Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Problem is that Trump supported the war, which makes him a coward
That makes him a wuss, then.
My father could see where things were going to go, and he wanted no part of it. Get in, do your 3 years and then get the hell out. They couldn't touch him after that.
There was heavy opposition to it at nearly all levels of American society. Those who served, served. Those who didn’t, they had their reasons. It serves no useful purpose to brand draft dodgers as “yellow chicken****s” who didn’t or couldn’t stand up to their peers or whatever. We are not them and not having to face their situation. It’s a decision every person has to decide for him- or herself — it is a normative situation where the components of the situation aren’t the sum of the situation and doesn’t necessarily lead to social conformity.
The only chicken****, dodger *******s should be hated are the ones who made it hard on those when they returned home.
And there is always Hanoi Jane. If you think of her as a genuine anti war hero, you are only fooling yourself.
Seems like quite a few here are confusing a few things.
The Fonda supporters and sympathizers are excusing her actions under the hindsight rationale that the Vietnam war itself was wrong.
What they are conveniently overlooking is that being anti war and being anti troops in a traitorous and treasonous manner are two entirely different things.
There was one commentator that I totally agree with on this issue (I'll have to find the link). He stated that he respected those in the anti Vietnam war movement that burned their draft cards and went to jail for it. That is the American way. However, completely different scenario to a Hollywood celebrity that gives aid and comfort to the enemy and disrespects our troops in the worst way possible.
If some of you can't see that, then you'll never get it.
Even comedian Kathy Griffin went to Iraq to entertain the troops, and she said along the lines that she may not support war, but she still supports our troops.
Doesn't matter.
I want to see Fonda's haters go after the war's architects with the same venom, but guess what? They NEVER do. Fonda's haters would have a beer with Kissinger in a minute.
This ain't about being an apologist for Fonda. No one is saying that what she did was good. I'm saying that in the grand scheme, what she did was harmless and inconsequential. That War was lost a helluva long time before she became associated with the war.
The attacks on Fonda are cowardly when placed against the fact that the war's architects (and financial benefactors) all went on to have great careers in government and industry, and nary a hair on their heads rarely if ever comes up for criticism or intense scrutiny. Why is Kissinger still walking around like he's the damn King of the World at 90 something years old? Why are HIS book signings must attend events? Why is he still drumming up millions in business and being venerated as one of our nation's great diplomats?
How many troops did he get killed? How many did Fonda get killed?
That's the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Are you for real, or do you just argue to argue.
"War of Choice" /= War caused by a series of bad choices with unintended consequences.
It was a war of choice...PERIOD. Playing logomachist games is a waste of time.
We CHOSE to help the French reestablish their colonies in Indochina, and it was a thoughtless and reckless choice. It was an attempt to help the white man keep his control over the yellow man...plain and simple. And it was done with NO thought to how the yellow man felt about it.
I want to see Fonda's haters go after the war's architects with the same venom, but guess what? They NEVER do. Fonda's haters would have a beer with Kissinger in a minute.
This ain't about being an apologist for Fonda. No one is saying that what she did was good. I'm saying that in the grand scheme, what she did was harmless and inconsequential. That War was lost a helluva long time before she became associated with the war.
The attacks on Fonda are cowardly when placed against the fact that the war's architects (and financial benefactors) all went on to have great careers in government and industry, and nary a hair on their heads rarely if ever comes up for criticism or intense scrutiny. Why is Kissinger still walking around like he's the damn King of the World at 90 something years old? Why are HIS book signings must attend events? Why is he still drumming up millions in business and being venerated as one of our nation's great diplomats?
How many troops did he get killed? How many did Fonda get killed?
That's the point.
It was a war of choice...PERIOD. Playing logomachist games is a waste of time.
We CHOSE to help the French reestablish their colonies in Indochina, and it was a thoughtless and reckless choice. It was an attempt to help the white man keep his control over the yellow man...plain and simple. And it was done with NO thought to how the yellow man felt about it.
You had 3 presidents who could have ended the war and played politics but here we have yet another's Jane Fonda thread. People need to get their priorities in order, go read Robert McNamara's memoir and tell me that an actress was the largest issue we faced.
You had 3 presidents who could have ended the war and played politics but here we have yet another's Jane Fonda thread. People need to get their priorities in order, go read Robert McNamara's memoir and tell me that an actress was the largest issue we faced.
Always remember that Conservatives are almost ALWAYS the bootlickers of powerful people, and they wince at the thought of going after them no matter what.
Fonda is an easier target. They'll go to her book signings to spit on her, but they'll shine Kissinger's shoes.
Always remember that Conservatives are almost ALWAYS the bootlickers of powerful people, and they wince at the thought of going after them no matter what.
Fonda is an easier target. They'll go to her book signings to spit on her, but they'll shine Kissinger's shoes.
Kissinger never went to enemy soil and sided with the enemy with propaganda while our soldiers were POWS and getting killed by the same enemy.
You can't be this naive....you can be against the war and the cold war and cheer for our enemy if you want but when you go in person to enemy soil and join our enemy to put down our country and be used in their propaganda while we have our soldiers in prisons and getting killed then you crossed the line.
Imagine if Fonda did the same thing with HITLER and the Nazis.....lets says she believes WW 2 was a waste of war and we shouldn't be in Europe or Asia and she went to Germany and sided with the enemy to trash our country while our soldiers are POW getting tortured and abused and getting killed on the battlefield by the Nazis and she lets the enemy used her as propaganda .....would she be a Hollywood star after the war?.....you know the answer to that.
I am not sure if you were not up to speed on the history you were discussing or spinning it for partisan purposes. However, you should have put Truman in first position.
Any honest and informed discussion would start there instead of Ike.
You might not support spitting on people, but you did say go spit on Kissinger instead of Fonda, instead of saying don't spit on anyone. Your phrasing seems a tacit approval, but I guess we can't do that because Obama and Bush would get a lot of loogies on their face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
It was a Civil War. They were NOT incorrect in seeing us as a colonial power because we were overtly pro French right from the beginning.
The fact that the North was trying to subjugate the South isn't a matter for the United States. That's an internal Vietnamese matter.
We certainly were assisting France, a colonial power, but it is incorrect to suggest that the US was fighting in Vietnam under JFK-LBJ-Nixon to create a colony in the reality as described by North Vietnamese propaganda - it is dishonest to pretend that this isn't the case.
Likewise, how accurate is a "civil war" term? Vietnam hadn't been unified before WWII and had existed as different political entities. Both sides held fraudulent elections. So your argument is that you can take over neighboring areas against their will without elections, simply because you share similar culture and call it a "civil war" instead of a war of aggression. So could we expand this a bit and take over Canada - similar culture, similar language, similar colonial history, similar demographics and call it a Civil War - so long as we did it under the guise of liberalism?!
Kissinger never went to enemy soil and sided with the enemy with propaganda while our soldiers were POWS and getting killed by the same enemy.
You can't be this naive....you can be against the war and the cold war and cheer for our enemy if you want but when you go in person to enemy soil and join our enemy to put down our country and be used in their propaganda while we have our soldiers in prisons and getting killed then you crossed the line.
Imagine if Fonda did the same thing with HITLER and the Nazis.....lets says she believes WW 2 was a waste of war and we shouldn't be in Europe or Asia and she went to Germany and sided with the enemy to trash our country while our soldiers are POW getting tortured and abused and getting killed on the battlefield by the Nazis and she lets the enemy used her as propaganda .....would she be a Hollywood star after the war?.....you know the answer to that.
Kissinger actively got an additional 22k soldiers killed by frustrating a deal that he could've had years before and eventually settled for.
Obviously, you've got a problem with understanding this because you're too busy kissing ass on the powerful people who screwed up the war in the first place.
I am not sure if you were not up to speed on the history you were discussing or spinning it for partisan purposes. However, you should have put Truman in first position.
Any honest and informed discussion would start there instead of Ike.
You might not support spitting on people, but you did say go spit on Kissinger instead of Fonda, instead of saying don't spit on anyone. Your phrasing seems a tacit approval, but I guess we can't do that because Obama and Bush would get a lot of loogies on their face.
We certainly were assisting France, a colonial power, but it is incorrect to suggest that the US was fighting in Vietnam under JFK-LBJ-Nixon to create a colony in the reality as described by North Vietnamese propaganda - it is dishonest to pretend that this isn't the case.
Likewise, how accurate is a "civil war" term? Vietnam hadn't been unified before WWII and had existed as different political entities. Both sides held fraudulent elections. So your argument is that you can take over neighboring areas against their will without elections, simply because you share similar culture and call it a "civil war" instead of a war of aggression. So could we expand this a bit and take over Canada - similar culture, similar language, similar colonial history, similar demographics and call it a Civil War - so long as we did it under the guise of liberalism?!
If I were being so damn partisan, why did I say Kennedy or LBJ? Get real.
The United States was attempting to subjugate the Vietnamese...period. You can come up with all the flowery sounding explanations that you want, but the intent was to put Vietnam under our purview.
How questionable the term "Civil War " is is irrelevant. Vietnam is 8500 miles from the United States, and the fate of the country was in no way an American matter. The Domino Theory shouldn't have applied there and it certainly shouldn't have gotten Americans killed halfway around the world.
There is no good justification for our involvement in Vietnam no matter what the guise. We murdered millions of Vietnamese, even after it was quite clear that we'd have no success there.
Kissinger actively got an additional 22k soldiers killed by frustrating a deal that he could've had years before and eventually settled for.
Obviously, you've got a problem with understanding this because you're too busy kissing ass on the powerful people who screwed up the war in the first place.
war is war and screwing up and mistakes will happen.....go look WW2 and the mistakes we made and it cost a lot more than just 22k.
I don't kiss a$$, I understand that war is complicated and there are no easy solutions.
We drew a line that the Communist North didn't respect and were constantly crossing and being hostile......maybe he could have saved 22k soldiers if we just SURRENDER and gave them South Vietnam and then what, what's next South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Europe? what kind of message that would have sent to our enemies in the Cold War if we weren't willing to fight every time they cross the line.
You can play MONDAY QB all you want but there weren't any good choices at the time unless surrender was your choice.
Last edited by Hellion1999; 09-19-2017 at 04:33 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
