Vietnam Veterans Website Cites Kerry's Anti-War Activities

Quote:

I personally think that second attack fortified our appearance of resolve; and sent a clearer message that the giant is awake.

Agree. I think that showing any signs of weakness would be suicide for the US.

0 Replies

And rampant aggression helps?

Sigh... know this has been hashed and rehashed. But still amazing to me to see that people who I know are intelligent think this way.

0 Replies

Soz- At this point in time, I believe that we needed to show strength. Whether how we handled the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq will ultimately be beneficial to the world in the long run, only time will tell.

I am not saying that I agree with everything that was done by the administration was precisely correct. I am not a military analyst. But I do know that there was a serious danger that needed a strong response.

0 Replies

It's too cartoonish to take seriously. I think it plays well domestically but those to whom it does do not consider whether anything they say is true at all.

It's easy to invoke metaphors and say that our "resolve" sends a "message" and such.

What they can't do is establish a connection between that and reality.

It has a lot more to do with pre-determined inclinations toward aggressive responses than geo-political reality.

0 Replies

Quote:

Let's everybody also keep in mind that Fonda was exercising her rights to speak out on something she felt very strongly about.

Quote:

Seems like most of the people who were around don't share your hatred.

I think that's a good thing (and not because of anything related to Kerry).

I have no problem with the war protesters. The glory of the United States is that people are free to express their views. What causes my hatred was her going to Vietnam, and collaborating with the enemy.

I know a lot of people who share my views. I may have mentioned this in another thread. I belong to an organization, who, at the national level, chose to give Jane Fonda an award at their annual convention, a few years ago.

Many of the people who live here are mothers, wives of veterans, or veterans themselves. The year of the award, a whole lot of people upped and quit the organization. A number of the smaller chapters had to close.
For a long time, there was a groundswell of people who wanted to break away from the national organization. It never happened, but to this day, many of the members talk about this shameful event with great bitterness.

The president of our chapter wrote a strong letter to the national office. She also wrote to the state office, but did not get an acceptable resppnse.

0 Replies

Phoenix,

I don't understand the big deal even if he did know Jane Fonda. I imagine that a lot of anti-war movement people moved in the same circles. I imagine that there are lots of people who knew Jane Fonda, who protested the war but did not go to Vietnam while our soldiers were fighting and dying. What is it, guilt by association even if it was two years later when Jane Fonda went over there? Is everyone who protested the war and might have been in the same atmosphere or even knew Jane Fonda tared with the same brush?

The Vietnam protestors were the ones who more or less ended the war, right? (I am admit that I wasn't old enough to know what was going on at that time and I don't remember studying it in school) If that is correct then John Kerry was twice a hero along with all the rest of the protestors. I only wish that people today were more like the flower children of that era. (without the drugs and free love (aids)

unfortunately, I think most people will just think Kerry/Jane Fonda, hopefully with any kind of grace at all, they will think Bush/Liar.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I have no problem with the war protesters. The glory of the United States is that people are free to express their views. What causes my hatred was her going to Vietnam, and collaborating with the enemy.

I find the that mentality naive and childlike. It's based on nothing but the arbitrary definition of who the "enemy" is.

A similar mentality can be found by those who hate the US for our collaborations with their enemies. In their case our collaborations are a lot more real than Fonda's.

Simplistic "US vs. THEM" thinking does, indeed, abound.

0 Replies

Quote:

It's easy to invoke metaphors and say that our "resolve" sends a "message" and such.

Precisely.

I have been ranting about this 'resolve' word for more than a year now. It is patently obvious that the word and concept are in peoples noggins because it is desired that they (you) think exactly that.

The only interesting question is whether the marketing boys pulled it out of focus group sessions, or if they intuitively concluded it was a viable cover for a leader who was so visibly under-educated and unreflective.

0 Replies

Take a look at this:

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

Craven- You were not alive during the Vietnam War, so have no firsthand experience as to what had been going on in this country during that time.

If you think that my mentality is naive and childlike, you are entitled to your opinion. I beg to differ.

0 Replies

Voicing your concerns and protesting is fine of course, seems to me the stink about Jane was she may have crossed the line into aiding and abetting the enemy. Some of you comment on this who have considered that, please.

http://vikingphoenix.com/public/CelebrityFiles/TurnerandFonda/JaneFonda/jfgallery/fondagun.gif

0 Replies

Are you really implying she was firing at anyone? How naive can you get? I have photos of an 11 year old hobbit sitting in the cockpit of an F-4D that was visiting Karachi. Do they "prove" I was a pediatric fighter pilot? My undertanding of the Fonda pic is that it was a publicity snap taken when she was visiting an AAA unit, This is rather like the Shrubster's numerous appearances in uniform, especially the hilarious "mission accomplished" one!

0 Replies

I'm not implying anything, it's just a picture to illustrate who she mingled with during war.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Take a look at this:

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

I read that yesterday. So?

Quote:

Craven- You were not alive during the Vietnam War, so have no firsthand experience as to what had been going on in this country during that time.

This is a very pathetic appeal to authority Phoenix. This kind of ad hominem has no bearing on your point. When I was born does not make you the owner of the truth. Trying to discredit me based on when I was born is a lame argument.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

It's too cartoonish to take seriously. I think it plays well domestically but those to whom it does do not consider whether anything they say is true at all.

It's easy to invoke metaphors and say that our "resolve" sends a "message" and such.

What they can't do is establish a connection between that and reality.

Why Craven; are you now going to join the "If you disagree with me; you can only do so out of ignorance" crowd? Please disprove my "cartoonish" assumption that a serious show of force can act as a deterrent to future aggressions. Not every cause and effect can be proven correct (or false). Are you suggesting you have some definitive knowledge that Kim Jong IL or Khaddafi have not been dissuaded, at least to some extent, from crossing the US further by our actions? Do you know for sure that no terrorist group or supporter has been discouraged by our overwhelming show of force? I'm rather surprised that you would take such a holier than though stance. But then, I apparently have trouble connecting with reality.

0 Replies

Craven- You take umbrage when I state the fact that you were not alive during the Vietnam War. It was not meant as an appeal to authority. That era was a very peculiar time in the US history, and what I was referring to was that IMO you really had to be there in order to understand the temper of the times.

You called what I said an ad hominem. So what is calling me naive and childlike?

You know, I don't often post on political threads, and I am beginning to understand why. I honestly stated what I believe, and you are lashing back at me. I think that that is uncalled for, and beneath you!

0 Replies

I have nothing but contempt for Fonda's Anti-War actions. She did not lobby for peace or protest war in general, but openly and actively espoused the cause of those in conflict with The US, accused US troops of being war criminals, and maintained, following her visit to North Vietnam, that tales of inhumane treatment afforded captured US military personnel were "baseless propaganda". It is one thing to oppose a war, entirely another to provide aid and comfort to a wartime enemy of one's nation. I don't fault Kerry much for protesting the war, though I do take issue with some of the tactics employed by him and his fellows. To his credit, he did not align himself with the North Vietnamese, as Fonda did, but rather championed the cause of ending the war and bringing the troops home.

Klute is a damned good movie, though. She did that well.

0 Replies

That's a specious analogy, Brand X. He did the service which is generally thought to be an obligation of the citizen. Many never serve, and public law is written so that those who are neither conscripted, nor join the military, owe absolutely nothing. Having performed what is socially seen as a duty to one's country, but in no wise a legal obligation, if he chose to determine, based upon a good deal more experience of war than many protestors, or hawks, had had at that time, that the war was wrong, it is his right a citizen--a citizen with all his "dues" paid up--to say as much. The corrolary to a fireman who becomes an arsonist would be a soldier who turns his coat and fights for the other side. Are you claiming that's what Kerry did, or are you just indulging in a puffed-up claim akin to the love or leave it claptrap the right was so fond of thirty years ago?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Why Craven; are you now going to join the "If you disagree with me; you can only do so out of ignorance" crowd?

No, in fact I never said anything of the sort. I said that I hold a particular viewpoint to be cartoonish and naive.

Quote:

Please disprove my "cartoonish" assumption that a serious show of force can act as a deterrent to future aggressions.

Bill, this can't be taken seriously. Feel free to "prove" that it is so. You can do so no more than I can disprove it. This is just a subjective difference of opinion. It happens.

Quote:

Not every cause and effect can be proven correct (or false).

With this I agree wholeheartedly.

Quote:

Are you suggesting you have some definitive knowledge that Kim Jong IL or Khaddafi have not been dissuaded, at least to some extent, from crossing the US further by our actions?

Nope, I'm highlighting the fact that those who assume it helped have no definitive knowledge on that either and are assuming that very drastic actions are helpful.

Quote:

Do you know for sure that no terrorist group or supporter has been discouraged by our overwhelming show of force?

Of course not. Again not something I asserted. This doesn't mean that I think that a random show of force is helpful because some "terrorist group or supporter has been discouraged by our overwhelming show of force".

This is why I think the manly display argument is cartoonish. I see "show of force" as largely metaphoric in nature.

I think that after suffering suicide attacks a show of force (i.e. manly display) has greater effect on the attacked nation's audience than anyone else.

I think it's emotionally satisfying for many in our domestic audience, and that some think that it was due to our being a "paper tiger" under Clinton.

These vivid metaphors are powerful to some and well, very much less so for others. I don't think our attackers care nearly as much as you think they do about our politics and our power.

I think their hatred of america is what fuels them and don't think a manly display would make them suddenly reconsider their position.

Quote:

I'm rather surprised that you would take such a holier than though stance.

I'm not holier than anyone. I come with the standard amount of holes.

I understand that reasonable people can disagree with me, and even find my position to be naive and cartoonish themselves.

Here, I'll even make an argument for that.

Craven's evil twin wrote:

Craven's position is cartoonish and naive, to think that we can appease this world's madmen is reckless and impotent. We need a strong response to a grave threat.

0 Replies

Just trying to sort it out, Set. Thanks to everyone for your input.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Craven- You take umbrage when I state the fact that you were not alive during the Vietnam War. It was not meant as an appeal to authority. That era was a very peculiar time in the US history, and what I was referring to was that IMO you really had to be there in order to understand the temper of the times.

I don't take umbrage. I'm just saying that it is an argument against the person rather than their argument.

Quote:

You called what I said an ad hominem. So what is calling me naive and childlike?

It would be an ad hominem. Which is why I never called you naive and childlike.

Quote:

You know, I don't often post on political threads, and I am beginning to understand why. I honestly stated what I believe, and you are lashing back at me. I think that that is uncalled for, and beneath you!

I am not "lashing back" at you. I think you are overreacting. For any offense taken I apologize. My statements stand, without revision. Just as yourself, I am honestly stating what I believe, and have no intention to do any lashing at all.

<offers peace pipe>

0 Replies

Vietnam Veterans Website Cites Kerry's Anti-War Activities

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know