Vietnam Veterans Website Cites Kerry's Anti-War Activities

Phoenix,

I forgot to say that I hate Jane Fonda just cause she's stupid.

What she did was like standing up in the middle of a stadium and mooning the home team saying that they suck.

That's my cartoonish metaphor for the day.

The thing about enemies is that it's as simple as what side you are on. We think the people from the enemy's side that cavort with us are heroes.

I think she was stupid and carried away but I don't think it was much more than a stupid act. I don't think she helped the "enemy" and don't think she hurt the "good guys" either.

Some of the stories that circulate about her go so fra as to say that, but they are a we bit given to hyperbole (as you noted with the snopes article).

We can hate her for different reasons.

What Jane Fonda did was typical over-reaction crap.

Even I have occasionally indulged in over-reaction at times -- in fact, right here in A2K. And I am an old geezer.

Anyway, I guess I gotta fess up. I've played Spank the Monkey while looking at pictures of her from the movie Barbarella.

I ain't ever gonna hate her. :wink:

Brand X, do please, forgive my lack of decorum in my response.

Is it unreasonable to believe some outside of the US thought this way as well?
This is a reasonable difference in opinion that does nothing to justify the use of words like cartoonish or naive.

That was the point Craven... And I'm glad to see you got it. Can I get a toke off that peace pipe?

Phoenix, there are SO MANY issues to face in this decision to change leadership in this nation... military 'opinions' and 'actions' are just one of them. I hope, (and have ALWAYS hoped) voters would not just 'look at labels' and one-sided issues, but TRY desperately to get a balanced view of where the nation is... and how it can be bettered.
I agree with whomever [above] said, 'any democrat can do better than Bush'; or something to that effect.

Among the thousands and thousands of pages on the internet- which tell the tales of the Bushes, going back FOR YEARS- I just believe where there is "SO MUCH smoke, there must be some fire".

I do not want GW Bush at the helm of our nation. Since he did get there, by hook and crook- I hope he does not stay a DAY longer than it takes to inauguarate a new administration Leader.

To more sharply answer the original question, I believe I will be voting for the EXPERIENCED Kerry, today.

damn, here I am learning all about Vietnam, Hanoi Jane and John Kerry. I didn't learn a damn thing when I as there (other than how best to stay alive) so kind of all you learned folks to clue me in on what I missed.

Hmmm...since craven's opinion does not matter since he wasn't alive, I guess yours doesn't matter since you were there.

Not at all. But I think this is a more common opinion for persons sympathetic to the US. In First World countries I bet this is a common (if not popular) opinion.

I think the people who dislike the US are less inclined to ever perceive the US this way. There's the occasional bravado about how the US is "weak" but this exists regardless of what the US does, kinda like how many groups predict that we will be "destroyed" regardless of the improbability of that.

I think the people who dislike the US are inclined to view the US as a bully, and will have grievances real and/or imagined against the US, and will rarely if ever think we are a "paper tiger".

I am sure there are exceptions, but I sincerely doubt that any show of force will do anything significant to reduce our risks unless said exhibit directly targets persons who are about to attack us.

I'd look at Isreal for a comparison. When they disrupt the very networks of those about to attack them they are able to temporarily suspend attacks.

Their reciprocal demonstrations of power usually do not do this. When they retaliate against attacks in alleatory ways (e.g. attacking police outposts) it usually results in more attacks, not less.

Isreal is a good case to study for this. I really don't think military might is very useful today as a show. A smarter way of doing things is to engage in usefull pursuits against real threats.

So when they disrupt a cell, destroy a bomb factory or interdict areas from which an attack is looming they usually stave off attacks.

When they phone in a bombing raid (literally, by calling the PA police and telling them to vacate the building they randomly chose to bomb) it usually is met by attacks.

They have the show of force down to a fine science. Heck look what they do to Arafat. Imprisoning the "enemy's" leader is a hell of a show of force, he had to eat and drink what the Israelis gave him.

These shows never really do much unless there is a strategic objective that is also reached. I've yet to see a mere show of force result in greater securit there.

So yeah, I'm sure that some people think that way, but I think those who are sympathetic to us are far more inclined to do so, and I think the individuals who are a danger to us do not subsribe to your brand of reasoning.



Certainly! Hell you can even Bogart this one, there's plenty more.

I learned aviation gas, sand, parts cages and smoke evacuation fans can be used to chill canned beer very effectively. A couple gallons or so does the trick for a dozen cans in just a few minutes if they're properly layered in the sand, the sand is well soaked with fuel, and you get a good airflow going across the mass. There was the occasional, fairly spectacular and quite counterproductive accident, but barring unintended ignition, it worked fine. Oh, yeah ... and a 12Ga shotgun makes a reasonably seviceable bong in a pinch.

LOL!

(What'd you think of the movie, though, Frank?)

What about Coming Home? (She and Voight both won Oscars...)

Barefoot in the Park?

The China Syndrome?

The Electric Horseman?

On Golden Pond?

Cat Ballou? :wink:

Golden Pond was right up there, and Cat Ballou is one of the funniest movies ever. The drunk horse ....
Barefoot in the Park hit me as just a chick flick. Coming Home just missed somehow; didn't do much for me at all but then I'm not big on Jon Voight either, so the pairing of them probably diminished my appreciation for the film. I thought she was just a foil in the Reford vehicle Electric Horseman. In China Syndrome, I thought her performance dragged against Douglas', and frankly, I wasn't able to get past the Bad Science and the contrived dilemas that characterized the screenplay. Agnes of God was pretty good, though; her best, IMO, after Klute. And I agree with Frank; Jane did a lot with a plexiglas bustier.

I don't have much use for Liza Minelli, either, but Cabaret is on my all-time fav list, and Liza's Sally Bowles was definitive. I really think talent, like sex, should be considered seperately from politics. Mostly.

"Bongs Away!"

All the thoughts I have expressed here are purely prurient. I've enjoyed almost all of Jane's movies.

As for Barbarella ... well, I think I know what the director was asking of her -- and I think she delivered.

Re Israel as pertinent example arguing against the big-stick strategy...

Craven's analogy here is appropriate, and telling. Israeli security is presently much less stable than it was a decade ago. I doubt many Israeli's rhetorize, while sitting about the family dining table, "Why do they hate us so?" The answer being rather too obvious to most.

It is an old 'solution'...beat them into submission. It sounds good, But too many unintended consequences can deeply influence the desired and presumed end which the strategy sought to justify (French resistance, Little Big Horn, endless supplies of suicide bombers). Not least being that the hatred generated may last generations (Ireland).

But there is another element here. That is, the possible, if not likely, coordination of strategy and the perceived identity of interests between Likud and this administration. link from the editor at large for The Financial Times and UPI

This photo is a fake. A PhotoShopped attempted smear.

(But you knew that already, right?)

Snopes.com

I haven't spent much time here lately so I'm still just catching up.

And I wanted to research these Fonda ties a bit so that I would know what I'm talking about.

This picture...



...is the one that seems to have a few dozen panties in a twist.

(There's another photo floating around of Kerry and Fonda, but it is a fabrication.)

Now, let me ask you:

If you went to an Atlanta Braves game in the '90s and got some great box seats down close to first base (a few rows behind Fonda and Ted Turner), and someone took your picture, could we consider you guilty of having besmirched Viet Nam veterans?

Is this is how George Bush, "The Uniter", intends to campaign during this election?

Republicans have made going to war 'patriotic', and anyone who doesn't want to bomb virtually defenseless third-world countries is a friend of Jane Fonda -- whoops, I mean Commie sympathizer.

There's another picture that Americans need to be shown again:



That's Rummy. And he's not sitting six rows behind Saddam.

He's there in Iraq, selling him poison gas so that he can kill Kurds.

With America's -- whoops, make that the Reagan administration's blessing.

Hey, good job, PDiddie!

But I suppose the photoshopping will be blamed on Clark...

Yup. I said it was just for chain-yankin' purposes. There's some "hidden text" just below the picture ... left-click, drag across it, and copy it to your clipboard to see what it says.

Now, if you can back up your allegations about Rummie's sales activities as relate to the picture you posted, go right ahead. Stuff like customs clearances, production orders, shipping invoices, receipts, letters-of-intent, letters-of-credit or other financial instruments, warehouse records, documentented transfers of purpose-diected technology or information, that sort of stuff, as opposed to hearsay, go right ahead.

Well, you Dems are the experts at photo manipulation after all.. Ya got all that experience playing with pics of chimps over the last few years. lol