Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Guess who is Protesting the War in Iraq?; She is at it again!
Topic Started: Jul 27 2005, 08:30 AM (1,383 Views)
psyfi
psyfi
ImpulseEngine
Jul 28 2005, 02:23 PM
psyfi
Jul 27 2005, 09:30 AM
I simply cannot believe this! Talk about your attention whores! Does she really think that this is going to add once ounce of credibility to the anti-war movement?

What's the problem? Seriously. Why the need to rake her over the coals about this? Why do we care one way or the other? If that's how she wants to spend her time, who cares? In this country, it's her constitutional right to do so.

Would you prefer we didn't have free speech?

What is it you're afraid of?

So anyone who dares open their mouth to say things that are unpopular is now an "attention whore"???

If nothing else, I admire her courage to openly and publicly stand by her convictions instead of becoming a mindless sheep like so many.

In this country everybody has a right to free speech and nobody has a right NOT to be criticized for what they say or do. She caused untold pain and damage with her right to free speech when it comes to protesting war. It really should be no surprise that people criticize her for engaging in these activities once again.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
^^^
You're right about one thing. It's not a surprise at all.

As for the "untold pain and damage":
If I call you 20 names and you become angry, did I make you angry, or did YOU allow yourself to become angry? Think about it...

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're talking about, any pain and damage people suffered from her was simply because they allowed themselves to be bothered by her free speech as you are doing now.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Dr. Noah
Jul 28 2005, 02:01 PM
There are two reasons a nation has the right to invade another.

1. They have first been attacked (in which case the war in Afghanistan is justified as it was determined that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 and the Taliban harbored them)

2. They pose an imminent threat.

Iraq fits neither description.

In a legal sense the 2nd invasion of Iraq was simply an extension of the 1st invasion after Iraq invaded Kuwait. The coalition of nations under the first President Bush were not under "imminent threat".

It was believed by many with much more information than you and I have (including the US, the UK, and Russia) that Iraq under Saddam did pose an imminent threat.

The US was not under imminent threat from Germany before the US entered WWII. Germany wanted to sign a peace treaty with the US.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
ImpulseEngine
Jul 29 2005, 09:30 AM
^^^
You're right about one thing. It's not a surprise at all.

As for the "untold pain and damage":
If I call you 20 names and you become angry, did I make you angry, or did YOU allow yourself to become angry? Think about it...

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're talking about, any pain and damage people suffered from her was simply because they allowed themselves to be bothered by her free speech as you are doing now.

If you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is no fire and 10 people are trampled to death are you the cause or was the problem that people listened to you and believed you?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
who
Jul 29 2005, 10:59 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jul 29 2005, 09:30 AM
^^^
You're right about one thing.  It's not a surprise at all.

As for the "untold pain and damage":
If I call you 20 names and you become angry, did I make you angry, or did YOU allow yourself to become angry?  Think about it...

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're talking about, any pain and damage people suffered from her was simply because they allowed themselves to be bothered by her free speech as you are doing now.

If you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is no fire and 10 people are trampled to death are you the cause or was the problem that people listened to you and believed you?

Is this somehow analogous to what Jane Fonda did? If so, please explain.







What would people do without scapegoats? :rolleyes:
How then would they feel like somebody? :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
ImpulseEngine
Jul 29 2005, 09:30 AM
^^^
You're right about one thing. It's not a surprise at all.

As for the "untold pain and damage":
If I call you 20 names and you become angry, did I make you angry, or did YOU allow yourself to become angry? Think about it...

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're talking about, any pain and damage people suffered from her was simply because they allowed themselves to be bothered by her free speech as you are doing now.

If you don't think that her photo opportunity with the Viet Cong (which they should have charged her with fraternizing with the enemy) in which she sat on an NVA anti-aircraft dispirited and lowered the moral of many soldiers, you are kidding yourself. Or how about her 1972 visit to North Vietnam to give their support to the North Vietnamese's Government? She returns to the US and advises the news media, telling them that all of the American Prisoners of War were being well treated and were not being tortured. Tell it to John McCain Ms. Fonda! And of course then, after the fall of the South Vietnam government, when the 'victors' were busy murdering thousands upon thousands, she returned to celebrate the victory and during said celebration, her son was christened after a Viet Cong hero, Nguyen Van Troi. PULEEZE! The fact of the matter is that we are not alone in the effects of our perceptions of the world. We have an influence and her influence has been brutal on the American forces.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Has anyone asked where Hanoi Jane is going to fill up her biodiesel bus? Is she going to keep a hundred cases of Wesson on board, or is she going to pull up behind the nearest McDonalds and find out if they're emptying their grease traps?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
psyfi
Jul 29 2005, 11:11 AM
If you don't think that her photo opportunity with the Viet Cong (which they should have charged her with fraternizing with the enemy) in which she sat on an NVA anti-aircraft dispirited and lowered the moral of many soldiers, you are kidding yourself. 

A person's morale can only be lowered if the person him/herself allows it. It's the person's own reaction to an event, not an event itself, that lowers morale. You're misdirecting the responsibility.

Quote:
 
Or how about her 1972 visit to North Vietnam to give their support to the North Vietnamese's Government? She returns to the US and advises the news media, telling them that all of the American Prisoners of War were being well treated and were not being tortured.  Tell it to John McCain Ms. Fonda!
Why do you say this is her fault? How do you know she didn't report things as accurately as she witnessed them? It would have to be a deliberate misrepresentation of facts before she would be blameworthy.

Quote:
 
And of course then, after the fall of the South Vietnam government, when the 'victors' were busy murdering thousands upon thousands, she returned to celebrate the victory and during said celebration, her son was christened after a Viet Cong  hero, Nguyen Van Troi.  PULEEZE!
I honestly don't know what you're talking about here.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Jul 29 2005, 10:38 AM
psyfi
Jul 29 2005, 11:11 AM
If you don't think that her photo opportunity with the Viet Cong (which they should have charged her with fraternizing with the enemy) in which she sat on an NVA anti-aircraft dispirited and lowered the moral of many soldiers, you are kidding yourself. 

A person's morale can only be lowered if the person him/herself allows it. It's the person's own reaction to an event, not an event itself, that lowers morale. You're misdirecting the responsibility.

Quote:
 
Or how about her 1972 visit to North Vietnam to give their support to the North Vietnamese's Government? She returns to the US and advises the news media, telling them that all of the American Prisoners of War were being well treated and were not being tortured.  Tell it to John McCain Ms. Fonda!
Why do you say this is her fault? How do you know she didn't report things as accurately as she witnessed them? It would have to be a deliberate misrepresentation of facts before she would be blameworthy.

Quote:
 
And of course then, after the fall of the South Vietnam government, when the 'victors' were busy murdering thousands upon thousands, she returned to celebrate the victory and during said celebration, her son was christened after a Viet Cong  hero, Nguyen Van Troi.  PULEEZE!
I honestly don't know what you're talking about here.

I think you're making excuses for Hanoi Jane Fonda's disgusting behavior during the Vietnam War. She should have been charged with treason.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Then why wasn't she charged with treason?
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 10:43 AM
Then why wasn't she charged with treason?

Because the government were wussies, and she was a celebrity from a celebrity family.

If Jane Doe had done that, she'd have been airmailed to jail.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 29 2005, 12:41 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jul 29 2005, 10:38 AM
psyfi
Jul 29 2005, 11:11 AM
If you don't think that her photo opportunity with the Viet Cong (which they should have charged her with fraternizing with the enemy) in which she sat on an NVA anti-aircraft dispirited and lowered the moral of many soldiers, you are kidding yourself. 

A person's morale can only be lowered if the person him/herself allows it. It's the person's own reaction to an event, not an event itself, that lowers morale. You're misdirecting the responsibility.

Quote:
 
Or how about her 1972 visit to North Vietnam to give their support to the North Vietnamese's Government? She returns to the US and advises the news media, telling them that all of the American Prisoners of War were being well treated and were not being tortured.  Tell it to John McCain Ms. Fonda!
Why do you say this is her fault? How do you know she didn't report things as accurately as she witnessed them? It would have to be a deliberate misrepresentation of facts before she would be blameworthy.

Quote:
 
And of course then, after the fall of the South Vietnam government, when the 'victors' were busy murdering thousands upon thousands, she returned to celebrate the victory and during said celebration, her son was christened after a Viet Cong  hero, Nguyen Van Troi.  PULEEZE!
I honestly don't know what you're talking about here.

I think you're making excuses for Hanoi Jane Fonda's disgusting behavior during the Vietnam War. She should have been charged with treason.

Actually, I'm objecting to threads like this one that exist only to trash people.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with her viewpoint, Jane was just doing what she honestly believed was the right thing. Why should someone be trashed for that?

Feel free to trash Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and the like if you wish - those who are truly bad people. They're in completely different categories from Jane.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 29 2005, 11:48 AM
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 10:43 AM
Then why wasn't she charged with treason?

Because the government were wussies, and she was a celebrity from a celebrity family.

If Jane Doe had done that, she'd have been airmailed to jail.

You are refering to the Nixon and Ford Administrations, right?
| Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
IE, the idea that we are the sole causative agent in our emotional states is a view that simply is not in touch with the phenomenological world about us. We are not islands unto ourselves, unconnected and separated from the people around us. We are often moved by what others say, inspired by their words, lifted by their actions and also dispirited, hurt, and in pain by other words and actions. We are not alone in the effects of our seeing (perception). If a mother is an addict or nuts, this affects and influences her children. If a spouse is a cheat and a liar, this affects and influences the emotional state of his or her partner. If your boss cuts your salary by 1/3rd, that has very real effects that you have to deal with. We cannot so easily dissociate from the words or actions of those that have meaning for us. If you are putting your life on the line every single day and here comes some unfeeling bitch telling the world that the Viet Cong are treating the POWs terrifically, sitting on an antiaircraft gun that you know probably has killed and/or will kill your collective, the idea that she has no influence on your emotional state is incredibly naive with respect to the nature of how human beings experience the world. It would quite literally take a miracle for her not to have influence on one's emotional state under those circumstances.

Regarding the treatment of the POWs, I don’t give a fig what she witnessed. If she had even a tiny bit of a brain in her head, she would have known who she was with and what they were doing to Americans. I never went to Viet Nam and yet I knew that they were torturing our guys. Come on, get real.

Regarding the fall of the South Vietnam government, are you aware of some of the things that occurred? Over a million people were forced to move to the countryside. New Economic Zones (NEZ's) and re-education camps were established for "undesirable elements." Executions and other means of sanctioned death happened daily. In the cities, typewriters were outlawed, and all residents were required to submit to the authorities a list of books they owned and report "all private conversations deemed contrary to the spirit of the revolution. During this time, our heroine Jane went there to celebrate the VC’s victory, had her son Troy, christened after a Viet Cong hero as oblivious to what these homicidal maniacs were doing as she was about the POWs. Her opinion on war is not as valuable as spit.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
ImpulseEngine
Jul 29 2005, 11:51 AM
Actually, I'm objecting to threads like this one that exist only to trash people.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with her viewpoint, Jane was just doing what she honestly believed was the right thing. Why should someone be trashed for that?

Feel free to trash Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and the like if you wish - those who are truly bad people. They're in completely different categories from Jane.

What about all the threads that trash Bush? Is he in the box with Hitler and Saddam Hussein or in the box with Jane Fonda?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus