• 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!

Lying Traitor Hanoi Jane tries to change history

Rob Larrikin said:
I’m not Partisan. If the GOP were to start doing what the Dems do, and the Dems were to start doing what Trump does, I’d switch my support. It’s not like barracking for a football team for me. It’s about results.

As for Trump, he can’t function well if he becomes obese, and he needs to keep fit. He spends a lot of time sitting and in a plane, and golf is one way he can keep fit. That’s good for American taxpayers. Aside from that, Trump often conducts business while playing golf, and does not accept a wage for being POTUS. Finally, he works much longer hours than most POTUS’ of the past, and works at a much faster rate than most. He is worth about five Presidents. So Americans are getting plenty of bang for their buck. Regarding brutal dictators, I don’t have to argue about that. It’s glaringly obvious how successful he’s been. Saying he hasn’t been would be like saying he didn’t win the election.
Click to expand...

Trump uses a golf cart when he plays golf. That does not qualify as exercise. He is obese. He doesn't exercise. He does not work longer hours, he doesn't show up to work in the morning until almost noon.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/donald-trump-schedule-white-house-executive-time
 
Last edited:
Howard the Duck said:
He plays bad golf at a prodigious rate.
Click to expand...

Why don’t you fill us in on the details. Or don’t you know them?

He made fun of his vastly more accomplished predecessor for playing golf.
Click to expand...

Obama was as fit as a fiddle, 16 years younger, much slimmer, took his full wage, worked a lot less than Trump, did a piss poor job as POTUS, went on vacations all the time and didn’t combine work with golf. Trump had every right to make fun of him.

He lied to you and said that he wouldn't do so because he would have more important things to do.
Click to expand...

He told the truth and had every intention of not playing. We all change plans when doctors give us advice about our health, including you. That’s not “lying”. It’s “following a doctor’s advice”.

He is obese.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. He’s a perfectly normal size for a man his height and age.

He keeps part time business hours. He's too lazy to study issues and fires from the hip because he is ill informed.
Click to expand...

His work hours are not determined by when he’s in the White House. He works all the time, wherever he is, and he takes no wage. He works five times harder than anyone else, and in many cases, a hundred times harder.
 
Some people never grew up...

Back then, guys had to do stuff to get sex. So when a famous, and famously attractive, nubile female seemed to side with what they perceived as the enemy...their feelings were hurt. It threatened the real reason they were there..

Apparently they are still butt hurt.

Vietnam was not a war, it was a UN police action. It was also a mistake (if you missed the Ken Burns documentary, it's worth seeing). The anti-war movement was trying to put an end to that mistake which would wind up killing over a million people.

Fonda has been apologising for that for about a half a century. I was hoping the butt hurt would grow up, and get over it. Doesn't look that way, does it.
 
Last edited:
Howard the Duck said:
Nonsense. Al-Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq until we drew them there.
Click to expand...

Poppycock.

AL QAEDA IN IRAQ by M. J. Kirdar

Executive Summary Founded in October 2004, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) emerged from a transnational terrorist group created and led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The original iteration of the group, Bayat al Imam, began in Jordan in the early 1990s. The group first associated with al Qaeda’s senior leadership in 1999 and fought alongside al Qaeda core and the Taliban during the U.S. strikes in Afghanistan in late 2001. Shortly after, the group transferred to Iraq in anticipation of the U.S.-led invasion. From 2003 through 2007, the group galvanized the Iraqi insurgency until its high-profile, divisively brutal tactics and failure to deliver meaningful gains to its nominal constituents led to a reversal in its popularity. The death of Zarqawi in 2006 has been followed with a series of successful counterterror strikes against his successors. Nonetheless, the group has proven resilient and though its activities are greatly diminished since its operational peak in 2007, it has proven still capable of carrying out high-profile attacks, particularly against soft targets.​

​
 
PoS said:
Well Saddam Hussein did briefly met with AQ with the pretense of basing their organization there, but AQ didnt like his secularism. On the other hand ISIS was created after we invaded.
Click to expand...

Al Qaeda were waiting in Iraq for the U.S. when they arrived. Saddam's military gave up straight away. All the fighting was done by al Qaeda. They're still fighting in Iraq, whatever name you use for them.
 
JackA said:
Created and mushroomed, as did radical Islam generally. Saddam had been the brake but we released it. The notion that the Iraq war did not unloose radical Islam is as false as the belief that the Vietnam War had been necessary to prevent Communism from overtaking India and Indonesia.
Click to expand...

Wrong on both counts. 9-11 proves that radical Islam was unleased long before the war. There were plenty of other terror attacks before 9-11. Who cares about India and Indonesia? If Communists steal ANY country you have to stop them, or they get hungry for more. That's how they grow. When they grow, eventually you are on the menu. To stop them at that point means a much bigger cost in lives and money. We learned this lesson in WWII. The trouble is, some people don't learn so well.
 
The first casualty in war

Rob Larrikin said:
Both wars were justified, but that's not to say they were fought or organized well. Many mistakes were made. In Vietnam they let hundreds of hippy journalists and photographers go around making left winged portraits of the war to help hippies back home get it cancelled. That was stupid. Trump would never let that happen. In Iraq they were way too politically correct, and again, let the media boss them around and force them to pull punches. Again, Trump would never do that. Had they been organized properly, by someone like Trump, both wars could have been a lot shorter and less expensive. Also, as Trump said, they should have sold the oil in Iraq to help pay for the war.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. The history is there & has been documented thoroughly for VN. It was France's war, & they opted to pursue it (& Algeria too). The US opted to back the French effort, for whatever reasons of our own - efforts which FDR had specifically repudiated earlier. The US military & spooks don't run on what the media report nor think, & US public opinion didn't turn until after the Tet Offensive in 1968, after the US military & administrations had promised that there was light @ the end of the tunnel, the corner had been turned, & we couldn't let all those troops have died in vain, & similar bromides. The truth of the matter is that the French had a better appreciation of the VC & NV than the US did - they just didn't have the near unlimited budget & manpower to squander forever on an unending war. & neither did the US, finally.

In the case of Iraq - look, Pres. W had to do something, & we carried out basically a punitive raid on Taliban & al Qaeda in Afghanistan, & made it look easy. It wasn't, & the deceptive ease of implementation gave the brass in DOD & the suits in the White House the notion that military power was easy to deploy, much easier & bigger bang for the buck than the hard work of diplomacy & nation building - a kind of domino game that merely required applying enough force, & applying too much force if the game became difficult. & then applying more force & pallet loads of cash if results still weren't to our liking. It was foolish to extrapolate war results from a successful raid - & W & his camp followers were careful to muzzle or fire or ignore all the advice they got from the military & spooks with actual hands-on experience.

The problem with Trump organizing anything is that he doesn't read, he's inattentive @ briefings, he's not curious about the World, & he doesn't believe in staff work. Nor does he have a military background, nor any apparent appreciation for the military - other than perhaps parades. He seems to have no use for any of the intelligence assets of the US. Absent all that, his foreign policy is going to be a disaster.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
Wrong on both counts. 9-11 proves that radical Islam was unleased long before the war. There were plenty of other terror attacks before 9-11. Who cares about India and Indonesia? If Communists steal ANY country you have to stop them, or they get hungry for more. That's how they grow. When they grow, eventually you are on the menu. To stop them at that point means a much bigger cost in lives and money. We learned this lesson in WWII. The trouble is, some people don't learn so well.
Click to expand...

An ideologue's lazy certainty.

9-11 was a big splash from a small cell. As a fighting force, the militants were isolated in Afghanistan, and may well have perished there if Bush hadn't given up and decided to make war on Saddam who had done nothing worse than insult Bush's father. As for Vietnam, we cared about India and Indonesia, even Australia. The domino theory held that the loss of Vietnam would threaten not only the rest of Indochina but countries beyond. American soldiers and journalists who went there discovered what the generals and politicians never did - that for the Vietnamese the war was about unifying the country, ridding it of colonialism, and linkage with China and the USSR was mainly a means to that end. Vietnam was never vital to U.S. national security. The country soon became a trading partner. We got ourselves an embassy in Hanoi. And for this there are sixty thousand American graves.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
Al Qaeda were waiting in Iraq for the U.S. when they arrived. Saddam's military gave up straight away. All the fighting was done by al Qaeda. They're still fighting in Iraq, whatever name you use for them.
Click to expand...

Wrong. AQ and ISIS have major fundamental differences in philosophy- they are two separate terror organizations.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
Translation: Let the Left change history.
Click to expand...

Leftie LBJ changed history, alright. lol

Lots of anti-war protesters went to Vietnam during the war. Fonda herself personally smuggled POW letters to and from their families in the States and to this day they only have good things to say about her. So I question why she was singled out for persecution, especially after all these years and over one stupid photo that most young people today don't even know or care about.

.
 
Re: The first casualty in war

southwest88 said:
No, I don't think so. The history is there & has been documented thoroughly for VN. It was France's war, & they opted to pursue it (& Algeria too). The US opted to back the French effort, for whatever reasons of our own - efforts which FDR had specifically repudiated earlier. The US military & spooks don't run on what the media report nor think, & US public opinion didn't turn until after the Tet Offensive in 1968, after the US military & administrations had promised that there was light @ the end of the tunnel, the corner had been turned, & we couldn't let all those troops have died in vain, & similar bromides. The truth of the matter is that the French had a better appreciation of the VC & NV than the US did - they just didn't have the near unlimited budget & manpower to squander forever on an unending war. & neither did the US, finally.

In the case of Iraq - look, Pres. W had to do something, & we carried out basically a punitive raid on Taliban & al Qaeda in Afghanistan, & made it look easy. It wasn't, & the deceptive ease of implementation gave the brass in DOD & the suits in the White House the notion that military power was easy to deploy, much easier & bigger bang for the buck than the hard work of diplomacy & nation building - a kind of domino game that merely required applying enough force, & applying too much force if the game became difficult. & then applying more force & pallet loads of cash if results still weren't to our liking. It was foolish to extrapolate war results from a successful raid - & W & his camp followers were careful to muzzle or fire or ignore all the advice they got from the military & spooks with actual hands-on experience.

The problem with Trump organizing anything is that he doesn't read, he's inattentive @ briefings, he's not curious about the World, & he doesn't believe in staff work. Nor does he have a military background, nor any apparent appreciation for the military - other than perhaps parades. He seems to have no use for any of the intelligence assets of the US. Absent all that, his foreign policy is going to be a disaster.
Click to expand...

Fake News. I haven't time to educate you about the Vietnam War. In a nutshell, you don't let commies steal countries, and when they try, you do your best to stop them, or suffer the domino effect. We did our best, were beaten by hippies, but at least it almost bankrupted China, who learned a big lesson.
 
JackA said:
An ideologue's lazy certainty.

9-11 was a big splash from a small cell. As a fighting force, the militants were isolated in Afghanistan, and may well have perished there if Bush hadn't given up and decided to make war on Saddam who had done nothing worse than insult Bush's father. As for Vietnam, we cared about India and Indonesia, even Australia. The domino theory held that the loss of Vietnam would threaten not only the rest of Indochina but countries beyond. American soldiers and journalists who went there discovered what the generals and politicians never did - that for the Vietnamese the war was about unifying the country, ridding it of colonialism, and linkage with China and the USSR was mainly a means to that end. Vietnam was never vital to U.S. national security. The country soon became a trading partner. We got ourselves an embassy in Hanoi. And for this there are sixty thousand American graves.
Click to expand...

From post #56

Poppycock.

AL QAEDA IN IRAQ by M. J. Kirdar

Executive Summary Founded in October 2004, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) emerged from a transnational terrorist group created and led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The original iteration of the group, Bayat al Imam, began in Jordan in the early 1990s. The group first associated with al Qaeda’s senior leadership in 1999 and fought alongside al Qaeda core and the Taliban during the U.S. strikes in Afghanistan in late 2001. Shortly after, the group transferred to Iraq in anticipation of the U.S.-led invasion. From 2003 through 2007, the group galvanized the Iraqi insurgency until its high-profile, divisively brutal tactics and failure to deliver meaningful gains to its nominal constituents led to a reversal in its popularity. The death of Zarqawi in 2006 has been followed with a series of successful counterterror strikes against his successors. Nonetheless, the group has proven resilient and though its activities are greatly diminished since its operational peak in 2007, it has proven still capable of carrying out high-profile attacks, particularly against soft targets.​
 
PoS said:
Wrong. AQ and ISIS have major fundamental differences in philosophy- they are two separate terror organizations.
Click to expand...

From post #56:

Poppycock.

AL QAEDA IN IRAQ by M. J. Kirdar

Executive Summary Founded in October 2004, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) emerged from a transnational terrorist group created and led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The original iteration of the group, Bayat al Imam, began in Jordan in the early 1990s. The group first associated with al Qaeda’s senior leadership in 1999 and fought alongside al Qaeda core and the Taliban during the U.S. strikes in Afghanistan in late 2001. Shortly after, the group transferred to Iraq in anticipation of the U.S.-led invasion. From 2003 through 2007, the group galvanized the Iraqi insurgency until its high-profile, divisively brutal tactics and failure to deliver meaningful gains to its nominal constituents led to a reversal in its popularity. The death of Zarqawi in 2006 has been followed with a series of successful counterterror strikes against his successors. Nonetheless, the group has proven resilient and though its activities are greatly diminished since its operational peak in 2007, it has proven still capable of carrying out high-profile attacks, particularly against soft targets.​
 
Moot said:
Leftie LBJ changed history, alright. lol

Lots of anti-war protesters went to Vietnam during the war. Fonda herself personally smuggled POW letters to and from their families in the States and to this day they only have good things to say about her. So I question why she was singled out for persecution, especially after all these years and over one stupid photo that most young people today don't even know or care about.

.
Click to expand...

She was a traitor and a commie lover. Any other questions?
 
Moot said:
Lots of anti-war protesters went to Vietnam during the war. Fonda herself personally smuggled POW letters to and from their families in the States and to this day they only have good things to say about her. So I question why she was singled out for persecution, especially after all these years and over one stupid photo that most young people today don't even know or care about.
Click to expand...

Butt hurt.

Good point, btw.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
She was a traitor and a commie lover. Any other questions?
Click to expand...

Then so was Nixon.

Most young soldiers didn't even know what they were fighting for in Vietnam...let alone give a damn about Jane Fonda.


And it's 1-2-3 what the hell we fighting for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn
Next stop is Vietnam...
 
Last edited:
Sampson Simpson said:
LBJ, Nixon, and the rest of the war mongerers are the disgraces that sent 58K to die in a pointless war where we were the bad guys slaughtering civilians, raping women, burning their foods, destroying villages, napalming people, etc. over what? Oh, we can't let communism spread, what? Sorry, we were the bad guys in Vietnam
Click to expand...

Why is the originator of US involvement in the Viet Nam war, Kennedy, always left out in these discussions? He is the most absurdly over-praised Pres in US history. While Nixon, who actually got the US out of Viet Nam is mocked and reviled.
 
Sweden said:
Why is the originator of US involvement in the Viet Nam war, Kennedy, always left out in these discussions? He is the most absurdly over-praised Pres in US history. While Nixon, who actually got the US out of Viet Nam is mocked and reviled.
Click to expand...

Hippies also mocked and reviled Reagan, the Bush's and Trump. Any good POTUS is mocked and reviled by them. The very worst socialist morons like Carter, Clinton and Obama are worshipped by the same.
 
Rob Larrikin said:


80 year old Hanoi Jane is lying. She wasn’t some innocent, ignorant girl who didn’t understand. Back then she was no different than she is today. A poisonously left winged champagne communist who would love to see a borderless America become the United Soviet States of Amerika. She knew exactly what she was doing when she betrayed the U.S. and she is still betraying it today. Though she is ten years older than Hillary, she may have her eye on entering politics. If so, her first task would be to try and repair her reputation. Are Americans foolish enough to fall for it? I don’t think so.​
Click to expand...



I agree with this and it would be a mistake for her to do something so stupid. All the old images, all the old betrayals, would all come back to the forefront and she'd be painted as the traitor she really is.

She needs to fade quietly away in her old age and be thankful she wasn't hung.​
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Our nation's soldiers are not above criticism. Most served honorably, but many didn't. The number of atrocities and war crimes committed by our troops is absolutely breathtaking. We shouldn't be trying to white wash history to make it seem like all 2.7 million Americans sent to Vietnam were saints. Nobody should be trying to paint them as all good or all bad when it was obviously a mix.
Click to expand...

Why do you suppose Vietnam soldiers came home and quickly became the largest group of war veterans to suffer from depression, PTSD, and end up homeless and committing suicide?

I'll give you a hint -- while soldiers from WWII came home to ticker-tape parades and were honored, the traitors in this nation (including Hanoi Jane) made life as hard as possible for the returning soldiers -- calling them baby murderers and the like.

Liberals are directly responsible for the mental anguish suffered by our Vietnam vets.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
From post #56

Poppycock.

AL QAEDA IN IRAQ by M. J. Kirdar

Executive Summary Founded in October 2004, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) emerged from a transnational terrorist group created and led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The original iteration of the group, Bayat al Imam, began in Jordan in the early 1990s. The group first associated with al Qaeda’s senior leadership in 1999 and fought alongside al Qaeda core and the Taliban during the U.S. strikes in Afghanistan in late 2001. Shortly after, the group transferred to Iraq in anticipation of the U.S.-led invasion. From 2003 through 2007, the group galvanized the Iraqi insurgency until its high-profile, divisively brutal tactics and failure to deliver meaningful gains to its nominal constituents led to a reversal in its popularity. The death of Zarqawi in 2006 has been followed with a series of successful counterterror strikes against his successors. Nonetheless, the group has proven resilient and though its activities are greatly diminished since its operational peak in 2007, it has proven still capable of carrying out high-profile attacks, particularly against soft targets.​
Click to expand...

Poppycock.

Zarqawi's "group" was a band of organizers. Saddam had dealt with such groups before. He had the infrastructure to deal with terrorists, but we took care of that. Your post addresses no other points from this:

9-11 was a big splash from a small cell. As a fighting force, the militants were isolated in Afghanistan, and may well have perished there if Bush hadn't given up and decided to make war on Saddam who had done nothing worse than insult Bush's father. As for Vietnam, in answer to your question, we cared about India and Indonesia, even Australia. The domino theory held that the loss of Vietnam would threaten not only the rest of Indochina but countries beyond. American soldiers and journalists who went there discovered what the generals and politicians never did - that for the Vietnamese the war was about unifying the country, ridding it of colonialism, and linkage with China and the USSR was mainly a means to that end. Vietnam was never vital to U.S. national security. The country soon became a trading partner. We got ourselves an embassy in Hanoi. And for this there are sixty thousand American graves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom