Hanoi Jane Fonda At It Again

[LoArmistead]

It an american freedom to be able to disagree with the war, I understand that.  Its a american freedom to be able to protest the war, in a peaceful maner.  But it is not an american freedom to go and protest against the soldiers who have put their lives out on the line to protect that freedom.  Free speech and freedom of expression dosnt give you the right to do or say anythign you want.  Freedom comes with responsibility. 

 

Also does anyone else find it od that her protest comes right before the release of her book?  Protesting the war or just creating publicity for her books?

517607[/snapback]

 

 

Ding ding ding, a great analogy that I read on that site linkd up top, Freedom of Speech is a double-edged sword, often times enough the same people who protest the war, protst the government, and base all of what they say, think, and do on the First Amendment, do everything they can to demonize those who also use their rights granted by that amendment to speak out against homosexuality, against abortion, and in some cases, in favor of things like racism and segregation. Bottom line, if you're gonna **** it out, you'd best be ready to scoop it up. Who gives you the right to say what you want, expect it to be acted upon with no question, then when someone says something that contradicts what you said, you get angry and try to silence them? It's ignorance and immaturity... God Bless the American public.

[savethedodobird]

I had a link to an awsome video of a news interview with a guy protesting the soldiers fighting the war, as well as rejocing when a soldier died. The news reporter riped on him in a logical and mature maner. And he did A good job of explaining what I said earlier. Ill try to find it when I get of work.

 

:EDIT: Thar She Blows I found it. talk about a crook

 

:Edit again: V Yup

[LoArmistead]

I had a link to an awsome video of a news interview with a guy protesting the soldiers fighting the war, as well as rejocing when a soldier died.  The news reporter riped on him in a logical and mature maner.  And he did A good job of explaining what I said earlier.  Ill try to find it when I get of work.

517615[/snapback]

 

 

Was it Sean Hannity V. Michael Crook? I have that one lol, Ill upload and give yall a link, its an ultimate example of liberal pwnage. Those of you who know the show "Hannity and Colmes" on foxnews will be very proud of BOTH of them.

 

EDIT: also a week after this interview, all of Michael Crook's web domains went up for sale. His original site was www.forsakethetroops.info I read through eery page on this site and it was...shocking. He called the soldiers "morons" and "they deserve to die, all of them". he had a link to CNN (figures) where 3 soldiers were killed by an IED, after this link he says "Boy another bunch of idiots, these guys just can't seem to stay alive can they? Don't they teach them anything in basics?" ...Yeah Michael, I guess those three guys in basics failed the test on how "How not to die when a bomb explodes right next to you" ....moron. He also had several derogatory statements regarding military families and dependants. I, myself being a former military dependent, was extrememly pissed off at this. Luckily now Forsakethetroops.info was bought out by a Conservative forum.

[Montol]

yes there were some atrocities commited, but (referring to my topic about how the media controls Americans' opinions) per capita, the atrocities comitted were extremely rare.  It was not fare for the media, the American people (brainwashed by the media), or Hanoi Jane to label the entire United States Army based on a few isolated events.

The media took these few isolated events and warped them into a story that made it appear that every day, every American soldier was toking up, then going out and massacring an entire village, when this was absolutely not the case.

 

In a sense, the media has done exactly what they try to protect against.  They have taken the actions of a select few people in a group (in this case, let's say the squad involved in the massacre at mei lei), and echoed those actions to the American people to make it seem like the entire group (in this case, the entire U.S. Army) is responsible.  What is the difference between doing that, and seeing a group of black  kids kill a white, then saying that the entire black race is a race of savages and murderers.  What's the difference between that and seeing what  Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did at columbine, then reporting it to look like every white male teenager in the country is going to kill their classmates?

 

The fact remains that if a majority of the media doesn't like something, i.e.  the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, George Bush, the 2nd Amendment, etc... they ae going to do what they need to do to demonize it in the public's eyes.  That is why the media is a very pwerful tool, because there are a LOT of ignorant people in this country who just don't have the time to sit there and search for an unbiased report on something.    They rely on the media to give them the facts on CNN and MSNBC, and they don't get the facts there.  They get a liberally spun web of BS that makes it look like everything our president is doing is going badly.  If they wanted to, they could convince half of America that George Bush is actually a fat woman in a Dumb-Texan costume, and the American people would believe it.  The story would be backed up by Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, and next thing you know you have Michael Moore making a movie entitled "Bush is Actually a Woman", and the subject of it would be how the Sugar Ant is going extinct.  The movie would be a huge hit in leftist America with the media raving "Michael's new movie hits the nail right on the head!  and REALLY shows the stupidity of George W Bush!  Props to Mike!  He is the lefts' Rush Limbaugh!!11!11!" 

 

(You really have to have a thought process like mine, an understanding of how the media works, and a wacky sense of humor to understand what I meant by that)

517603[/snapback]

 

Ha! Excellently written retort.

 

You're very right, the media in the US (and worldwide for that matter) does control the way that people see events, and it is very difficult to seperate fact from fiction, especially for an event so long past.

 

But, with that being said, you've labelled the problems with Vietnam as extremely rare, which...not so much the case.

 

Though it is true, per capita, that the amount of atrocities commited are statistically speaking, small, it doesn't change the fact that there were indeed a large number of them committed. Napalming an entire farming village to make sure the half dozen insurgents are gone is a bit of overkill. And as far as killing women and children goes, sometimes yes, it was warranted, as they were standing up for their country, deciding to fight the invading hordes (and admit it, the US invaded them, protecting my country from invaders would be something I'd do) but other times, not so much. When you're living on edge and you can't trust anyone, sometimes atrocities happen, but its a matter of control when it comes to soldiers who'd pick them off for sport (and again, though it did happen it was rare).

 

I've got a fairly reliable source for Vietnam information...one of my coworkers (a kind old 62 year old man who cooks breakfasts for us) was a photojournalist for 3 years during the war, and he's seen the remains of what some troops left behind...not pretty to say the least.

 

And yes, Michael Moore is a very, very biased person. I hesistate to even call him a journalist, as the sneaky ways he incorporates guilt and bias into his reports is just ridiculous. I like to watch his films because they're informative, but like any other good Communications student, I don't take it to heart, because there is, of course, another side(s) to the story.

[Kamikaze_Badger]

I admit that I did skim through your last post Montel, so sorry if this was addressed...

 

 

But welcome to war.

[Guest Flashstar]

You have to remember Kengish Kahn, who destroyed village after village killing everyone in them if they didn't surrender. His goal wasn't even to expand his empire, it was to plunder. Alexander the great and Napoleon didn't care about civilians either.

 

 

It's all a matter of weighing consequences.

 

For example, if we didn't go to war there would be a very large possibility that sooner or later we would be bombed with nuclear war heads... or worse.

 

Some of these things that soldiers may have done are nothing compared to what could happen if we didn't go to war. Period.

 

EDIT: We don't need pages of discussions about this thing. There are many people out in the world that don't know what they are doing.

[aaronamd]

that b|tch is a traitor to the country and should be sent to the camps that she is trying to protect!

[bigred]

you do know that picture of her with John Kerry is a fake? it's actually 2 very well spliced pics...

 

but it doesn't change my view of the two clowns.

[Kamikaze_Badger]

You have to remember Kengish Kahn, who destroyed village after village killing everyone in them if they didn't surrender.

517646[/snapback]

 

You mean Ghengis Khan, right? The guy who united various tribes to overthrow China using the first of advanced military tatics of his time that still run on today, and who's son conquered lands but still preserverd their culture?

Edited July 27, 2005 by Kamikaze_Badger

[bigred]

he was also a very fair invader. gave them the option of surrender and you share in the spoils of his own army. you'll be protected by his army, you'll be treated fair, and he'll do to harm your culture.

 

however those who failed to accept his offer, DIED without a second thought.

[OptikaliLLusion]

I hope that Jane Fonda's death is a painful one. She deserves the worst. Hopefully an artillery shell lands on her.

[cchalogamer]

I hope that Jane Fonda's death is a painful one. She deserves the worst. Hopefully an artillery shell lands on her.

517734[/snapback]

Im thinkin' friendly gunshot to a less vital area following by bleeding to death...seems worse