jane fonda = owned

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

Im not starting one of stupid arguments either. But basically we go fight for people to have the right to disagree, but not for the right to support our enemies. Yea she can be against the war and protest and all that, but there is no way in hell anyone can justify her taking the picture on that gun. thats bullshit. Basically i am agreeing with exactly what Speedracer said.

Shit if i were him i probably woulda punched her in the face also.
 
While Touring the POW camps of Vietnam, The Prisoners thought her presence was a very brave and very cunning tactic to get the locations of the prisoners and send help from home.

They were Wrong.

As a symbol of rebellion, they slipped her their dogtags, and that she could palm them and return word of their location.

They were wrong.

At the end of the tour, Hanoi Jane handed the dogtags over to the Camp guards, and the prisoners were beaten severely.

When she returned to US soil she REFUSED TO HELP U.S. FORCES FIND THE CAMP.

I hope she gets eaten by cancer. Slowly, and televised.

->Steve
 
Originally posted by Celerity@Apr 21 2005, 08:45 PM
I hope she gets eaten by cancer. Slowly, and televised.

->Steve
[post=489870]Quoted post[/post]​


While that's happening, we should let every vet who survived that war walk up to her and give her a good kick in the box.
 
Really, this is simply a metter of perspective.
Fonda sees N Viet Nam as a state that is without justification attacked by the United States. It is her perogative to show her support in whatever way she wants. As to the POWs, she has no duty to protect them or in any way. What do you think would have happened if the VC happened on some American dog tags that she had stashed in her things? Is it her job to take any heat on the account of American soldiers?

Im not starting one of stupid arguments either. But basically we go fight for people to have the right to disagree, but not for the right to support our enemies

So do you suggest limiting free speach to only things you find agreeable? That doesn't sound very American.

And to this guy spitting in her face, what is the point? Is it going to placate his disdain for this woman, simply by unfurling his "tobbacco juice" upon her? It won't. It will not change a single thing. The only thing that will come of it is a fleeting feeling of satisfaction, veneration by his fellow immature veterans a smearing of the reputation of veterans everywhere. Spitting in the face of a woman, any woman, is not what i would call honorable.
 
Originally posted by Guy+Apr 22 2005, 08:37 AM-->
As to the POWs, she has no duty to protect them or in any way.

Guy
@Apr 22 2005, 08:37 AM
So do you suggest limiting free speach to only things you find agreeable? That doesn't sound very American.


I can't believe you actually had the nerve to say those two things in the same post.

It's not her duty? She's a goddamn American, of course it's her duty to protect those men, and to do everything she can to help them, including helping them get set free! The things she did (if they're true, of course) are some of the most un-American and traitorous acts I've ever heard committed by someone who calls herself an American. It's sickening to think that she would treat fellow Americans (especially ones who were fighting for her) the way she did.

For her to get some tobacco juice in the face is about the same as OJ getting let off.
 
Originally posted by dohcvtec_accord@Apr 22 2005, 11:01 AM
It's not her duty? She's a goddamn American, of course it's her duty to protect those men, and to do everything she can to help them, including helping them get set free! The things she did (if they're true, of course) are some of the most un-American and traitorous acts I've ever heard committed by someone who calls herself an American. It's sickening to think that she would treat fellow Americans (especially ones who were fighting for her) the way she did.


You know, i dont doubt that the British felt it was the duty of the American colonists to house their soldiers, but the colonists didnt feel that way.
Were those soldiers really fighting for her? She didnt think so. neither do i. What business did America have there? Who are we to prevent a people from governmental self determination? No, those soldiers were there fighting to prevent the will of the people of vietnam from being expressed.

We may not have liked what Fonda had to say, but such is the price of the first amendment. Love it or leave it, the freedom to express the most unpopular opinion is just as important, if not moreso, that the freedom to say the most popular thing.
 
Originally posted by Guy@Apr 22 2005, 09:11 AM
We may not have liked what Fonda had to say, but such is the price of the first amendment. Love it or leave it, the freedom to express the most unpopular opinion is just as important, if not moreso, that the freedom to say the most popular thing.
[post=490054]Quoted post[/post]​


Whoa there buddy. I wasn't talking about what she had to say. While I definitely don't agree with what she was saying, I AM stating that her actions (as posted by Celerity) are most definitely anti-American, immoral and unethical. They could even be construed as war crimes against her country. That is not covered under the First Amendment, last time I checked. Even if you want to argue that she was against the war, not helping fellow Americans who were imprisoned and certainly regularly tortured is deplorable. Not to mention that turning the dogtags over to the VC meant severe punishment for the GI's directly induced by her actions.

Someone needs to push her out of a building.
 
Deplorable, i partially agree. The fact of the matter is that she was blinded by ideology, which makes her no worse than anybody else in the war. America, as a nation, too was blinded by its anti-communist ideology. As such, atrocities were committed against the vietnamese as well. Both factions are equally deplorable.
I'm not saying that you have to like what she did, but spitting on somebody is not only a violation of the law, but its a dishonorable action. She has apollogised for her actions, spitting on a repentant women is wholly without value.

Celerity's story is sure frames her as a bad woman, perhaps a bit of verification would have served him better:
http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp
 
My post was careless and thoughtless. I should have known that snopes.com states the truth over the countless books and on-hand accounts brought to public attention on the situation.

Snopes is the final and truest resource of all. I will never make the mistake again.

:)

-> Steve
 
Originally posted by Guy@Apr 22 2005, 10:37 AM
Really, this is simply a metter of perspective.
Fonda sees N Viet Nam as a state that is without justification attacked by the United States. It is her perogative to show her support in whatever way she wants. As to the POWs, she has no duty to protect them or in any way. What do you think would have happened if the VC happened on some American dog tags that she had stashed in her things? Is it her job to take any heat on the account of American soldiers?

Im not starting one of stupid arguments either. But basically we go fight for people to have the right to disagree, but not for the right to support our enemies

So do you suggest limiting free speach to only things you find agreeable? That doesn't sound very American.

And to this guy spitting in her face, what is the point? Is it going to placate his disdain for this woman, simply by unfurling his "tobbacco juice" upon her? It won't. It will not change a single thing. The only thing that will come of it is a fleeting feeling of satisfaction, veneration by his fellow immature veterans a smearing of the reputation of veterans everywhere. Spitting in the face of a woman, any woman, is not what i would call honorable.
[post=490042]Quoted post[/post]​

Okay first of all. i was stating that as military, you have to accept that people are going to disagree and that is part of your job, to protect that right. BUT there is a line there between disagreeing with someone, and straight out turning your back on them and supporting their enemy. She wouldnt be shit today if it werent for this country.
 
Well, perhaps you should be employed as the official line drawer between protected and non-protected speech. As I understood it, our ability to speak our mind includes both consent and dissent for the states actions.

My post was careless and thoughtless. I should have known that snopes.com states the truth over the countless books and on-hand accounts brought to public attention on the situation.

Snopes is the final and truest resource of all. I will never make the mistake again.

Given that snopes has been used to both affirm and deny stories on this board, I figured precedence had been set. Your quip though, clever as ever, doesn't give any valid source for evidence. Realultimatepower.net has a book too, though i'm not sure that Mr. Hamburger's accounts of guitar wielding ninjas poping boners and flipping out would be a valid source to talk about ninpo/ninjutsu from.
 
Originally posted by Guy@Apr 22 2005, 11:11 AM
What business did America have there? Who are we to prevent a people from governmental self determination? No, those soldiers were there fighting to prevent the will of the people of vietnam from being expressed.
[post=490054]Quoted post[/post]​


i disagree. there was a war already going on before the americans even got there, and we're thankful they came and helped us. i know that its rarely talked about, but it wasnt America vs. Vietnam during the war, but a South Vietnam/American vs. North Vietnam and communism. the north viets even persecuted Christians(even today). just remember, when you say "people of vietnam", there's actually two sides.


btw; im montagnard, we were allies to america in the vietnam war.
 
Bear in mind, I am not trying to denegrate the cause of the southern vietmanese. Their decision for autonomy is one i respect, but the question i have to ask is simply, was their decision to remain autonomous from north vietnam worth American lives? What makes the southern vietmanese so imortant that their affairs should ellicit the lives of American soldiers? America's civil war was fought by Americans, only Americans. I'm not sure where the point is in which another country's political upheavel justifies the loss of life of soldiers who were impressed into the army.
Moreover, I think its important to look at why America was really in Vietnam. Of course there is a diverse historiography with regards to the topic, but from what I have read, America's entering into the the war for "humanitarian purposes" (ie to help s vietnam) was a post entering the war construction. I mean look at the gulf of Tonkin incident, obviously there is an adgenda. Obviously there is the issue of the cold war that needs to be dealt with, but in recent readings ive seen many people claiming that there were business interests in the country that America was securing. Truthfully I think it was a combination of many factors, but I genuinely believe that the welfare of the Southern Vietmanese was more of an afterthought. I know this comes off sounding harsh, and perhaps a little nativist, but I still think that these are all issues that have recieved little recognition in the mainstream.
 
Back
Top