• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

Fair enough.

Here's something I just found that should be more than enough to really piss people off and cement their impression of her assuming they were on the fence.

OUTRAGEOUS! Jane Fonda Wears ‘Hanoi Jane’ T-Shirt to Plug Nancy Reagan Movie (Photo) | The Gateway Pundit

Hanoi Jane Fonda Activist Black T Shirt

Why she'd wear the T-shirt to an interview for her upcoming movie debut where she is cast in the role of Nancy Reagan is beyond me. But there you go. No further words are necessary.

It's Hollywood. Can we really expect class anymore from these people? That's why it's dying.
 
You obviously don't get how a prosecution works.

The prosecutor establishes the facts and then argues how the elements of the crime have been satisfied by the facts.

The jury then decides if they agree. That's it. The fact pattern does not need to be "codified." (Though the way you use it, I'm not sure you know what "codified" means.)

No one -- NO ONE -- cites "precedent." PRECEDENT DOES NOT MATTER.

That you do not get this is baffling.

That you don't get, after several repetitions now, that precedent is not the only source I would have accepted is even more baffling, but if it amuses you please feel free to post "precedent does not matter" in bold face, underlined and italicized, and be sure to make the font even larger. As for presenting "the facts," the prosecution would present them, and then there would be a ruling as to whether her actions in this case fit the definition of treason.
 
That you don't get, after several repetitions now, that precedent is not the only source I would have accepted is even more baffling, but if it amuses you please feel free to post "precedent does not matter" in bold face, underlined and italicized, and be sure to make the font even larger.

No, one way or the other, you're demanding to see that someone else determined the facts fit the crime. Any way you slice it, you still want "precedent."


As for presenting "the facts," the prosecution would present them, and then there would be a ruling as to whether her actions in this case fit the definition of treason.

Yes, I've said that plainly several times now.
 
You obviously don't get how a prosecution works.

The prosecutor establishes the facts and then argues how the elements of the crime have been satisfied by the facts.

The jury then decides if they agree. That's it. The fact pattern does not need to be "codified." (Though the way you use it, I'm not sure you know what "codified" means.)

No one -- NO ONE -- cites "precedent." PRECEDENT DOES NOT MATTER.

That you do not get this is baffling.

I'm curious then, in your opinion how does Jane Fonda's anti-Vietnam war activism amount to treason against the U.S. government? I'm asking because from what little I know of "Hanoi Jane's" actions, it would appear that all she did was spout off against the Vietnam War, try to bring awareness to the atrocities allegedly committed by our troops (i.e., allegations of "baby killers" and unauthorized mass slaughter) and inform the American public about the secret war plots the Nixon Administration tried to keep under wraps. How does any of that amount to treason? I mean, if that's all it takes then wouldn't you think Edward Snowden should be convicted of espionage at worse, treason at best? What did she do against her government that much different from what he has done?

I'm just trying to understand how others see things, i.e., if it's personal or if there is any real evidence to support charges of treason.
 
I never had animosity for those who had the balls to go do a job that they could end up losing their life over. Spitters weren't isolated. Isolated suggests that it only happened a few times in a few small cases. I think a YouTube search shows that it happened plenty.

thanks I'll check it out. Spitting was the least of the vets problems, however.
 
thanks I'll check it out. Spitting was the least of the vets problems, however.

Being betrayed by your own people must come very high on the list though. Some of them never recovered from that experience, and no one, to my knowledge, has ever apologized for that ugly behavior. The people they were fighting, the communists, were never spat upon, despite their killing of millions of people.

Hanoi Jane would have considered it too rude to spit on Communists or Socialists but it was acceptable for her fellow Americans to be treated that way.

For Leftists, politics always comes before people.
 
Either way they are subversive.

True, leftists try to subvert the goals of the right wingers, and the right wing tries to subvert the goals of the left wingers.
 
Sure.

Here's another from the link of her words: ""To the U.S. servicemen who are stationed on the aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin, those of you who load the bombs on the planes should know that those weapons are illegal. And the use of those bombs or condoning the use of those bombs, makes one a war criminal."

Read more: Hanoi Jane's apology - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

She should have been hung or shot within days of her returning from Vietnam.

A strong legal case based on law and fact can be made for that statement being correct. One of many reasons Fonda was never indicted.

The good intentions of the participants in a war are not relevant, it is the results of their acts that matter.
 
Tricky Dick ran in '68 on he had a secret plan to end the war Vietnam, it was a lie. In the end 58,000 of our soldiers died and apparently that's not enough for some people on the Right.

One point of view that seems credible, is that Nixon planned to use nukes on Viet Nam, or at least threaten to do so. The big anti-war March on Washington convinced him that the public would not stomach nuke use and that's when he started winding down the war. Short of a nuke-use or equivalent destruction and death, we could not have won in Viet Nam for the same reasons we can't win in Iraq and Afghanistan, our opposition had too much popular support.
 
Last edited:
True, leftists try to subvert the goals of the right wingers, and the right wing tries to subvert the goals of the left wingers.

The 'middle' doesn't seem to exist for the left. You are with them, right wing, or extreme right wing. Most leftists probably didn't give this much thought, but Saul Alinsky did.
 
One point of view that seems credible, is that Nixon planned to use nukes on Viet Nam, or at least threaten to do so. The big anti-war March on Washington convinced him that the public would not stomach nuke use and that's when he started winding down the war. Short of a nuke-use or equivalent destruction and death, we could not have won in Viet Nam for the same reasons we can't win in Iraq and Afghanistan, our opposition had too much popular support.

Right. American wars have become political debates while the enemy is able to use any device at hand and is never critical of itself. Some think this appeasement and self loathing is a winning strategy but it doesn't seem to be going that way.
 
I believe if there is some threat so severe to our national security (same standard as self defense or SYG on a personal level) we have to do to war over it, it should be balls to the wall, pull out the stops, switch over the factories, kick ass and take names and whatever else you want from the country, then come home and give the next country that wants to threaten our security something to contemplate when they think about pulling some stuff. We dont, it is our fault. Neither the Repubs or the Dems really wage a war. I truly think we do it the way we do to fuel the military industrial complex.
Right. American wars have become political debates while the enemy is able to use any device at hand and is never critical of itself. Some think this appeasement and self loathing is a winning strategy but it doesn't seem to be going that way.
 
I believe if there is some threat so severe to our national security (same standard as self defense or SYG on a personal level) we have to do to war over it, it should be balls to the wall, pull out the stops, switch over the factories, kick ass and take names and whatever else you want from the country, then come home and give the next country that wants to threaten our security something to contemplate when they think about pulling some stuff. We dont, it is our fault. Neither the Repubs or the Dems really wage a war. I truly think we do it the way we do to fuel the military industrial complex.

The left certainly doesn't support the United States in time of war. If they did as you described there'd be a lot fewer wars, fewer threats and more democracies. But only 'extremists' in the democracies would support those positions. The anti democracies are fine with them.
 
What brought on this anger about Jane Fonda. She was the typical rich spoiled kid acting like an ass but as shown in earlier post some of you have really twisted things to maker your point but so be it.

Just where is your god damn anger at how we subjected our men to Agent Orange and now some 40 years later are still treating those affected like 2nd class citizens.
 
What brought on this anger about Jane Fonda. She was the typical rich spoiled kid acting like an ass but as shown in earlier post some of you have really twisted things to maker your point but so be it.

Just where is your god damn anger at how we subjected our men to Agent Orange and now some 40 years later are still treating those affected like 2nd class citizens.

Would that be the 2nd class citizens the leftists spit upon?

There are many things we can be angry about but on this thread its Hanoi Jane Fonda.
 
Hanoi Jane provided aid and comfort to the enemy.:peace

I heard once that she gave notes that the prisoners gave her for their families to the enemy too. I don't know how much truth there is to that.
 
One point of view that seems credible, is that Nixon planned to use nukes on Viet Nam, or at least threaten to do so. The big anti-war March on Washington convinced him that the public would not stomach nuke use and that's when he started winding down the war. Short of a nuke-use or equivalent destruction and death, we could not have won in Viet Nam for the same reasons we can't win in Iraq and Afghanistan, our opposition had too much popular support.
we did "carpet bomb", massive amounts dropped from B-52's, in an attempt to wipe out NVA, and North Vietnam targets.

The Viet Cong dug tunnels -underground facilities with medical beds, and supply points.

I suppose a nuke would be yet mmore deveatating, but it's not like we didn't try to "bomb them back to the stone age"
(actual quote from back then)
 
we did "carpet bomb", massive amounts dropped from B-52's, in an attempt to wipe out NVA, and North Vietnam targets.

The Viet Cong dug tunnels -underground facilities with medical beds, and supply points.

I suppose a nuke would be yet mmore deveatating, but it's not like we didn't try to "bomb them back to the stone age"
(actual quote from back then)

Who was this (actual quote from back then) from?

There was a lot of anti American propaganda going around at that time. still is in fact, so unless you can actually give the name of the person who was in a position of authority who gave the quote, you should dismiss it.
 
Hanoi Jane provided aid and comfort to the enemy.:peace

There were more than just Hanoi Jane. A good read for that era is "Useful Idiots" by Mona Charen to see how the bs flowed. Not too much change in the US MSM since then. Americans are still the bad guys.
 
I heard once that she gave notes that the prisoners gave her for their families to the enemy too. I don't know how much truth there is to that.

It is what the POWs said upon their return and they were tortured for doing it. Its really unbelievable how the left gives her a pass for that.
 
Obama's appointments have not enjoyed much success. You have to wonder what their qualifications might be.

That is and easy one........they are buddies with Obama.....Qualifications mean nothing.
 
Who was this (actual quote from back then) from?

That would be General Curtis LeMay.

There was a lot of anti American propaganda going around at that time. still is in fact, so unless you can actually give the name of the person who was in a position of authority who gave the quote, you should dismiss it.

He was also George Wallace's running mate.
 
John McCain took a trip to Syria to meet with leaders in Al-Qaeda. He made promises to provide military and financial support to them. He also provided classified information to members of Al-Qaeda and said that he would do everything to remove Assad and install an Al-Qaeda regime.
 
Back
Top Bottom