• 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]

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.

A lawyer can make a case for anything. It doesn't matter if it can hold up or not. In the case of the Vietnam war being "illegal", that would have been tossed pretty quick. The US would have used at least one of many legal justifications for doing what we did and won.
It would have been nice to see her try that line in her defense knowing she would soon have a noose around her neck.
 
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.

News flash.

Nukes were considered in the Korean War, Vietnam and Gulf War I. They have to be considered as they are weapons we have. But the conclusion will always be the same unless attacked with them, No.
 
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.

The quote is usually attributed to Curtis LeMay, the scowling Air Force general who incinerated two thirds of Japan’s cities in World War II and was disappointed when Kennedy wouldn’t let him do the same to Cuba.
In his 1968 memoir he suggested that rather than negotiating with Hanoi, the United States should “bomb them back to the stone age,” by taking out factories, harbors, and bridges “until we have destroyed every work of man in North Vietnam.”

LeMay, however, had cribbed it from a June 1967 column by humorist Art Buchwald, who used the phrase to caricature the Goldwater Republican attitude toward Vietnam. The 1964 “Daisy Girl” ad had already tarred Republicans as inveterate bombers, but the joke came from Buchwald’s association of bombing with time travel - See more at: History News Network | Bomb them Back to the Stone Age: An Etymology
 
No she didn't. Those POWs themselves said that story was fake.

well THAT is news to me. I got the story from guys who were in-country. If I'm wrong, so be it. But she's still the scum of the earth.
 
No she didn't. Those POWs themselves said that story was fake.

Only two of her alleged victims were interviewed and denied the story. Others either could not be located, declined to talk or had died. The allegation remains open.:peace
 
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.

You can be all the angry you want at Jane Fonda, for me she is non enity in the whole scheme of things. I just feel that Agent Orange harmed more servicemen than Hanoi Jane ever did.

As for the spitting thing. I flew into airports in uniform in the early 70's and never seen any of that. To me it just felt as people just ignored us unlike today where people are really thankful and decent to servicemen they meet in airports. Am certain it happened in isolated events but to me that would be like going up to an unchained Doberman and slapping it.
 
That is and easy one........they are buddies with Obama.....Qualifications mean nothing.

I guess you don't have to be much of a conspirator theorist to recognize that. The same goes for his crony capitalist friends. Almost $8 trillion lost during his watch and nothing to show for it.
 
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.

That story is mostly discredited.
 
The quote is usually attributed to Curtis LeMay, the scowling Air Force general who incinerated two thirds of Japan’s cities in World War II and was disappointed when Kennedy wouldn’t let him do the same to Cuba.
In his 1968 memoir he suggested that rather than negotiating with Hanoi, the United States should “bomb them back to the stone age,” by taking out factories, harbors, and bridges “until we have destroyed every work of man in North Vietnam.”

LeMay, however, had cribbed it from a June 1967 column by humorist Art Buchwald, who used the phrase to caricature the Goldwater Republican attitude toward Vietnam. The 1964 “Daisy Girl” ad had already tarred Republicans as inveterate bombers, but the joke came from Buchwald’s association of bombing with time travel - See more at: History News Network | Bomb them Back to the Stone Age: An Etymology

Thanks for the research, Annata, and we can see that the phrase predates Curtis LeMay.

Although LeMay used the cliche if you read what he wanted to do it is no different than what went on it any other wars previous. His idea was to win, not to just make a statement. Now that sort of phrase is out of touch because as a people we have become more civilized and sensitive, We have also stopped winning wars,
 

Claim: During a trip to North Vietnam, Jane Fonda turned smuggled messages from U.S. POWs over to their captors.

content-divider.gif
red.gif
FALSE


Despite the claims of hundreds of Vietnam veterans who maintain they were "there" and affirm that accounts like the "smuggled Social Security number betrayal" are true because they supposedly witnessed them, the fact is that Fonda met only seven American POWs while in North Vietnam: Edison Miller, Walter Wilber, James Padgett, David Wesley Hoffman, Kenneth James Fraser, William G. Byrns, and Edward Elias. None of those men reported her sabotaging their attempts to slip her information about themselves, and anyone other than those seven men who asserts he was "there" and witnessed such a scene is simply not telling the truth.

Some of the POWs who actually did meet with Jane Fonda, such as Edison Miller, have spoken out on the record over the years to disclaim the apocryphal stories about her

"The whole [e-mail] story about Jane Fonda is just malarkey," said Edison Miller, 73, of California, a former Marine Corps pilot held more than five years. Miller was among seven POWs who met with Fonda in Hanoi. He said he didn't recall her asking any questions other than about their names, if that. He said that he passed her no piece of paper, and that to his knowledge, no other POW in the group did, despite the e-mail's claims.

Col. Larry Carrigan, the U.S. serviceman whose name is invoked in the e-mailed reproduced at the head of this article, has affirmed that he neither claimed nor experienced any of what has been attributed to him, and that he never even met Jane Fonda:

"It's a figment of somebody's imagination." said Ret. Col. Larry Carrigan, one of the servicemen mentioned in the 'slips of paper' incident. Carrigan was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and did spend time in a POW camp. He has no idea why the story was attributed to him, saying, "I never met Jane Fonda." In 2005, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that Carrigan "is so tired of having to repeat that he wasn't beaten after Fonda's visit and that there were no beating deaths at that time that he won't talk to the media anymore."


http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp
 
Claim: During a trip to North Vietnam, Jane Fonda turned smuggled messages from U.S. POWs over to their captors.

content-divider.gif
red.gif
FALSE




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

Fair enough, but I still feel that the way she behaved was bordering on treason. She was definitely not considered "friendly" by most of the troops I believe.
 
Fair enough, but I still feel that the way she behaved was bordering on treason. She was definitely not considered "friendly" by most of the troops I believe.

It's unclear on whether her actions qualify as treason, but if I were a soldier I would feel no love for her either.
 
You can be all the angry you want at Jane Fonda, for me she is non enity in the whole scheme of things. I just feel that Agent Orange harmed more servicemen than Hanoi Jane ever did.
Then open a thread on Agent Orange. Otherwise a significant part of 'the scheme of things' is being discussed, namely propaganda against one's own country and aiding and abetting those who were murdering her fellow Americans.
As for the spitting thing. I flew into airports in uniform in the early 70's and never seen any of that. To me it just felt as people just ignored us unlike today where people are really thankful and decent to servicemen they meet in airports. Am certain it happened in isolated events but to me that would be like going up to an unchained Doberman and slapping it.

It seems that American soldiers were frequently mistreated by their fellow Americans during this period and the evidence is still there. No doubt there is some whitewashing going on but these events weren't all that 'isolated', and they should have never happened at all. It was people like Jane Fonda who helped turn Americans against each other, and that feeling reverberates to this day.
 
Then open a thread on Agent Orange. Otherwise a significant part of 'the scheme of things' is being discussed, namely propaganda against one's own country and aiding and abetting those who were murdering her fellow Americans.


It seems that American soldiers were frequently mistreated by their fellow Americans during this period and the evidence is still there. No doubt there is some whitewashing going on but these events weren't all that 'isolated', and they should have never happened at all. It was people like Jane Fonda who helped turn Americans against each other, and that feeling reverberates to this day.

As per the "murdering her fellow Americans" bit, that's sort of what can be expected to happen when you send troops into a foreign country, which is why it's so important to be certain that the cause you're sending those soldiers for is important and necessary.

Our soldiers got screwed on both ends, both for being sent into a hostile territory unnecessarily, and for the treatment they received by so many civilians for something they had no say in participating. While Jane Fonda's actions are extremely distasteful for me, I'm also still pretty "meh" about it when considering the larger abuse of the harm our politicians caused to our image, soul and of course the frivolous misuse of our soldiers' lives. We trust our leaders to go to war for the right reasons, and they failed us miserably.
 
As per the "murdering her fellow Americans" bit, that's sort of what can be expected to happen when you send troops into a foreign country, which is why it's so important to be certain that the cause you're sending those soldiers for is important and necessary.

Please use the entire quote or it distorts the meaning. I said she was "aiding and abetting those who were murdering her fellow Americans". The necessity of the war was not part of the issue under discussion.

Our soldiers got screwed on both ends, both for being sent into a hostile territory unnecessarily, and for the treatment they received by so many civilians for something they had no say in participating.
Two Democrats, Kennedy and Johnson, thought it necessary.

While Jane Fonda's actions are extremely distasteful for me, I'm also still pretty "meh" about it when considering the larger abuse of the harm our politicians caused to our image, soul and of course the frivolous misuse of our soldiers' lives.
More than anything it was the protesters who tarnished America's image. The 'souls' of these soldiers would have been fine if they were treated with the respect they deserved when they returned home.

We trust our leaders to go to war for the right reasons, and they failed us miserably.
Among the Left there will be no "right reasons". They will inevitably side with America's enemies. "The right reasons" can be debated and defended but the disgusting behavior by some Americans against those who were drafted, and then fought for their country, is indefensible and the country has been divided since then. Destroying a democratic superpower was not as difficult as it might have appeared just two generations ago.
 
Claim: During a trip to North Vietnam, Jane Fonda turned smuggled messages from U.S. POWs over to their captors.

content-divider.gif
red.gif
FALSE




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

Nonetheless only two have gone on record to defend her. Others have declined to speak publicly or passed away.:peace
 
Nonetheless only two have gone on record to defend her. Others have declined to speak publicly or passed away.:peace

So you have two who say it's false and none who say it's true. The veracity of the accusation isn't looking very good.
 
Please use the entire quote or it distorts the meaning. I said she was "aiding and abetting those who were murdering her fellow Americans". The necessity of the war was not part of the issue under discussion.

I did use your whole quote. And if I want to look at Jane Fonda's actions in relation (and comparison) to the war itself, I will do that, thank you very much.

Two Democrats, Kennedy and Johnson, thought it necessary.

And the point of them being Democrats is...?

More than anything it was the protesters who tarnished America's image. The 'souls' of these soldiers would have been fine if they were treated with the respect they deserved when they returned home.

That would be of little comfort to the 58,000 American soldiers killed in the war.

Among the Left there will be no "right reasons". They will inevitably side with America's enemies. "The right reasons" can be debated and defended but the disgusting behavior by some Americans against those who were drafted, and then fought for their country, is indefensible and the country has been divided since then. Destroying a democratic superpower was not as difficult as it might have appeared just two generations ago.

The treatment by civilians against soldiers was disgusting and indefensible, and you won't see me claim otherwise. As for "the right reasons," I don't believe going to war over ideology and economics (capitalism vs. communism) are valid reasons, but I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
 
So you have two who say it's false and none who say it's true. The veracity of the accusation isn't looking very good.

Some have chosen not to speak (thus far) and some passed away without going on record. I'm sure they have/had their reasons and those should obviously be respected. The question remains open.:peace
 
Some have chosen not to speak (thus far) and some passed away without going on record. I'm sure they have/had their reasons and those should obviously be respected. The question remains open.:peace

When nobody who was there actually supported the accusation, and all you have are people who in fact denied it, it's silly for the question itself to even exist anymore. A rational, non-biased person would just drop it at that point.
 
Thanks for the research, Annata, and we can see that the phrase predates Curtis LeMay.

Although LeMay used the cliche if you read what he wanted to do it is no different than what went on it any other wars previous. His idea was to win, not to just make a statement. Now that sort of phrase is out of touch because as a people we have become more civilized and sensitive, We have also stopped winning wars,
I would ask you how we win our current/recent wars, but not wanting to wander off topic too much.

To stay on topic then, how could we have "won Vietnam?" It surely wasn't for lack of trying.
 
When nobody who was there actually supported the accusation, and all you have are people who in fact denied it, it's silly for the question itself to even exist anymore. A rational, non-biased person would just drop it at that point.

I'm just leaving the question open, like a million other questions.:peace
 
I'm just leaving the question open, like a million other questions.:peace

No, that's really just entering that sleazy kind of territory where, when evidence doesn't exist, scandals are kept afloat by replacing accusations with questions. Example: "I'm not saying that you're mother's a whore, but isn't it interesting that she always has money? What? I'm just asking questions." It's a disgraceful thing to add to any discussion.
 
The goal of the Vietnam anti war movement; whether it was the Weather Underground, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, or people who demonstrated
was to END THE WAR.

All the theatrics, spittings ,bombings (well not all the bombings, but most) or posing on AA guns like Fonda did had a singular purpose.
To bring about a quicker end to the U.S. involvement in what was foreign civil war.

Stated ideas like the "domino theory", or allance with SEATO, were delusional projections that if Vietnam "went Communist"
it would somehow effect our national security. It did not effect us when Vietnam did go Communist. It was a false premise.

It's important to recall that while Fonda was an easy target, and could be construed as "giving aid and comfort", I have never heard any coherent argument
that shows exactly how all our efforts there were not doomed to futility.

A lack of a viable path to 'winning Vietnam', means that the war was all for naugfht, and the moral stance was to abort it A.S.A.P.
What Fonda and those who opposed the war understood. :peace
 
Back
Top Bottom