused to talk to the stupid b*tch.
(http://vikingphoenix.com/public/CelebrityFiles/TurnerandFonda/JaneFonda/jfgallery/fondagun.gif)
-
Originally posted by redmenace
And to put my self in his shoes, I can understand his resentment of Jane Fonda; not that spitting on her exactly shows your self to be the better person.
Who gives a **** about being 'better' than her? I'm sure it felt damned good to spit in Hanoi Jane's face. :p
Not that I'd ever do such a thing, but still.
-
*sighs*
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious.
-
I'm not patriotic. Like, at all. :p But from his perspective, I bet it felt damned good.
-
Darn, there was "Wow" in the title, so I clicked.
Dispointed I am.
-
sorry to disapoint, I hope this makes things right
(http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/584/584438/world-of-warcraft-20050201032634411.jpg)
-
http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp
As much as that clears things up it makes my blood boil.
-
That's sickening. Such a cowardly, weak, traiterous thing to do. And from the sound of it, she doesn't even have any remorse.
At first I was disgusted with the individual that spat on her, but now I'm dissapointed he didn't vomit instead.
I'm not very patriotic, to be honest, but her actions still disgust me beyond reckoning. ****ing moron.
-
I'm proud of the guy.
Comrade Fonda had it coming to her in the first place.
-
Meh, she's a bit of a **** but I ain't gonna lose sleep over it.
-
"Uhhhh, that lady did stuff that offends me, so I'll, uhhhh, spit on her."
I mean seriously, that sounds like the logical conclusion a two-year-old would arrive at. I just can't fathom his thought process, but it really brings to mind images from the first episode of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
-
Not to be a jerk, can you fathom being a vietnam vet?
-
No, I can't. But it's not Jane Fonda's fault that the war screwed him up. Now maybe I'm placing too much responsibility on him as an individual, (is there no end to the irony?), but either way, she's just a punching bag for people with some pretty bad demons eating at them.
-
I wouldn't let her off the hook completely. Her indescretion, if you will, was her fault. At the age of 32 you should realize your actions have consequences. You can be opposed to the war. That doesn't mean you should not be suspicious of communists and loose your objectivity. Also, her status as a punching bag might be more or less well deserved. When POWs came home, starved, beaten and diseased, she told America that they were liars etc. As far as I know, she has yet to apologize for her ignorance, or should I say naivetivity.
-
Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars."
...What...the....HELL[/i]?
-
Originally posted by redmenace
...or should I say naivetivity.
or maybe you should say stupidity.
-
but then many intellectuals underestimated what socialists and communists were capable of,
ie. Fredrick Hayek
-
Now that was a nasty grouping redmenace, socialism and communism do have a gulf of differences between them.
-
It might not have been the proper way to deal with her, but you know I don't blame him. He wasn't just doing it for himself, but for all those people out there that she claims were lairs, and all those "war crimminals" that never got the chance.
-
Socialists and communists are not capable of anything that other people aren't. Joining the communist party does not grant you super powers. More to the point, sympathizing with them is in no way illegal. You can call it immoral all you want but the fact remains that the only person who committed a violation was the man who spit on her.
-
(http://www.alittlemoretotheright.com/images8/hanoi_jane3.jpg)
hey, I've got a great idea, lets go to a country were at war with and pose for pictures with the people were fighting. 'hey there, brave veit cong freedom fighter'
-
They do, but for simplicities sake I group them since both were popular in the 20th century and were in debate during the said time.
There is no question, the man violated the law. He should recieve an appropriate punishment.
But, there is some question as a matter of treason since she had produced, what the previously mentioned website states, radio recordings in support of the NVA. Historically, this has been considered treason because of the impart contribution made to the NVA.
I was just saying that intellectuals honestly thought them not capable of this.
-
Now before we step on a soap box of egalitarianism, remember that "intellectuals" are not a monolithic force. They are individuals who are more intelligent than most people, and thus, more likely to disagree with one another. There are intellectuals on the left and right. The right just doesn't like to admit it.
-
[q]But, there is some question as a matter of treason since she had produced, what the previously mentioned website states, radio recordings in support of the NVA[/q]
A couple of million people blogged, published and filmed themselves downcrying the US invasion of Iraq. Should they be considered treasonous?
-
No.
They didn't go to Iraq, promote the cause, and then deny all the mass-graves filled with political opponents existed.
-
About intellectuals, I was speaking of Fonda included. In a way I am just pointing out that she was not alone.
-
According to an interview she gave to 60 Minutes, she feels very sorry she ever went to Hanoi. And i believe her sincerity. She was young, and her political ideals misguided her. Young people tend to do first and think later. The simple fact is Vietnam was a wrong war, and she thought her actions would bring it to a quicker end. But alas she was too naive to see that she was being used as a pawn, played for a fool.
The vietnam war was morally and legally wrong. However, i cannot ever understand why the soldiers fighting in it were spitted on. They were victims, just as any vietnamese woman or children caught in a crossfire. They had no choice in the matter, they were forced to go. I will never understand why americans spitted on their own children. As if they were to blame for the war... Spit on the generals and the politicians if you will. They deserve it. But never on the average soldier. At least not when the soldiers were drafted, and pretty much forced to fight like they were.
-
32 is hardly youth though.
-
According to an interview she gave to 60 Minutes, she feels very sorry she ever went to Hanoi. And i believe her sincerity. She was young, and her political ideals misguided her. Young people tend to do first and think later. The simple fact is Vietnam was a wrong war, and she thought her actions would bring it to a quicker end. But alas she was too naive to see that she was being used as a pawn, played for a fool.
I really have a hard time believing that. That just doesn't mesh with her actions that were presented in the article.
'm really trying to give her the benefit of the doubt here, but I just have a hard time believing that it was just her being young and naive. She was almost twice as old as some of the soldiers fighting the war. And of course the North Vietnamese are going to welcome someone who wants to publicize that their enemy is wrong, and they're just a bunch of friendly guys in a war. It's propaganda that they don't even have to work to get.
Was her hope, then, that everyone would forget about the POWs and go home? Yeah, that sounds real admirable.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
According to an interview she gave to 60 Minutes, she feels very sorry she ever went to Hanoi. And i believe her sincerity.
I believe her sincerity, too. She regrets going to Hanoi. It ruined her career, and her image.
-
she is a rich snooty high society type if that helps to clear things up, WMC
-
ok first the only thing she said she was sorry for was getting her photo taken in an AAA gun.
second when the term intelectual is used as it is in this frame of reference, it isn't talking about someone who is smarter, but rather someone who thinks they are smarter, particularly people who think that they are better than everyone else because they like to think of the world in super abstracted terms.
-
That's a definition of "intellectual" that is popular among people who, well... aren't. It's nonsensical. To people of lukewarm intellectual prowess, intelligent discourse is going to sound abstract.
The name for people who try and pretend to be smart is "pompous windbag."
-
and yet that is the opperational definition use by the person you are discussing this situation with, a person detached from reality who passes judgement on those who don't follow there "enlightened" way of thinking, simply saying it's not what the word means is a doge and your just makeing comunication with people on the other side of the issue even more imposable than it already is.
-
Originally posted by Raa
I believe her sincerity, too. She regrets going to Hanoi. It ruined her career, and her image.
Really, I wonder how much she has gotten in book deals as a result. :p
-
Point.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
and yet that is the opperational definition use by the person you are discussing this situation with, a person detached from reality who passes judgement on those who don't follow there "enlightened" way of thinking, simply saying it's not what the word means is a doge and your just makeing comunication with people on the other side of the issue even more imposable than it already is.
I am simply expressing my refusal to acknowledge the use of "intellectual" as a loaded term. To me, that rings of reverse snobbery, because while there are certainly plenty of people who try much too hard to sound intelligent, there seems to be an ever-present tendency to shun people of genuine intelligence. An intellectual is an intelligent person, as far as the dictionary is concerned. To refer to faux-intellectuals as intellectuals in a sincere conversation just screws everything up.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Socialists and communists are not capable of anything that other people aren't. Joining the communist party does not grant you super powers. More to the point, sympathizing with them is in no way illegal. You can call it immoral all you want but the fact remains that the only person who committed a violation was the man who spit on her.
****. Are...are you sure? No like, super strenght or anything? Hmm. I guess I better go cancel by memership then. :doubt: :doubt:
As for Jane Fonda, my thoughts on the matter are:
a) she can do as she damn well pleases, without regard for who some politicians arbitrarily decide to label an enemy. The individual before the state.
b) to anyone who is not an American, there is no more reason to hate the VC and NVA than there is to hate the American GIs. In fact, there is a lot less, since until someone can argue otherwise I will consider the Viet Cong and other related groups as anti-colonialist forces, and the US as an agressive invasionary force. That, and they (the North Vietnamese) have a lot less blood on their hands (less blood, not no blood).
--------------
Lets shuffle the names around a bit and see what comes out the other side:
Hungarian guerillas, fighting to free themselves from Chinese colonial control, manage to drive out the Chinese from most of the country and look to be well on their way to unifying the nation. Then, the USSR starts sending in troops to support the Chinese, calling it an act of self defence, in line with the domino theory (e.g. if one country becomes capitalist, all others around it will surely fall to the same menace). The Soviets occupy South Hungary, and launch a decades long war against both the Hungarian guerillas and the local Hungarian population. After about 15 years of brutal warfare, which kills several million Hungarians, many of them civilians, and utterly devastates not only Hungary but several neighboring countries, the Soviets are forced to withdraw.
During this time, a famous Soviet actress, in soldiarity with the the Hungarians, takes a few pictures on herself on a Hungarian tank.
See? If you distance yourself from it a bit, she did nothing wrong.
-
As per the first part of your post, I won't comment because that is a whole other conversation.
Are the hungarian rebels being supplied by capitalist nations and receiving military training for say F4-Phantoms and Intruder aircraft among other military hardware such as SAM hardware and AAA?
Second it wasn't limited to a single photo but a series of acts, some considered in light of such people as "Tokyo Rose" who was later pardon, to be acts of treason. Be careful in your analogy to make sure not to over simplify the situation.
And to answer your analogy further; if the said Russian actress had in fact done the exact same things that Jane Fonda had done, I would see nothing wrong with bringing her under charges of treason.
-
And if that actress returned to her homeland, I would expect nothing less than her being summarily executed. Granted, that's USSR vs USA stereotyping (though you know good and well that its true). However, point taken until you neglect to address anything but the tank photo. That I can't really say I have a huge problem with, it's her life. It's the interviews with American POWs and the subsequent attempts to keep the truth from getting out about what the treatment was actually like that I take issue with. Even if she wanted to dispell the image that American propoganda was spreading about the North Vietnamese, the way to do it was not to lie about what was actually happening. There is no justification for her betrayal of the POWs, no matter how you look at it. And for that, she should rightfully be publically shamed for the rest of her life.
Nevermind the fact that, wrong or not, it was treason to go participate in North Vietnamese propaganda (willingly, no, voluntarily) and she should not have been allowed back onto American soil, but again it was her decision.
Also, the spitting on soldiers issue was just stupid to begin with; the soldiers getting spat on and those trying to scorn them were only seperated by random chance. The difference between a young hippie and a young draftee was only whose number came up, and that is one of the greater injustices of the whole political fiasco around the war.
-
well the thing about the slips of paper was a manufactured rumor BTW.
-
That's actually not what I mean by betrayal. I'd almost buy that she legitimately was duped by the statements that they were forced to make under duress on the grounds that she's an idiot, were it not for all of the other deliberate acts that she participated in for NV PR. Plus the way she not only refused to accept the statements made by returning POWs after the war, she resorted to personal attacks on their character and encouraged people to take their statements as blatent lies. That is a betrayal of those men, and she should deserve no sympathy for it.
-
ok, but those act, despicable as they are, are not grounds for treason. It is ground for me to declare she is a few cards short of a full deck.
Her participation in other acts in collusion with the NVA however, as a said before, might be considered legally treason.
-
Yeah that was sort of my point. I thought that I made that sort of explicit, but maybe it needs a little clarification. The treasonous act, voluntarily participating in enemy propoganda, is one I don't find as morally offensive, though by strict definition it was treason. The things that she did that technically were perfectly legal did more harm to more people though, emotionally and to some degree (how much is debatable) physically.
-
ok my mistake.
on a side note, I am suprised this thread hasn't degraded to name calling and ax throwing.
-
Wrong tab. :p
-
Originally posted by redmenace
but then many intellectuals underestimated what socialists and communists were capable of,
ie. Fredrick Hayek
*Points at Guantanmo Bay*
I hear lots of glass braking in your house. You should stop throwing those stones.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
****. Are...are you sure? No like, super strenght or anything? Hmm. I guess I better go cancel by memership then. :doubt: :doubt:
As for Jane Fonda, my thoughts on the matter are:
a) she can do as she damn well pleases, without regard for who some politicians arbitrarily decide to label an enemy. The individual before the state.
b) to anyone who is not an American, there is no more reason to hate the VC and NVA than there is to hate the American GIs. In fact, there is a lot less, since until someone can argue otherwise I will consider the Viet Cong and other related groups as anti-colonialist forces, and the US as an agressive invasionary force. That, and they (the North Vietnamese) have a lot less blood on their hands (less blood, not no blood).
RE: b) both sides (US / NVA) comitted war crimes, so the issue of who has more blood is possibly debatable; the Hue massacre (2500-6000 killed by NVA upon taking the city) stands out as an example as a counterpart to the My Lai massacre, for example. I don't think it'll ever be possible to decide who was 'worse' in terms of blood on hands.
It's probably worth noting that the Vietnam war could be considered as partly / wholly a civil war, although the US was seeking to start / inflame the situation as a 'valve' to release tension between the USSR and themselves by using the insurgency against the South Vietnamese government to create the eventual proxy-conflict.
IIRC both sides - North and South - received support from the Russians and US(and others) respectively, so it isn't as simple as being due to colonialism. I believe the independence of South Vietnam (i.e. US puppet state or democratic country) is still debated with respect to the issue of colonialism; AFAIK the main positions often reflect support or opposition for the war.
Oh, and an interesting converse-point could be if a Russian actress had campaigned in support of the Mujahadden during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. In both that case and this one, of course, your opinion would likely be changed by your overall opinion of capitalism/communism in the Cold War.
-
Well, I'm not taking the position that I am because I am in favour of communism and opposed to capitalism. On a purely theoretical level, I am a capitalist plain and simple. In real life however, it all depends who is calling the shots. They can both create equally brutal conditions, and have in the past.
I'm not about to become an apologist for the North Vietnamese, but AFAIK they definitely did less of the killing and more of the dying (roughly around 1 million dead at their hands, as opposed to roughly 3 million by the US (though not restricted to Vietnam)). Not to mention the lasting effects of stuff like Agent Orange and unexploded landmines, which should be tallied into the score. Even so, it was partly a civil war, like you said, and partly a fight for independence from French rule. At no point did the United States have a legitimate right to interfere, and certainly not while claiming to occupy the moral high ground.
ok, but those act, despicable as they are, are not grounds for treason. It is ground for me to declare she is a few cards short of a full deck.
Her participation in other acts in collusion with the NVA however, as a said before, might be considered legally treason.
Imagine the following scenario for a moment:
the North Vietnamese were not the enemies of the United States, but rather their allies against the South Vietnamese communists. Would your statement still stand? That is, is it based on the actions of the North Vietnamese, or on the fact that they were the enemy. If it is the latter, then the fact that they were declared as enemies by the United States, regardless of their general merits/demerits means **** all. No one is obliged to support the position that their government has taken, just because it is your government.
If Congress got together and arbitrarily declared that your neighbor John Johnson is an Evil Man, would you feel it necessary to start hating him, and all those who support him?
-
I would like to point out that Vietnam was a french colony. We became involved after communism started to spreading in the North.
As per trajedies. NVA and the US did atroucious things. The NVA placed their share of traps ie pungie sticks, gave dolls with bombs to children, killed entire villages for helping the US. The US carpet bombed, used things such as agent orange, committed atrocities in villages. In all, things are not and simple as they appear; there was plenty that went on from Air America to agent orange to make one scratch ones head.
-
While it wasn't necessarily a good idea, going to war in Vietnam was the most logical course of action.
We'd already been supplying weapons, vehicles, and advisors to South Vietnam while the French were still at war alongside SV. In fact, we were contributing MORE in terms of hardware than the French were themselves. We already had so much in place, all we needed to do to continue the war ourselves was send troops in.
The big thing though was Communism. We did not want Vietnam to turn Communist. China, Vietnam's next door neighbor, had already announced its status as a Communist nation some time ago, and we feared a domino affect. What was next? India, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Japan? We viewed Communism, and more importantly, the nations and leaders that supported it, as a threat.
So, we did what we could to stop it. And when conventional tactics weren't working, we resorted to doing some pretty nasty stuff. It's tough, but hey, that's war.
-
" India"
Not likely, too much imperial capitalism engrained in their culture.
"Indonesia"
Just wanting to avoid being anyone's *****, US or Russia.
"Phillipines, Japan?"
Buh, and buh.
[q]going to war in Vietnam was the most logical course of action.[/q]
Actually no, selling guns and providing high altitude air support to the South was the logical course of action.
Unless you were in the US arms industry at the time.
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]going to war in Vietnam was the most logical course of action.[/q]
Actually no, selling guns and providing high altitude air support to the South was the logical course of action.
Unless you were in the US arms industry at the time.
The South Vietnamese were not the best of combatants. The "military" they had established was plagued with deserters, and many soldiers who simply didn't want to or were afraid to fight both the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese. On their own, the South Vietnamese would never have had the ability to beat back the North.
While our entry in the war did not help at all (more deaths, attrocities, etc), there was a much greater chance of victory than just sitting around and watching.
America has shown that when something proves a threat to its people or interests, it will retaliate with brutal force. Whether there is a justifiable or logical reason for entry doesn't matter all.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I would like to point out that Vietnam was a french colony. We became involved after communism started to spreading in the North.
IIRC Indochina (as it was then) won against the French; it was divided into 2 countries, North and South Vietnam (Communist and open-market respectively). There was a small-ish insurgency in the South by North supporting guerillas (I don't know offhand if they had initial support from the North).
Apparently, it was believed that the South was / might be willing to vote for a Communist government. The US propped up the existing leader, sending several hundred 'military advisors' (both officially and covertly) who engaged in terrorism on both sides of the border to give the impression of a larger conflict between the sides and to escalate the civil war/insurgency. I think around or after this time it provoked the North Vietnamese to support the Viet-Cong (if they were not already doing so).
Having met Kruschev, Kennedy was convinced a conflict with Russia would be inevitable; a proxy-war in Asia was a more viable prospect than a conventional one in, for example, Europe. So the US actively provoked a war with a Communist nation for this purpose.
That, is my understanding of the situation.
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
The South Vietnamese were not the best of combatants. The "military" they had established was plagued with deserters, and many soldiers who simply didn't want to or were afraid to fight both the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese. On their own, the South Vietnamese would never have had the ability to beat back the North.
While our entry in the war did not help at all (more deaths, attrocities, etc), there was a much greater chance of victory than just sitting around and watching.
America has shown that when something proves a threat to its people or interests, it will retaliate with brutal force. Whether there is a justifiable or logical reason for entry doesn't matter all.
And Vietnam was a threat to America...how? Was Ho Chi Minh threating to invade America? Letting a sovereign nation establish a form of government contrary to US wishes, that's really horrible, isn't it? Can't allow some uppity Vietnamese to start taking their destiny into their own hands.
Face it, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
-
The entire idea of the Vietnam War was based on the 'Domino Theory' which was a pile of bollocks.
As far as spitting on Jane Fonda is concerned, I don't care what she did, if you have a problem with her, deal with it like a human being, don't fill your mouth with Mucus and eject it at her. It's disgusting, disease-spreading and the something an immature child would do, not a fully grown adult. I didn't agree with the Vets being spat on, and I don't agree with the Vets spitting on people, it just goes to show how low people are prepared to stoop just to feel 'vindicated'.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And Vietnam was a threat to America...how? Was Ho Chi Minh threating to invade America? Letting a sovereign nation establish a form of government contrary to US wishes, that's really horrible, isn't it? Can't allow some uppity Vietnamese to start taking their destiny into their own hands.
Face it, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
As said by Flipside, it's the concept of the Domino Theory. It wasn't that Vietnam was a threat on its own, but that if Vietnam did fall, then other neighboring nations could fall to Communism as well, and that the Communist sphere of influence as it were would expand enough that, hey, perhaps one of the nations in question would try to launch an attack against America.
I'm not supporting the war. I don't think it was the right thing to do, but it did happen, and I'm only trying to explain WHY it did happen and what the nation's leaders at the time were thinking.
And I don't exactly appreciate your hostile tone, Rictor.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
According to an interview she gave to 60 Minutes, she feels very sorry she ever went to Hanoi. And i believe her sincerity. She was young, and her political ideals misguided her. Young people tend to do first and think later. The simple fact is Vietnam was a wrong war, and she thought her actions would bring it to a quicker end. But alas she was too naive to see that she was being used as a pawn, played for a fool.
So then if I went and had a little cup o' tea with Osama, then I could get away with "naivety" and "misguidedness"?
I mean, come on, these people that she was supporting were our enemies, and, what's more, she decided to insult her countrymen as well.
She's not sorry. She's a Communist, and she should go right back home to Hanoi.
-
Er..... That's more than a bit steep and one hell of a bit of stereotyping to be honest.
Just because her views flew in the face of the accepted in the US at the time does not mean she is a communist, the whole idea of Freedom of Speech is to be able to voice your disagreement, it was that very ability that probably saved the lives of thousands of Americans by pressuring the Government to end the Vietnam war.
It's like saying that anyone who opposes the Iraq war is a Terrorist, it might be a nice comforting thought, but I don't think theres anyone on this board not smart enough to see how thin the tissue of self-delusion is in saying that.
I don't know the details, if she were encouraging the North Koreans to kill Americans, then it would be a different story, but as far as I'm aware she didn't do that.
-
It wouldn't matter even if she were a communist. Being a communist is not a felony, a misdemeanor, or an offense. Nor is being a fascist, a racist, a scientologist, a hedonist, a vegetarian, or anything. And, believe it or not, insulting your countrymen isn't a crime either.
-
Being a communist, a facist or believing in any ism isn't a crime. And yes insulting your countrymen isn't either. But participating in propaganda is. And as I have already pointed out, has been successfully prosecuted ie. Tokyo Rose.
-
Participating in any propaganda should be a crime. And I can assure you, you'd be one of the first to be shot red.
-
:lol:
You're not the first to want to kill me and I am sure you won't be a last.
Why do you insist on making purposefully insulting comments?
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
As said by Flipside, it's the concept of the Domino Theory. It wasn't that Vietnam was a threat on its own, but that if Vietnam did fall, then other neighboring nations could fall to Communism as well, and that the Communist sphere of influence as it were would expand enough that, hey, perhaps one of the nations in question would try to launch an attack against America.
I'm not supporting the war. I don't think it was the right thing to do, but it did happen, and I'm only trying to explain WHY it did happen and what the nation's leaders at the time were thinking.
And I don't exactly appreciate your hostile tone, Rictor.
Hostile tone? But I haven't even brought up your mother...yet.:drevil: :drevil:
The domino theory was and is an excuse to have a free hand when kicking the **** out of nations which pose no threat. The whole concept of a "sphere of influence" (both Soviet and American) flies in the face of national sovereignty and every international law on the books.
I mean, come on, these people that she was supporting were our enemies, and, what's more, she decided to insult her countrymen as well.
It's more accurate to say that you were their enemies. Remember, they never wanted to fight the US, it was America who invaded. What's more, no one is obliged to support their country and hate their country's enemies. This is decided on an individual basis.
-
How easely do people change opinions when they find themselfs on the other side of the fence. If a vietnamese actress had come to America and pose for pictures, how many of you Jane-haters would think it was treason? Let´s face it, you judge their actions by the colour of your own political inclinations, not by ideals of justice or the Law. I call that double standards.
If such a vietnamese actress actually existed, you would be now discussing why she didn´t get more medals. Yet under the same laws, you convicted Jane for the same actions. Why? Doesn´t the law stipulate that all men are equal? And that similar crimes deserve equal punishment? Why then would you convict one, and celebrate the other?
As far as i know, freedom of speech was still an unalienable right back then. People could say or defend whatever they wanted. She only defended her ideals. She didn´t sell american military secrets, did she? She didn´t join the enemy forces, did she?
Getting a picture taken with the so called enemy is not treason. If it were, Donald Rummsfeld would be answering for his picture with Saddam. Yet i don´t see any of you calling for his head on a platter, as you do with Jane. I wonder why...
:rolleyes:
-
In her own country the said vietnamese and did exactly as Jane Fonda had done, she would be considered to have committed treason in her own country. And if the said Vietnamese actress was dumb enough to return to Vietnam, I would see no problem with her her being tried according to their laws. Again, I point to Tokyo Rose. She excercised her "freedom of speech" in such a manner that was to lower moral of the US forces taking Island by Island in the pacific. Now Jane Fonda produced radio messages for the VMA. Did she really think these were innocent messages.
Again for the final time, her actions were not limited to simply taking a photo. That is one of the most visable and most circulated things about her, though.
As per donald rumsfeild, when was the photo taken. Was this before or after we discovered howmuch of a ruthless monster he was? Was this business? Was this before the 1991 gulf war? Were we at war with Saddam at the time? Was this a pleasure visit? Did Donald Rumsfeild support saddam and think he was great?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
So basically your analogy is false.
-
Tokyo Rose is a bad example, considering the amount of uncertainty surrounding that case.
-
If her case has uncertainties then so do many of the nuremburg trials as well. I take you are refering to get explanation of her being under duress. She was found guilty by a just but was found innocent of 7 of the 8 charges.
-
Well, quite a lot of countries are guilty of, when one of the enemy speaks against their own, saying 'here here! Brave person! Good on them!' and yet, should the opposite happen, baying for blood.
-
Those of you trying to throw out examples of situations with a russian actress or whatever, it's not going to work too well. Obviously, the North Vietnamese were thrilled to have an American helping their side.
It is a subjective opinion thing. Objectively, I can say there's something disgusting about someone who accuses people who go to war of being liars and hypocrites about what happened there, based on the word of the people they're fighting.
Those of you who are saying "There's nothing wrong with what she did, no one should be angry", please put yourself in the shoes of the average US conscript. Stuck in Vietnam, not because they want to, but because the alternative would be to go to jail. Everybody you knew is probably still back in the US, along with whatever romantic friend you have. All you really want to do is go back home.
So then Jane Fonda gets on the radio and starts talking about how the North Vietnamese really aren't that bad, and denouncing you and everybody else in the military. She's not even acknowledging the conditions you and the rest of your unit are fighting in; instead she's off posing in pictures, getting on the radio to tell people how bad you are, supporting the North Vietnamese.
I'm pretty sure I read something about her advocating people burning their draft cards and going to jail rather than serve. Which is great...except she ccouldn't be drafted. Very interesting.
If she had been protesting the US's involvement in the war, that would be one thing. But I've gotten the impression that she pretty heatedly castigated everyone who participated in the war in any way for any reason, and now that she's apologized expects to get off scot-free. Meanwhile, everyone who actually participated in the war had to deal with the prejudice that she helped stir up.
Here's a fun counter-example. For a school project, I interviewed a Vietnam veteran who also happened to be a draftee. He won a couple medals (Air medal and Bronze star medal), had the experience of being spat on as he arrived in the US, took him something like ten years to really recover from the shame of having participated in Vietnam, and is looking at an early death and degraded health because of the chemicals used at the time.
Had Jane Fonda served, I would suspect she would have experienced the same things - assuming that she came back. But she didn't. Instead she apparently called for people to hate veterans, and while that's not illegal, it seems to indicate to me that she just flat-out isn't a good person, or really is too stupid to put two and two together. Like a friend who points and laughs while the schoolyard bully beats you up.
Had she been spending time in South Vietnam, posing with US soldiers but saying the exact same things, my opinion of her would be no different. Freedom of speech also means that you have to deal with the consequences of that speech; all it means is that the government can't legally take action simply because it doesn't like what you said. (Although that's now in doubt)
-
I agree with you that someone who is prepared to stand up and say what they believe, no matter how unpopular, must also be prepared to deal with the consequences of that action, however, if a country says 'say what you believe' then it must be prepared to hear things it doesn't want to. Take a look at the number of Iraqis in the recent war whom, whilst living in America, spoke out against Saddam and heralded as heroes for it. Surely they should have been sent back to Iraq to be punished for being so disloyal?
Either America is a Free country or it is not, it's like the 'Free Speech Zones' last time I checked all of America was a Free Speech Zone, either it is or it isn't, there's no 'sort of' Free Speech, or 'Free Speech, as long as you're agreeing with us'.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I agree with you that someone who is prepared to stand up and say what they believe, no matter how unpopular, must also be prepared to deal with the consequences of that action, however, if a country says 'say what you believe' then it must be prepared to hear things it doesn't want to. Take a look at the number of Iraqis in the recent war whom, whilst living in America, spoke out against Saddam and heralded as heroes for it. Surely they should have been sent back to Iraq to be punished for being so disloyal?
Either America is a Free country or it is not, it's like the 'Free Speech Zones' last time I checked all of America was a Free Speech Zone, either it is or it isn't, there's no 'sort of' Free Speech, or 'Free Speech, as long as you're agreeing with us'.
It is not like she was organizing a protest all by her self with out the support outside sources. Or creating flyers that denounced the war. She helped produced propaganda peices for a foreign Government. She did nothing wrong by speaking out against the war. But going to N.V. and taking certain actions, not only limited simply taking a photo by a 50cal AAA gun with a NVA helmet but other actions as well.
As per the Iraqis in the US, well if they went back to Iraq with Saddam in power they would have to most likly be given a monkey trial and executed since I am sure what they did, would be considered treason. I am making that guess since I don't know the legal system under saddam hussein. But here in the US the Jane Fonda might have been convicted if the US had decided to press charges.
Additionally, ignorance of the effect your actions have is not really a defense and neither is being naiveness
-
I quite frankly don't see how that reflects on this at all. The issue at hand isn't a legal one in that sense, but rather one of right and wrong. If someone wants to be a white supremecist and spout out garbage about how blacks are animals, it's within their constitutional right to do so (until the point they incite violence against blacks). That doesn't mean he's right, and it certainly doesn't give him a place from which he could ever argue the moral high ground. The treatment of American soldiers by Jane Fonda, both in the meeting with them and her subsequent actions in the US after the war, were inexcusable from a moral and ethical standpoint, even though she was not acting illegally in making them. And it's not like she professed the communist cause; she was perfectly happy to come back to the US and live the life of luxury afterwards. Every other comparison I've seen makes allowances for someone in her position to actually return to her home country, and that's where the legality comes into play.
The issue of treason has nothing to do with what she said, it has to do with the fact that she went to a country with whom we were at war and participated in propoganda designed to demoralize American troops (an action that is designed exclusively to get them killed whether she realized it or not, not to run them out of the country; that's a decision that was out of their hands to begin with). Speaking against your country within your country is not treason; deliberatly aiding an enemy force, be it through aid, military or financial, or by actively participating in their propoganda, is.
-
Indeed, there are not many countries in the world that would have had the strength of conviction in it's own actions to allow someone to talk like that and return to the same country. Is that conviction fading?
-
This isn't about freedom of speech. If it were simply going to a foreign country and protesting the US involvment, it would be about freedom of speech. She wouldn't have committed treason. As per morally wrong, well she owes it to her country to be a bit cynacle about what another government is showing her.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
This isn't about freedom of speech. If it were simply going to a foreign country and protesting the US involvment, it would be about freedom of speech. She wouldn't have committed treason. As per morally wrong, well she owes it to her country to be a bit cynacle about what another government is showing her.
But not her own?
-
People owe it to their country to be a bit cynical about what their own government is showing them, but not nearly enough people are.
We're all morons at one point or another in our life, Ms Fonda is a bigger moron than most, I'm not denying that, but Jane Fonda was far from the only one, some of you here might have parents who spat at Vets when they returned home, but America still respected them.
I'm not trying to defend Jane Fonda the person, I know my opinion of the British Politician who tried to make the Middle East rise against British and American troops, he's a piece of ****e not for thinking the War is wrong, but for encouraging bloodshed, and I can fully understand Americans feeling the same way about this woman. But if you want to be the America you claim to be, then you have to put up with her and her point of view, just as we have to put up, not only with that politician, but with a plethora of people who would be against the wall in less tolerant cultures, simply for their views.
-
Well, at this point I don't see a real point in locking her up (or executing her, which I think is applicable under treason). Considering the administration it would set a horrible precedent, and I would rather see the country put Vietnam behind it.
While she may have been affecting morale (and probably affected lives), I doubt you could measure it in any objective way. She did not even give American troop positions out (Which I believe was recently done in Iraq).
Although what she did may have been extremely stupid and wrong, I don't think it would be in anybody's best interests to lock her up or really prosecute her (under American law).
-
Originally posted by Flipside
People owe it to their country to be a bit cynical about what their own government is showing them, but not nearly enough people are.
I assumed that goes without saying, especially since she was more cynacle than most of the US.
I have no problem with other's opinions. For a matter of fact I have no problem with anti-war protesters or anti-IMF protesters. But when IMF protesters start to run amuk and burning tires on K street in washington dc while using their freedom of speech and freedoms of assembly then they have broken the law. The point I am trying to get across is that speaking out against your country is one thing. But then aiding an enemy in their propaganda efforts is.
I should also point out that she witnessed prisoned beetings as well. But I need to do more checking into that.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I should also point out that she witnessed prisoned beetings as well. But I need to do more checking into that.
I believe that's an urban legend/myth; see the link to snopes I posted on the preceeding pages, which IIRC discounts it.
-
well it said the pieces of paper was a farse IIRC
I am not sure about the rest.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
:lol:
You're not the first to want to kill me and I am sure you won't be a last.
Why do you insist on making purposefully insulting comments?
I was trying to point out your own attitude is as bad as hers in many ways :p
-
Well then say so. Don't mask your point in the guise of and personal insult. However, I am alot wiser than I used to be concerning what the gov't tells me. Especially since I decided not to vote for President Bush in 2004.
-
I'll mask it any damned way i want - I refuse to take debates on here seriously any more. :p