Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:
Making parallels with what happened in Vietnam is ludicrous. My father was in the Army for twenty four years, retiring in 2001. Currently he is serving as a military stratgic expert, residing in Iraq at this very moment. Would you like his e-mail? He can tell you the real facts of the situation along with the reconstruction of Iraq, combat experiences and how much it has been exaggerated falsely in the news. Guess what the insurgent attacks are rapidly decreasing, and morale is a lot better than it was a year or two years ago.

Quote function peoples, quote function! It's an amazing thing.

The parallels are endless, really- starting from approximately the same time the old 'nam phrase '...to win the hearts and minds of the people' started being used by those involved, as well as certain media outlets. Hrrm. Fox News? Our objectives in both cases were pretty shady. Our should I say, our objectives started out as simple and ended up being more complicated and unclear.

If anything, it's become more chaotic, just in terms of the misrepresentation of the war by our media and various mouthpieces. I'm in agreement there. However, in terms of how our administration has handled it, it is strikingly similar. Hell, Donald Rumsfeld is practically McNamara's long-lost son.

You're right. Things are getting better. All the troops are going to cross the gumdrop forest with the Iraqi children and play in the Binkle-Binkle tree.

I _have_ sympathy for the troops. I was one. I'm just not going to stick a magnet on my car anytime soon.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote: He can tell you the real facts of the situation along with the reconstruction of Iraq, combat experiences and how much it has been exaggerated falsely in the news. Guess what the insurgent attacks are rapidly decreasing, and morale is a lot better than it was a year or two years ago.

And in 1972 there would have been plenty of officers and politicians who would have told you that we were pulling out of Vietnam because we had won the war, achieved all our objectives, and put in place a stable leadership in the South. So what?
Even accepting that there are no other parallels between the two wars, there is one fact that is the same: the people who live in the region will determine the fate of the country. They can wait us out. We can pull out in a year, 5 years, 15 years, it doesn't matter. They will still be there. And there's nothing we can do to change it.
The Bush administration went into this war with a rigid idea of what would happen once Hussein was vanquished. That idea was wildly off the mark. Now our military is in the position of trying to fashion a diamond from a pile of shit. It's not their fault, and in spite of the commitment and optimism of people like your father, I don't see it happening.

but she was on the right side. The Vietnam war had two sides: For and Against. To suggest that being For is better than being Against (however dim-wittedly Against) is to side with pure evil.

First off, I never suggested that being "for" the war is better than being against it. For the record, I said yesterday, and still believe today, that it was a senseless war.
I despise Jane Fonda not for her being against the war, but for AIDING the enemy in the fight against the U.S.

Second, in this context, the Vietnam war had three sides:
1. For
2. Against and
3. Against to the point of committing (debatable) treasonous acts.

There is a HUGE difference between #2 and #3.
As far as I know, there are only two people that fall into this last category. Red Man-faced Jane is one of them.

But fuck Jane Fonda and her photo-op. She's worse.

Again, she did a hell of a lot more than take pictures with the enemy troops - and all of you know it (or should).

Your previous posts basically equated Jane Fonda with the anti-war movement.

Not basically, Kid. They did explicitly. Again... Ask ten random people you work with, or at a show this weekend, or wherever (and I don't give a shit what kind of education they have) to name the first person who comes to mind when they think about anti-Vietnam War Activists, and I'll bet a million Pecos you get, "Jane Fonda" out of 9, if not 10 of them.
Not John Lennon, as someone else suggested, not Abbie Hoffman and not John Kerry.

I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth when I say that. I think you implied that millions of people who risked more and suffered more to bring an end to the war are essentially the same as a flighty actress who hung around with some NVA soldiers while displaying "braless tits," as you put it.

I never implied this notion either.
This was a simple post about a Vietnam Vet spitting in the face of a boarderline traitor at a book signing, and my happening to agree with why he wanted to do it.
I have NOTHING against ANYONE who feels moved enough about an issue to go out and protest.
Taking the leap from there, to heading overseas to see what one can do to help in the fight against our own country is where I make the distinction between protester, and Jane Fonda.

Who's got the sack to spit in the face of Muhammad "I got nothing against the Viet Cong" Ali?

Who's got the sack to spit in the face of Muhammad "I got nothing against the Viet Cong" Ali?

now? probably a lot of people but i get your point.

6-4-3 wrote:
Ask ten random people you work with, or at a show this weekend, or wherever (and I don't give a shit what kind of education they have) to name the first person who comes to mind when they think about anti-Vietnam War Activists, and I'll bet a million Pecos you get, "Jane Fonda" out of 9, if not 10 of them.
Not John Lennon, as someone else suggested, not Abbie Hoffman and not John Kerry.

Suuuure....maybe in an alternate reality. I'm sure if I went over to the VA hospital and asked a couple of the vets who are slowly being fed their death by our government, they'd spit out or on Jane Fonda immediately.

Baseball = Babe Ruth
Hockey = Wayne Gretzgy
Home Improvement = Bob Vila
Masturbatory aid = Jergans
anti-Vietnam War activist = Jane Fonda

Mattw = clueless

In an alternate reality???
Where do you live, exactly? The Stanford Library?

is there any real way we are going to delineate jane fonda's rank in the hierarchy of vietnam opposition? are we going to to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion to this question?

she was a visible opponent of the vietnam war. she did something quite stupid to show that fact.

what she did is not legally treason, or at least probably would not be considered to be if she were tried.

some guy wanted some attention so he spit in her face. if this was personal and he wanted to express how he felt he would have spit in her face when she left or at her hotel or in some other less public arena. he wanted people to see him do it and for it to be mentioned by the news, perhaps for no other reason than to enliven his contemporaries.

being happy when something bad happens to someone you don't like just makes you an asshole. you're just like the rest of us in this regard but still it's an asshole way to react.

6-4-3 wrote: Ask ten random people you work with, or at a show this weekend, or wherever (and I don't give a shit what kind of education they have) to name the first person who comes to mind when they think about anti-Vietnam War Activists, and I'll bet a million Pecos you get, "Jane Fonda" out of 9, if not 10 of them.
Not John Lennon, as someone else suggested, not Abbie Hoffman and not John Kerry.

People who assert as fact things that never happened, such as Jane Fonda being directly responsible for the killings of American soldiers, are not very convincing when they start opining about the level of historical understanding to be found in the general public.
And I don't even think that level of understanding is very high. But I also don't think most people have fevered memories of Jane Fonda's treachery dancing around in their heads, either.
Didn't we just have a presidential election? Didn't the Bush campaign make a lot of sleazy use of John Kerry's position as an anti-war veteran? Haven't millions of Americans seen Born on the Fourth of July, starring Tom fucking Cruise, about the life of Ron Kovic? But 90% of people are going to give me Jane Fonda's name?
No.

Mattw = clueless

Listen, Mattw: I apologize for the "clueless" post. For the record, though, I probably would say this to your face if we were debating this in person. Sorry, nonetheless.

But I know I'm right about this. It seems that the three in three hundred who wouldn't say "Jane Fonda" is the posterchild for the anti-Vietnam war movement are on this board. No debate, no matter how long is going to change their minds.
Regardless, this is not what the intial post was about, it's just where it's evolved.

I find it curious that anytime a political topic is brought up on this board, the left jump on anything middle of the road or to the right quicker than a virgin on a cock on her wedding night. All common sense seems to be tossed out with the bathwater in defense of the liberal point of view with tallons out - including, of all topics - Hanoi Jane fuckin' Fonda!

I marvel at it. Not just here, but anywhere I get into debates over a few beers, tunes or innings with friends. There's no give. There's little rationalizing. There's no acceptance whatsoever of another viewpoint. Just staunch opposition and irrational jabs to the contrary's education, upbringing, motives, etc.

I believe (as the majority of Americans believe) that Jane Fonda was a pig for what she did and should be vilified for her actions back then. Call a spade a spade, for chrissakes. Yet, I and the majority who see this issue as black and white, are regarded as uneducated, redneck, right-winged fuck-alls?

This seems like such a lay-up issue for most anyone to at least, moderately agree with. But even this pooh-ba, millionaire, VC-lover, has-been actress gets a pass.

Fuck that. (Can't wait to read the responses to this!)