Torture doesn't work. Film at 11.

Remove all ads!

The snopes.com article on Jane Fonda is a scathing critique of her and a good read.

Ragusa: Jane did condemn torture -- of the North Vietnamese at the hands of the US. She fervently denied the US soldiers had been tortured; when they finally returned home and told their stories she went public to call them liars.

And I have actually urinated on a Hanoi Jane urinal sticker.

 

Speaking of Jane, it sounds like she was deeply stuck in an ideology (perhaps, as described, that the US was evil) that made her refuse to see the reality in front of her own eyes of horrible things done to people from the US by others against it at the time.

This isn't the only time this happened. I cannot remember their names but there was a group of Swedish people who visited Cambodia during the time the K. Rogue did their killings. They were even living/working in one of the prison camps for a time and tried to say that everything was fine.

I may have brought this up before but what a more recent researcher thinks happened was that the Swedes who went where so caught up in the notions that revolutions are good and this was a revolution that they couldn't bring themselves to actually ask if what was going on in that place and at that time was actually a good thing or not.

 

I want one of those stickers. To call those men liars after what they went through is beyond despicable. What an utter whore. Words cannot express the depth of my contempt for this piece of trash. And the same thign goes for all of her ilk.

 

I protest Jane by not seeing any of her movies (even though I thought Cat Ballou was great, I haven't seen it in over 25 years).

 

No, they really don't. Some of them adore her for it. Service men, their families and citizens who respect their sacrifices during the War in Vietnam, loathe her for it. That is a bit different. Notice the elaborate story that was made up about her otherwise treacherous visit to NV. Some conservatives who use such events to promote their own fabrications of the event attempt to gain advantage, especially when someone on the opposing political side does something so incredibly stupid as Jane Fonda did, which I suppose is fair for them.

However, the elaborate falsehoods that were made up and concocted in the emials about her causing the deaths of POWs are just as bad as the original act, at least in my opinion. Since once they are uncovered as the lies they are it throws into question all the other specifics surrounding the event. The final straw is blaming Obama and trying to link him, of all people, to the event. This is an example of why I believe SOME conservatives relish these kinds of events. This particular brand of "conservative outrage" is just transperant, just as it is phony.

Ragusa - You are right about how delusional and ignorant some people can make themselves over events that seem quite obvious to most everyone else. The torture of Americans in NV, by Fonda, is a good example of just how far some people are willing to delude themselves and believe what they wish.

 

Chandos you are stereotyping and including all conservatives in this when really only the uninformed and the far right nutcases (like Orly of birther fame) are the guilty ones. You see just as much stupid stuff from the nutcases on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

 

That's not true. I even took the time to highlight SOME conservatives, and then point out that it was a particular "brand" of conservatism that goes in for this kind of rot. Many real conservatives, like many moderates and liberals, are concerned with the accuracy of the specifics surrounding such an event.

 

When you say "some conservatives" you are lumping the nutcases in with the rest of the conservatives. You do it often in your arguments and I believe it's intentionally done to insult the conservatives on the boards (otherwise you would show more respect). I don't lump the far left whack jobs with liberals by saying "some liberals" out of respect for the majority of liberals who are well thought out and reasonable.

 

More accusations and attacks? And just to demonsrate how full of crap you are, T2, I've made friends with many conservatives on this board in the past, including Martaug, for whom I have nothing but respect, because he is an honest, real conservative. You seem to the one with the problem. Get over it.

What you "believe," or don't believe, is not any issue for me.

 

Who pissed in your corn flakes?

 

You did, with your pointless accusations.

 

I honestly don't understand all the venom in your posts about the "conservatives" -- this thread was yet another example. There's really no need for the aggressiveness.

 

I have no venom towards conservatives, I have a family full of them. The only point I took exception to was Ragusa commenting that "conservatives" loath Fonda, when in point of fact, a lot of Americans loath her for what she did. While I don't loath her as a person, even I, and many liberals can loath something that was as stupid as what she did.

It is a point of fact, that at the moment a large part of the political debate is "ideology over country," and this demonstrates exactly that. There are both liberals and SOME CONSERVATIVES who are putting ideology over country and, that was what I was eluding to in my post - that there were SOME conservatives who will seek to advance political gain out of unfortunate events. Both sides engage in it, and it is a point of contention in American politics at the moment, as many are aware. Whether you care to acknowledge them as "conservative" or not is a personal matter. They would consider themselves conservatives, as would other conservatives of like mind. And it is perfectly accurate to say that they ARE conservatives.

I was very careful to qualify my statements by not generalizing about all conservatives, as I pointed out to you. And I was sure to NOT include anyone on this board as belonging to that "brand" of conservatism. The fact that I did qualify my statements is far more than many do on this board, with blanket statements about "lefties" and "liberals." And that does not offend me in the least, despite that obvious double standard at work here. Are you put-off because of how careful I was in my post to be fair to those conservatives who are not like this in that regard? I'm not getting where the "agression" is.

 

Hug it out!

 

T2, I hate to say this, but you're wrong. Chandos's post was just fine.

Back to the topic, though:
Chandos, I think there is a difference between the typical "ideology over country" and what Fonda did. Both are bad, but Fonda's was worse. Ideology over country typically means you are so obsessed that your ideology is right and best for your country that you won't challenge it. This is intentional, willful blindness, but the root of it is still "what's best for the country". What Fonda did was a direct attack on the country, and on it's troops. It's the same intentional, willful blindness behind it, but without the excuse of 'what's best for the country' or, I think, even 'what's best for people in general'.

 

That's much clearer, thank-you (that's sincere, not sarcasm). My main point was, and I did a poor job at expressing it, the term 'some conservatives' is a subset of 'all conservatives' and it implies that the tactic is accepted by conservatives in general. My opinion is the few who are sending this stuff on are either uninfomed (which is a lot) or they are the 'too far right' group. Although, as you mention, they consider themselves conservatives it's only because the conservative movement is the closest thing to what they believe which is similar to the militant portion of PETA who claim to be liberals.

But just because I don't accept them as true conservatives (and they certainly would not accept me as one) doesn't mean they aren't conservative in the eyes of others. I don't see 'brands' of conservatism (or 'brands' of liberalism) with poeple who would do such things, I just see nutcases.

 

Just to be a complete jerk, I want to point out that I often use the term "some liberals" and I mean just that -- not all of them, but a select few who are . . . . unwise in their decisions and positions, shall we say.

Certainly there are those who actually believe that the soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers and such, and those people are not very likely to either self-identify or be identified by a third party as "conservative" -- by using the quantifier "some" I think I make it clear that I do not lump all liberals into that group, just as I don't think Chandos was lumping all conservatives into the group.

 

Yes, I saw that too and meant to go back and fix it (but no point now). Sorry for the error.

NP, T2. And no hard feelings on my part.