Anyone at the march at the Capitol?

[bosco]

Fonda's actions clearly fit Oran's criteria for treason: She helped a foreign government make war against the United States.

Not one Vietnamese ever attacked US soil. The United States made war on Vietnam. It was a pure war of aggression, nothing more, nothing less, justified by a lie. The puppet government was headed by a two-bit opium-selling general kept in place by US military power who would have been deposed by an election in a heartbeat. An election in which Ho-Chi-Minh would have received 80% + of the vote (hint--this is why it was necessary to "pacify" entire villages--because both the north and south were TOTALLY agains the invaders, with the exception of a few rich capitalists). The election (which was mandated by the Geneva Accords) was cancelled by the "government" of South Vietnam, at the urging of the US. The two countries, by the accords, were to be reunited after said election. However, the concept of the election was threatening to US interests. So much for democracy.

In my opinion, it is treasonous to stand by, pay taxes, be a citizen, and NOT object to this kind of thing. I do not support Jane Fonda's statements about US POWs and their treatment. But frankly, when indigenous people are bombarded by the air power of a country that has no business being there, I think it is perfectly reasonably for them to shoot at the planes.

I understand that the historical facts can get in the way of hatred of Jane Fonda. But you have to admit--the zero-G striptease is hard to hate

 

[JohnEyles]

Not one Vietnamese ever attacked US soil. The United States made war on Vietnam. It was a pure war of aggression, nothing more, nothing less, justified by a lie.

I think you have eloquently explained why JF's actions were not treason by
the definition of helping a foreign power to make war on the USA. But if she
contributed to the harming of US soldiers, or US citizens in general for that
matter, is that not treasonous on some level ?

It's the question of supporting the troops versus supporting the war. The anti-war
movement got that one terribly wrong during the Vietnam era - spitting on returning
troops, calling them murderers - unconscionable treatment of people who fought
bravely for their country, regardless of how misguided the reasons for their being
asked to do so.

It is gratifying to see that people have this distinction clearly in view when viewing
this generation's Vietnam.

 

[bosco]

I think you have eloquently explained why JF's actions were not treason by
the definition of helping a foreign power to make war on the USA. But if she
contributed to the harming of US soldiers, or US citizens in general for that
matter, is that not treasonous on some level ?

It's the question of supporting the troops versus supporting the war. The anti-war
movement got that one terribly wrong during the Vietnam era - spitting on returning
troops, calling them murderers - unconscionable treatment of people who fought
bravely for their country, regardless of how misguided the reasons for their being
asked to do so.

It is gratifying to see that people have this distinction clearly in view when viewing
this generation's Vietnam.

I agreewith much of what you are saying, and this is why I find Jane Fonda's conduct very disturbing, and she is not someone I admire (other than Barbarella....I mean come on....breaking the orgasmatron!!). Her actions in Vietnam were the actions of a spoiled pampered hollywood b*tch. But they don't come anywhere near rising to the level of treason, IMO. To consider this treason would make it virtually impossible for any American to object to government policy in time of declared or undeclared war.

I doubt that her actions directly harmed US soldiers. I see it more that she had an opportunity use her position to help POWs and instead chose not to, thus letting them down tremendously. Yes, this is harmful on some level, but in a treasonous sense? If this is treason, than how about Robert McNamara's misleading of congress on the Gulf of Tonkin? This caused harm to American troops. Is that treason? How about Bush's lies? They have caused harm to American troops. Treason? In fact, the war in Iraq is the biggest recruitment tool Al Queda ever had, so it also helped the enemy. So that's treason, isn't it?

I expect that the root of her conduct (and I am NOT trying to excuse it) is she felt what many felt at the time. Intense pain and frustration at being a citizen of a country that would bomb civilians and massacre entire villages with no accountability and in violation of any sense of humanity, with no very good reason. It's normal for a person to want to emotionally identify with the victims, with the underdog. What people, I think, failed to consider at that period, is that the American soldiers (many of whom were draftees) also were victims. Many of the atrocities that occured occurred due to fear and from troops being put in an impossible situation. Compassion is needed for both sides in this situation. The brutal psychological fact is that it is impossible to march into someone else's land as an occupier where everyone hates you, and not undergo damaging emotional and psychological consequences. Apparantly, this is a lesson that must be learned all over again in Iraq--hence Abu Graib and other bad occurences.

 

[samclem]

Not one Vietnamese ever attacked US soil. The United States made war on Vietnam.

Not one German ever attacked US soil. The US made war on Germany. Would an American who went to Germany and broadcast anti-US propaganda not be treasonous? The location of the war, and even the individual's judgement of the morality of the war have absolutely zero, nada, nothing to do with this. As I stated, US citizens who objected to the war, objected to US involvement in it, etc were not traitors (though I think they were shortsighted--as are those who protest today). The US is probably unparalled in the world in tolerating internal disssent during time of war, Jane had plenty of options open to her. She decided being part of the loyal oppposition wasn't good enough, so she joined the real opposition.

JF: ATB

But, I'm not emotional about this.

But, back to an earlier point: One could make the case that it was not clear that our withdrawal from Vietnam would lead to the bloodbath that ensued (the thousands of executions in South Vietnam were foreseeable, the 1.4 million+ in Cambodia were not as clearly evident in advance). Many folks, including many who now are wringing their hands about the situaton in Iraq, before the war believed that there would not be a widespread breakdown. So, in the case of both the US withdrawal from VN and the prospects for a US occupation of Iraq, the likely results were not entirely clear. The situation is entirely different regarding a US withdrawal under the prsent circumstances. Does anybody believe that there won't be a wholesale bloodbath in Iraq if the US pulls out under the present conditions? No.

 

[donheff]

Not one German ever attacked US soil. The US made war on Germany.

But Germany declared war on us! Right after Japan bombed us. They were allie - poor choice on Germany's side.

 

[JohnEyles]

Does anybody believe that there won't be a wholesale bloodbath in Iraq if the US pulls out under the present conditions?

Not me. I was listening to John Burns, head of the New York Times Baghdad bureau
the other night; I believe he knows more about Iraq than anyone (at least anyone who
speaks English and can talk freely). He has me half-convinced that we should give
Bush's troop increase a chance. Simply because things WILL be so horrible if we
leave, we owe to the Iraqis, and to our national interest, to try one last time to make
this work.

This is not to say I trust Bush in any way. I believe he is the worst President we've
every had, at least since Hoover. And I believe the decision to invade Iraq was the
worst foreign-policy blunder in our nation's history.

But let's give Iraq one more chance. If it works, maybe I'll reconsider my opinion on
the above. If it doesn't work, let's impeach him and try him for treason.

 

[bosco]

Not one German ever attacked US soil. The US made war on Germany. Would an American who went to Germany and broadcast anti-US propaganda not be treasonous?

I suspect if you thought about it you could spot some significant differences.
1) Germany and Japan were allies. Japan did attack US soil. Germany then declared war.
2) Germany attacked allies of the US, did not stay within its borders
3) Vietnam, on the other hand, had no cause for conflict until US meddling perpetuated the partition that gave rise to the civil war that the US so gleefully participated in. There was no civil war in Germany. Unfortunately. Vietnam did not invade anyone else.
4) the war in Germany did not come about as a result of the US blocking scheduled elections and refusing to allow a scheduled and negotiated reunification to take place.
5) the war in Germany was actually a war i.e. it was declared.
6) the war in Germany was fought to prevent an aggressive state from physically conquering other soverign nations and nationalities. The war in Vietnam was fought to attempt to prevent a people from choosing an ideology that offended US leaders based on a theory that was questionable, at best (remember the 'domino' theory--kind of didn't pan out).
7) there was little question that Japan and Germany would keep coming until stopped. Hardly the case with Vietnam. Vietnam wasn't a war of expansion, it was the secord phase of a war against colonialism.

History shows that Ho Chi Minh made overtures to the US, but the US would not deal with him because he was a 'Communist.' He was also hailed by his people as the "George Washington of Vietnam." It was incomprehensible to him that the US would not identify with his cause. After all, he threw off the yoke of European colonialism just as the US had.

Just goes to show you how far American values have strayed...

Does anybody believe that there won't be a wholesale bloodbath in Iraq if the US pulls out under the present conditions?

There has already been a bloodbath. I bet everyone here knows how many US soldiers have been killed. How many know how many Iraqis have been killed, both from US bombing, operations, and in the sectarian violence that has resulted from the power vacuum? I've seen estimates of 200,000, but nobody really knows and evidently it's not particularly important to American government officials. If it were, things would have been conducted a bit differently post-invasion such as securing hospitals rather than having troops stand by and watch them be looted.

There is no military solution to a mess like this, only a political one. There is a bloodbath. Whether the US stays or leaves probably won't significantly affect that. This kind of hatred won't go away in a couple of years after a "troop surge." It will fester for generations--it dates back to 500 AD. The genie has been let out of the bottle in Iraq.

I personally feel that the only workable solution is partition. The downside is that Iran gets handed an ally in the south. Something Bush should have considered before he made his stupid blunder.

 

[samclem]

Brilliant. I agree with your very obvious points: Germany is not Vietnam. Neither is Iraq.
US vital interests are clear in Iraq. Humanitarian interests are clear in Iraq.
If you believe the loss in life in Iraq to date is a "bloodbath," then prepare to be amazed if the US leaves before seeing through the establishment of a stable security framework. You'll need a new word to describe it.

Partition: Well, I guess this would, by definition, end the civil war. Then we'd just have conventional wars between the three entities. Much better, thanks. Never mind the reactions of the neighbors--The Turks are really looking forward to an independent Kurdish state.

 

[donheff]

Brilliant. I agree with your very obvious points: Germany is not Vietnam. Neither is Iraq.
US vital interests are clear in Iraq. Humanitarian interests are clear in Iraq.
If you believe the loss in life in Iraq to date is a "bloodbath," then prepare to be amazed if the US leaves before seeing through the establishment of a stable security framework. You'll need a new word to describe it.

Partition: Well, I guess this would, by definition, end the civil war. Then we'd just have conventional wars between the three entities. Much better, thanks. Never mind the reactions of the neighbors--The Turks are really looking forward to an independent Kurdish state.

We will never know whether we could have transformed Iraq into a model of western democracy and continued its secular state. The idiots who deluded us into executing this fiasco have screwed things up for decades by doing precisely what was needed to ensure failure. Yes, there is likely to be a blood bath! But what about Bush's plan will do anything but postpone that reckoning for a few months? NOTHING the current administration has told us about Iraq has had any connection with reality -- why would we think they suddenly got smart?

The bloodbath will likely occur and the blame will lie with the current administration, and with all of us for supporting it, not its opponents.

 

[samclem]

I think the less energy we spend hating "the idiots", worrying about who is to "blame," and regurgitating polemic about how the war started, the more energy we'll have to spend on a solution (for those interested in a solution). Taking neighborhoods/territory and holding it (that's the basis of the plan) is an improvement over what we've been doing (but it requires more troops--that's why more are going.). Gen Petreus agrees. I believe most of the guys over there, do, too, (though I have no proof of that, just talks with guys/gals who have been there).

Don't worry--we'll likely quit and we'll all see what happens. No need to guess anymore. Then, everyone can wind up the old "blame machine" in time for the election. Who is to blame will be of little concern to those left to deal with things.

 

[sgeeeee]

It's interesting that the same people who don't think it appropriate to spend time placing blame for the current Iraq mess also still blame Jane Fonda for treason during Vietnam.

 

[samclem]

Biggest difference: The Vietnam conflict is over. The Iraqi conflict continues, and we need to get the next step right. Screeching on about who is to blame appears to me to be a strategy by some to walk away from te probem: "Hey, I'm not responsible for this, you fix it. I won't tell you how, but you can't send more troops. Voters--look at this, I'm not responsible for the mess."

Ever been on a roadtrip with a friend and made a wrong turn? What's more useful:
a: "I never thought this trip was a good idea, I don't know why you wanted to go! I agreed to it, but never really thought it was a good idea. I even told you to turn at the bridge, but, Noooo! You went straight! You are an idiot."
b: "Lets get out the map and figure things out."

 

[donheff]

Talking heads on TV last night were discussing the "tooth" and "tail" aspects of Bush's proposed surge. Apparently it is not clear at this point whether Bush is talking about 1) 20K combat troops, plus a big support contingent; 2) 20K total - so a much smaller (and less impactful) "tooth" contingent; 3) 20K combat with no additional support than is already in theater (kinda a repeat of past mistakes); or 4) they haven't actually thought the support part out and will deal with it later (also a repeat of past mistakes).

And we shouldn't talk blame?

 

[bosco]

Taking neighborhoods/territory and holding it (that's the basis of the plan) is an improvement over what we've been doing (but it requires more troops--that's why more are going.).

holding it from whom??

it's not ours to hold. The latest report that came out today says that Iraqi to Iraqi violence is the largest cause, not from Al Quaida. So how are you going to stop the violence? Move everyone out of the neighborhood? Ethnically cleanse the neighborhood? Line everyone up and assign Shia to this sector and Sunni to that?

This is not a military problem and it will not be solved militarily, IMO.

 

[bright eyed]

The bloodbath will likely occur

Estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000 in terms of Iraqi civilian deaths

CIA says the country compares to 2x's the size of Idaho and 40% of their population is under age of 14...so given that statistic, a great number of deaths had to be children.

Imagine if 25,000 people in Idaho had been killed because the canadians went nuts and "thought" we were threatening them...

think the bloodbath has already happened...

 

[bssc]

Ever been on a roadtrip with a friend and made a wrong turn? What's more useful:

I see it as if you went with on a roadtrip with a family member. You thought everyone agreed to go to Disneyworld but the family member (not friend) is driving in the opposite direction. As you notice that you are now in Kentucky, you start inquiring about Disneyworld, the driver says that their understanding is that everyone wanted to go to Betty's big ball of earwax, somewhere in the mid-west. Said family member (which could be my sister for the sake of argument) insists on continuing to drive West no matter what everyone said about Disneyworld being in a different direction.

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . everyone wanted to go to Betty's big ball of earwax, somewhere in the mid-west. . .

I think that's located in Shueyville, Iowa.

 

[samclem]

I think that's located in Shueyville, Iowa.

Near "Kayak Emporium"

 

[bssc]

Near "Kayak Emporium"

You know my sister and her sightseeing tastes then.

 

[donheff]

Estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000 in terms of Iraqi civilian deaths

CIA says the country compares to 2x's the size of Idaho and 40% of their population is under age of 14...so given that statistic, a great number of deaths had to be children.

Imagine if 25,000 people in Idaho had been killed because the canadians went nuts and "thought" we were threatening them...

think the bloodbath has already happened...

I heard an NPR program on the Johns Hopkins (IIRC) study (initially disparaged but later rehabilitated) that indicated the civilian deaths to date could be much higher than even that.

 

[Nords]

I heard an NPR program on the Johns Hopkins (IIRC) study (initially disparaged but later rehabilitated) that indicated the civilian deaths to date could be much higher than even that.

I wonder how these six-digit numbers compare to the achievements of the previous regime...

 

[bosco]

I wonder how these six-digit numbers compare to the achievements of the previous regime...

you kidding--Bush is way ahead of Clinton in the "innocent civilian killing contest"

 

[dumpster56]

Colon Powell, if you break it you bought it.

Uh Bush Broke it.

We own this mess.

Now I still think someone has to lose. We will not lose, except soldiers, because we have to stay there.

We broke it.

What a bright idea those neocons had. Now look at Iran. No buffer.

Then again what will Israel do?

If you were told that we will destroy you what would you do?

I don 't like what I see. The world has spun out of control, AGAIN.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I wonder how these six-digit numbers compare to the achievements of the previous regime...

Careful...last time I pointed out that we may have not only killed more people than saddam did but that the ones saddam killed were probably doing SOMETHING wrong (at least in his eyes), I was labeled a baby killer.

I was also advised that our smart bombs are way too smart to kill regular people.

 

[bssc]

you kidding--Bush is way ahead of Clinton in the "innocent civilian killing contest"

Well, Clinton has been accused of killing over a million people because he maintained sanctions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions for starters.

As speaking of smart weapons, my Uncle worked on the Tomahawk program. At one point, it was showing a distressing tendency to go after sheep. (It would not pick up hills and would run into them).