Fonda Plans Tour to Rally Against War

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:31 am

jGilder wrote:
Bloomfield wrote:
jGilder wrote: Go back and read Bloomfield's contribution, I think the definition of treason was the same then as it is now.
Actually, I think Paul may be onto something here: Weren't Ethel & Julius Rosenberg convicted not only of espionage, but also of treason? That certainly wouldn't fly today.
They were convicted for selling nuclear secrets to Russia... I think. That would be as serious today as it was then. I think there was a problem with the way the trial went though that might not have gone down today. Still, selling military secrets to the enemy is a long stretch from coverting on camera with them.

Have a piece of cheese Jack.

s1m0n · Post by **s1m0n** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:32 am

Lorenzo wrote:I wonder if Jane knows that she is the epitome of everything that Muslims, Islamics, and esp insurgents don't like about Americans.

I'm pretty sure I'm the epitome of everything the above doesn't like, but that and a buck still doesn't make the war just or legal.

People don't have to agree with about everything to be right about something.

s1m0n · Post by **s1m0n** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:39 am

The Rosenbergs were made an example to the entire nation when they were executed.

For decades american leftists have been arguing that the Rosenbergs were framed and judicially murdered during the anti-communist hysteria. Just last year, historians finally got access to the soviet and US archives, as I recall.

What they learned was that yes, the cuople were framed, but that Julius was probably guilty as framed. They also learned that Ethel was innocent, and that the prosecution suppressed evidence exonerating her.

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

Gilder has ridiculed the notion that Fonda legitimized the North Vietnamese government.

Maybe legitimize is the wrong verb. But in fact, that govt. had "no face" in the eyes of Americans, as it was a closed society and all news that we heard from there came from radio broadcasts.

Fonda's visit put a face on the NV authorities, giving at least a glimpse of what it was like up there by showing them, Fonda and the GIs in govt. facilities.

s1m0n · Post by **s1m0n** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:36 am

Maybe legitimize is the wrong verb. But in fact, that govt. had "no face" in the eyes of Americans, as it was a closed society and all news that we heard from there came from radio broadcasts.

Fonda's visit put a face on the NV authorities, giving at least a glimpse of what it was like up there by showing them, Fonda and the GIs in govt. facilities.

Good. Putting a human face on the people being killed is a moral act in any situation.

Dehumanizing the opposition is immoral, for all it's routine in all wars.

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:39 am

That's one way to look at it.

peteinmn · Post by **peteinmn** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:06 am

Poor Janie

Capable of foolish behavior in her youth and apparently equally capable of foolish behavior at 67.

I saw and felt the impact of her behavior on the "baby killers" returning from Vietnam. That alone is sufficient reason for me to paraphrase the imortal Monty Python philosopher who said, "I f**t in her general direction."

Her current self-important irrelivance deserves more pity than scorn.

jGilder · Post by **jGilder** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:36 am

Celebrities come out in support of all sides, the reason is obvious -- they have fans that listen to them -- they influence a lot of people. Celebrities that come out on the side that opposes the government's position are most likely to be demonized for doing so. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not we're responding to the facts or the hyperbole when we assess our attitude towards them. Some of us aren't fully aware of the power corporate media has over us. Sometimes, because of fabricated notoriety, the response that certain celebrities get begins to resemble mob mentality more than a rational point of view.

missy · Post by **missy** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:41 am

jGilder wrote:
"....the reason is obvious -- they have fans that listen to them -- they influence a lot of people."

And that's sad. Why ANYONE would be influenced by anything a celebrity said is totally beyond me.

TomB · Post by **TomB** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:46 am

jGilder wrote:Celebrities come out in support of all sides, the reason is obvious -- they have fans that listen to them -- they influence a lot of people. Celebrities that come out on the side that opposes the government's position are most likely to be demonized for doing so. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not we're responding to the facts or the hyperbole when we assess our attitude towards them. Some of us aren't fully aware of the power corporate media has over us. Sometimes, because of fabricated notoriety, the response that certain celebrities get begins to resemble mob mentality more than a rational point of view.

Yep, and folks are also influenced by the crap some celebrities spew.

All the Best, Tom

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:28 pm

s1m0n wrote:
Lorenzo wrote:I wonder if Jane knows that she is the epitome of everything that Muslims, Islamics, and esp insurgents don't like about Americans.

I'm pretty sure I'm the epitome of everything the above doesn't like,

Nearly everyone of us is. Even the insurgents brothers, sisters, and children in Iraq are worthy of death if they disagree with a one sided interpretation of a terrorist (or a sniper).

but that and a buck still doesn't make the war just or legal

Right. Just and legal are often different things. It's always been that way. A majority vote of experts wouldn't even make a war justified, though it could make it legal, depending on the rules.

What was legal or illegal about the war that the experts would all agree on? And what was just or unjust that the experts could all agree on? Details.

Details, not general condemnation without proper and thorough investigation, is what can make all the difference.

Jerry Freeman · Post by **Jerry Freeman** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:52 pm

I have a problem with this accusation that Jane Fonda's actions during the Vietnam war legitamized the North Vietnamese government.

We killed two million North Vietnamese on a pretext that turned out to be a lie (the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which did not happen).

I believe the bile that's being vented towards Jane Fonda is misplaced. I think she did a very poor job as an antiwar advocate, did some really stupid things, but I also think the demonization of the North Vietnamese is inappropriate. Granted, they were brutal to our imprisoned soldiers, but we were murderous towards them on a scale that boggles the imagination. Before we demonize them, let's check our own performance and see if maybe we're not in a position to judge them so harshly.

Best wishes,
Jerry

TomB · Post by **TomB** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:29 pm

Jerry Freeman wrote:I have a problem with this accusation that Jane Fonda's actions during the Vietnam war legitamized the North Vietnamese government.

We killed two million North Vietnamese on a pretext that turned out to be a lie (the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which did not happen).

I believe the bile that's being vented towards Jane Fonda is misplaced. I think she did a very poor job as an antiwar advocate, did some really stupid things, but I also think the demonization of the North Vietnamese is inappropriate. Granted, they were brutal to our imprisoned soldiers, but we were murderous towards them on a scale that boggles the imagination. Before we demonize them, let's check our own performance and see if maybe we're not in a position to judge them so harshly.

Best wishes,
Jerry

I don't believe that a pure dislike for Jane Fonda's actions necessarily means demonizing the North Vietnamese government. It doesn't for me. If anything, she unfairly demonized a lot of our own people and made it worse for them.

All the Best, Tom

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:41 pm

Like Tom said, I was and am more upset about how US soldiers came to be characterized. Frankly, Jerry, I think you are mixing your emotion about what happened to the NV in your refutation of the point. They are two different points.

Much of the Vietnam experience was shameful, but US society turning its back on its own soldiers was a good example of misplacing anger and blame.

TomB · Post by **TomB** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:43 pm

The Weekenders wrote:Like Tom said, I was and am more upset about how US soldiers came to be characterized. Frankly, Jerry, I think you are mixing your emotion about what happened to the NV in your refutation of the point. They are two different points.

Much of the Vietnam experience was shameful, but US society turning its back on its own soldiers was a good example of misplacing anger and blame.

Must be something in the water out here, or the lack of electricity out there. We are agreeing with each other on a couple of things lately.
One of us has got to stop that! :roll:

Tom