Poll: Do you believe Jane Fonda is Hanoi Jane?

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
Just read this thread, and I must say thank you for pi$$ing me off this early in the morning. Great, now my day is ruined.
Jane Fonda is a traitor, and should have been tried as a traitor. Imagine someone pulling some stunt like that during WWII. They would have been tried for treason. However due to the political and media situation (first time a "CNN" war took place), nothing came of it. Had the media not played such a significant role in that conflict she most likely would not have been there in the first place, and if she did, she would have been tried for treason, hopefully found guilty, and hopefully have been executed.
[/end of rant]

when did Congress declare war on Vietcong?? what was the national security implications of us being there?? would the US have gone down in flames if we HADN'T been there? Where was the national DEBATE BEFORE we went to "WAR".

it had NOTHING to do with Media coverage and EVERYTHING to do with our governments refusal to do things BY THE RULES.

We SHOULDN'T have been there and ONCE we went in, we SHOULD have at least TRIED to win the war. Finally WHO CHOOSE NOT to go back for the POW's?? was it FONDA??

IF it had been WWII she would have been shot and DESERVEDLY SO, DO NOT make it seem like the vietnam conflict was the same TYPE of war as WWII.

Nothing to do with media coverage? Are you insane. The Vietnam war was the begining of what are known as "CNN Wars". Pick up a history journal and look into this. I'd rather not post a 250 page dissertation on this topic, but amoungst current historians, we all agree with the role that the media has had on current conflicts starting with Vietnam.
As for the Vietnam war (or conflict if you will) being right and wrong, that is not the question. Go read McNamara. Go watch the new documentary on him if you are not the reading type. That will give you a little more perspective into the history of the conflict. Blame the French. Blame the Japanese. Look back to the early 1930's and you will see how the Vietnam war started and finally ended. But don't go pissing on about how it wasn't ethical. Look at the facts and not your emotions.
Fvkcing hippies.

Were you alive back then? Did you have friends and family who had to fight over there? It was totally unethical. Take for instance the targeting of Civilians in Hanoi by B52's. Of course they say ithat they were targeting Military and Industrial siteds but back the the munitions used were not like todays where the can pin point targets. Thousands of Civilians died in those Bombings!

As a matter of fact, I was alive. My father served 2+ years in the Army, was wounded 3 times, has 3 purple hearts, 2 bronze stars for valor, 1 silver star, over 30 air medals, and served in the most active unit in the conflict. Yea, I have a lot of perspective concerning this.
As for the bombing of civilians, look at what happened in WWII. Go read Flyboys.

again, HOW CAN any sane person compare Vietnam to WWII???


there was CLEAR national security issues with WWII. matter of fact we got involved VERY VERY late because we couldnt' get a national consensus UNTIL there was clear national security implications. BOTH Germany and Japan posed a threat.

so now, are you going to try and tell me that vietcong posed that same kind of risk??


OPPPPS. the fact that we LOST in vietnam and still managed to defeat communism proves that incorrect doesn't it.

"Take for instance the targeting of Civilians in Hanoi by B52's. Of course they say ithat they were targeting Military and Industrial siteds but back the the munitions used were not like todays where the can pin point targets. Thousands of Civilians died in those Bombings!"
My comparison of WWII and Vietnam has to do with this statement. In WWII, we caused more damage and civilian deaths in Japan due to Napalm than due to both atomic bombs. We on more than one occassion burned over 97% of cities to the ground. That's only 3% of a city left standing. What we did in Vietnam to civilians pales in comparison to what we did in Japan.
I don't have the time nor the incliniation to post exact numbers.

The big difference is that they (Japanese) attacked us first on our own turf and declared War against us. In Vietnam we were intruding on what was basically a Civil War.

 

[Uppsala9496]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: jjones
I guess since we can all point fingers to government irresponsibility at some time or another, there are no murderers, rapists, thieves, and felons. The government did something wrong so I guess that absolves everyone else of their wrong.

hahahahaha

so in your mind, the vietnam war was a PERFECTLY legitimate conflict, Congress declared war on the Vietcong, the US WON the vietnam war, we went back and RETRIEVED all our POW's.

yah, that's REALLY what happened.

this is NOT a leftist perspective where i'm trying to shift all blame on the government. it's a matter of definitions.

She CAN'T have been a traitor because 1. War HAD not been declared on VIETNAM. 2. her actions DID NOT compromise national security. 3. WE SHOULDN'T HAVE been there in the first place.

I have stated CLEARLY that what she did was wrong TO THE POWs. but that is not the same thing as saying she was treasonous.

i have no desire to defend HER, it's just you guys talk about this whole thing as if the war was CUT and DRY and EVERYONE knew what was right and wrong at the time.

THEY DIDN'T. it's EASY in hind sight to say such and such, but at the time things WERE very confusing. the Government was LYING to us and it was hard to decipher what the truth really was.

You really are a frickin' moron. When will you get it into your head, that despite the view of whether or not the war was legal, ethical or otherwise, she collaborated with the enemy. The US government chose military action. She did much more than protest the government's action, she actually aided the enemy, to the detriment of those soldiers. She's a traitor plain and simple when she crosed that line from being a protester to collaborator.

EXACTLY! Once you enter into an armed conflict with another nation (recognized or not) that changes the game.

 

[jjones]

By PG's logic, hey I could have just gone and shot the Pres because the war in my view was illegal and that justified my actions.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: jjones
I guess since we can all point fingers to government irresponsibility at some time or another, there are no murderers, rapists, thieves, and felons. The government did something wrong so I guess that absolves everyone else of their wrong.

hahahahaha

so in your mind, the vietnam war was a PERFECTLY legitimate conflict, Congress declared war on the Vietcong, the US WON the vietnam war, we went back and RETRIEVED all our POW's.

yah, that's REALLY what happened.

this is NOT a leftist perspective where i'm trying to shift all blame on the government. it's a matter of definitions.

She CAN'T have been a traitor because 1. War HAD not been declared on VIETNAM. 2. her actions DID NOT compromise national security. 3. WE SHOULDN'T HAVE been there in the first place.

I have stated CLEARLY that what she did was wrong TO THE POWs. but that is not the same thing as saying she was treasonous.

i have no desire to defend HER, it's just you guys talk about this whole thing as if the war was CUT and DRY and EVERYONE knew what was right and wrong at the time.

THEY DIDN'T. it's EASY in hind sight to say such and such, but at the time things WERE very confusing. the Government was LYING to us and it was hard to decipher what the truth really was.

You really are a frickin' moron. When will you get it into your head, that despite the view of whether or not the war was legal, ethical or otherwise, she collaborated with the enemy. The US government chose military action. She did much more than protest the government's action, she actually aided the enemy, to the detriment of those soldiers. She's a traitor plain and simple when she crosed that line from being a protester to collaborator.

EXACTLY! Once you enter into an armed conflict with another nation (recognized or not) that changes the game.

The fact that she isn't considered a traitor by every American demonstrates how divisive that war was. If someone had done that in WWII or Korea they would have been tried abd likely convicted of treason. In her case she went on to a successful movie career, became even more wealthier by becoming an Exercise Guru and married one of the wealthiest men in America.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: andylawcc
also, a question to Plat, would it make a difference if the Congress did approve the war and Vietname was formally and politically recognized as an enemy, then what Fonda did would be technically treasonous?



and great answer Red Dawn

so let me ask you, IF we had formally declared war on the Vietcong, do you think there would have been a difference in how the war was perceived and portrayed by the media?

sorry I wasn't born in that era and lacked any education on the whole issue about Vietnam other than what my highschool US History textbook has taught. So I don't know how to answer your question; and that's why I am asking questions so I can grab hold on this historic event.

Actually back then she was Married to the Radical Tom Hardin who was one of the Leaders for the Far Left SDS and one of the defendants in the Chicago 7 trial so I am sure he had a lot of influence over her. BTW, he was there too!

as mentioned above, I had no idea on the who/what/when/how during the Vietnam War. but I suppose Tom Hardin is a big pot head.

 

[Uppsala9496]

Red Dawn, the ethics of the Vietnam Conflict have been well debated in history books, journals, and papers. This thread was not about that. You asked about my comparison of WWII and Vietnam. Vietnam was a direct result of WWII. It's a long history and I don't have the time to type it all out. Go to your local library and read into the topic. it should take you a couple years to start to understand the true nature of the conflict.
Once you finally understand the comparison, please come back and discuss. Until then stop. You sound more and more uneducated and very opinionated about a topic that I don't think you fully understand.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: jjones
By PG's logic, hey I could have just gone and shot the Pres because the war in my view was illegal and that justified my actions.

Explain as I don't see the correlation. I don't see him justifying her actions, just explaining that he doesn't believe that her actions were traitorous because there wasn't a declared war. I don't agree with him BTW.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
Red Dawn, the ethics of the Vietnam Conflict have been well debated in history books, journals, and papers. This thread was not about that. You asked about my comparison of WWII and Vietnam. Vietnam was a direct result of WWII. It's a long history and I don't have the time to type it all out. Go to your local library and read into the topic. it should take you a couple years to start to understand the true nature of the conflict.
Once you finally understand the comparison, please come back and discuss. Until then stop. You sound more and more uneducated and very opinionated about a topic that I don't think you fully understand.

Because I have a different opinion that yours I am ignorant about that war? I guess personal experience from being alive and subjected to being drafted to go fight that war doesn't count. I saw the Newscasts, my friends were over there, I heard all the debates at the time and I witnessed the final conclusion to that event. You might have been a little snotgobbler back then but I bet you have no recollection of what was happening back then! Living during those times offers a much better perspective of them than reading about them or hearing about them second hand.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve
I still remember reading one soldier's account while he was a P.O.W., she was visiting the prison camp, and he slipped a piece of paper to her in a handshake with the names of all the soldiers that were in the camp, and she turns around and hands it to the NVA officer in charge of the prison camp. He was severely beaten after she left.

Jane Fonda is scum.

If for this once incident alone, she should always be considered hanoi jane. The last place I worked was a non-profit place run by vets that were pilots during the Vietnam War. You could easily get bitch slapped if you brought up that name (figuratively, of course).

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: jjones
By PG's logic, hey I could have just gone and shot the Pres because the war in my view was illegal and that justified my actions.

Explain as I don't see the correlation. I don't see him justifying her actions, just explaining that he doesn't believe that her actions were traitorous because there wasn't a declared war. I don't agree with him BTW.

Nothing to explain. Treason is a high crime. If we can justify one, why can't we justify another.

"Treason against the United States shall consist only of levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: jjones
By PG's logic, hey I could have just gone and shot the Pres because the war in my view was illegal and that justified my actions.

Explain as I don't see the correlation. I don't see him justifying her actions, just explaining that he doesn't believe that her actions were traitorous because there wasn't a declared war. I don't agree with him BTW.

Nothing to explain. Treason is a high crime. If we can justify one, why can't we justify another.

"Treason against the United States shall consist only of levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

What did it have to with your statement about killing the President? Your Ad Hom attacks takes the legs out any argument you were putting forth

 

[PlatinumGold]

Note:

it's easy to jump on the bandwagon and condemn Jane Fonda. I have NOTHING good to say about what she did.

It was just driving me NUTS that we were discussing incidents that happened in the vietnam war as if EVERYONE approved of the war at the time.

THEY DIDN'T. cheap shots at Kerry fu

to further prove my point that some posters here actually thought that the vietnam war issue was crystal clear.

IT WASN'T and still isn't.

I couldn't just let you guys go on and on railing about vietnam without AT LEAST considering the atmosphere at the time.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: jjones
By PG's logic, hey I could have just gone and shot the Pres because the war in my view was illegal and that justified my actions.

Explain as I don't see the correlation. I don't see him justifying her actions, just explaining that he doesn't believe that her actions were traitorous because there wasn't a declared war. I don't agree with him BTW.

Nothing to explain. Treason is a high crime. If we can justify one, why can't we justify another.

"Treason against the United States shall consist only of levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

the vietcong was not the enemy. it was the president of the US that was ILLEGALLY DRAFTING THOUSANDS of americans and sending them to their deaths.

yes, the LEGALITY DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: jjones
By PG's logic, hey I could have just gone and shot the Pres because the war in my view was illegal and that justified my actions.

Explain as I don't see the correlation. I don't see him justifying her actions, just explaining that he doesn't believe that her actions were traitorous because there wasn't a declared war. I don't agree with him BTW.

Nothing to explain. Treason is a high crime. If we can justify one, why can't we justify another.

"Treason against the United States shall consist only of levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

the vietcong was not the enemy. it was the president of the US that was ILLEGALLY DRAFTING THOUSANDS of americans and sending them to their deaths.

yes, the LEGALITY DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

The Viet Cong was not the enemy? Try telling that to the Vets who were getting shot and shot at by them! Also there was nothing illegal about the draft. It might have been unfair but it was legal at the time!

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: jjones
By PG's logic, hey I could have just gone and shot the Pres because the war in my view was illegal and that justified my actions.

Explain as I don't see the correlation. I don't see him justifying her actions, just explaining that he doesn't believe that her actions were traitorous because there wasn't a declared war. I don't agree with him BTW.

Nothing to explain. Treason is a high crime. If we can justify one, why can't we justify another.

"Treason against the United States shall consist only of levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

the vietcong was not the enemy. it was the president of the US that was ILLEGALLY DRAFTING THOUSANDS of americans and sending them to their deaths.

yes, the LEGALITY DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

The Viet Cong was not the enemy? Try telling that to the Vets who were getting shot and shot at by them! Also there was nothing illegal about the draft. It might have been unfair but it was legal at the time!

mb i'm wrong. i was under the impression that the president needed congressional approval before instituting the draft.

i guess i'm going to have to go back and read up on my american government again.

 

[jjones]

I'm sorry, I missed the court ruling stating that the action in Vietnam was illegal. Because if it was, we should be paying some kind of restitution to Vietnam. Or is that just your opinion? The US government was in a military action, the VC and NVA were the enemy, and Jane Fonda is a traitor.

BTW, ALL CAPS VIS A VIS AOL CHATROOM DOESN'T HELP GET YOUR POINT ACROSS.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: jjones
I'm sorry, I missed the court ruling stating that the action in Vietnam was illegal. Because if it was, we should be paying some kind of restitution to Vietnam. Or is that just your opinion? The US government was in a military action, the VC and NVA were the enemy, and Jane Fonda is a traitor.

BTW, ALL CAPS VIS A VIS AOL CHATROOM DOESN'T HELP GET YOUR POINT ACROSS.

like your "assasinate the president" argument helped??

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: jjones
I'm sorry, I missed the court ruling stating that the action in Vietnam was illegal. Because if it was, we should be paying some kind of restitution to Vietnam. Or is that just your opinion? The US government was in a military action, the VC and NVA were the enemy, and Jane Fonda is a traitor.

BTW, ALL CAPS VIS A VIS AOL CHATROOM DOESN'T HELP GET YOUR POINT ACROSS.

like your "assasinate the president" argument helped??

Okay, that was over the top.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: jjones
I'm sorry, I missed the court ruling stating that the action in Vietnam was illegal. Because if it was, we should be paying some kind of restitution to Vietnam. Or is that just your opinion? The US government was in a military action, the VC and NVA were the enemy, and Jane Fonda is a traitor.

BTW, ALL CAPS VIS A VIS AOL CHATROOM DOESN'T HELP GET YOUR POINT ACROSS.

like your "assasinate the president" argument helped??

Okay, that was over the top.

ya, i got caught up in the discussion too.

but i still say, comparing the vietnam war to wars like WWII is completely and utterly unjustified.

Nothing about vietnam was as clear as WWII was. comparing it to Osama is UTTERLY repulsive and stupid. comparing it to Iraq has some merits, but since we won and we didn't lose ANYWHERE near as many men, it becomes a moot issue. besides, what WAS different was we had national consensus for those "wars" we DIDN'T for Vietnam to act as if we did is ignorant. ONLY the Civil war in our history has been more divisive than Vietnam.

and my FINAL WORD on this, Jane Fonda was WRONG. she was STUPID. OK, she was TREASONOUS, but look at it in the perspective of the times.

It would have been different in my books had she consorted with the Nazis during WWII.

to me, you can't compare those two acts and say they have the same weight, in my mind they don't.

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

just HOW was it treasonous?? did it risk NATIONAL Security??

perhaps we need to review the definition of treason, sedition, subversion.

treason - Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. A crime that undermines the offender's government.

subversive - intended to overthrow or undermine an established government. Activity aimed at bringing about an overthrow of a legally constituted government.

sedition - Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state. The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

just HOW was it treasonous?? did it risk NATIONAL Security??

perhaps we need to review the definition of treason, sedition, subversion.

treason - Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. A crime that undermines the offender's government.

subversive - intended to overthrow or undermine an established government. Activity aimed at bringing about an overthrow of a legally constituted government.

sedition - Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state. The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.

hmmmm, i'm not sure how she aided the enemy. i'm not sure how what she did undermined the government either.

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
hmmmm, i'm not sure how she aided the enemy. i'm not sure how what she did undermined the government either.

i'm too young to have the details.... but you'll find many people belive that her appearing with the VC boosted their war effort, she also appeared with soldiers saying they were being treated well, when they weren't, so in effect she aided the enemy. You'll also find others that say the exact same thing helped to undermine our govenment's war effort, and such undermined our government itself.
I guess since she was overt (ie: Open and observable; not hidden, concealed, or secret) you could consider it sedition if you don't consider it treason, alto sedition requires a hidden/concealed/secret act, and she was anything but....

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
hmmmm, i'm not sure how she aided the enemy. i'm not sure how what she did undermined the government either.

i'm too young to have the details.... but you'll find many people belive that her appearing with the VC boosted their war effort, she also appeared with soldiers saying they were being treated well, when they weren't, so in effect she aided the enemy. You'll also find others that say the exact same thing helped to undermine our govenment's war effort, and such undermined our government itself.

but unlike WWII, the conflict in vietnam was not nearly as clear.

the BIGGEST condemnation against the war in Vietnam (and it's PURELY a hind sight perspective, but then again this whole thread is a hind sight perspective i guess) is the fact that WE LOST the vietnam war and STILL won the war against communism.

if it was such a HUGE national security concern then how come losing didn't hurt us. i bet the MEN we lost during the war hurt us a LOT more than never having gotten involved over there in the first place would have.

and shouldn't that be the ultimate judge of whethor or not a war was justified??

 

[PlatinumGold]

also, somewhere i read someone posting that they thought vietnam was not illegal because there were no law suits after.

using that logic, since Jane Fonda was NOT arrested for treason i guess we can safely assume that what she did wasn't treasonous right?

 

[QueHuong]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
Red Dawn, the ethics of the Vietnam Conflict have been well debated in history books, journals, and papers. This thread was not about that. You asked about my comparison of WWII and Vietnam. Vietnam was a direct result of WWII. It's a long history and I don't have the time to type it all out. Go to your local library and read into the topic. it should take you a couple years to start to understand the true nature of the conflict.
Once you finally understand the comparison, please come back and discuss. Until then stop. You sound more and more uneducated and very opinionated about a topic that I don't think you fully understand.

Can someone post an article or essay that comes close to correctly summarizing "the true nature of the conflict"? Frankly, I can't devote a couple of years to researching if when someone else already has. But I'd like to know more about the Vietnam War than what was greatly simplified in high school history books.