Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Are Hateful dissenters Worse than Jane Fonda?

First off, I am not referring to ANY of you who disagreed with the reasons we went to Iraq but are know hoping and praying for a positive and speedy resolution to Iraq. I highly respect those of you who hold that position. I am talking about those who continue to protest and say hateful, venomous things about the war effort and the leaders of our country.

I am curious as to what you guys think. We have all learned how the actions of Jane Fonda--and probably John Kerry--during the Vietnam War prolonged the conflict and made things worse for the troops. This is no longer a disputable point.

One could argue that Fonda really didn't know any better. I guess she was briefed by the State Department, but it is easy to understand how she may not have believed them. I am NOT justifying her actions, but during that time, I'm not sure we really knew how the rapid broadcast of public sentiment could embolden our enemy.

Today it is different. We all saw what happened during Vietnam. We have heard the NVA generals say how they felt all the dissension would help their cause, so they stuck it out longer than they would have otherwise. We now know that hateful dissension--when the enemy sees it--does embolden them.

So these hateful dissenters today must know and not care how their actions embolden the enemy and make the war harder for the troops.

Are their actions today worse than Jane Fonda's were during Vietnam?

Zig Heil Bush!!

Once again you can not simply answer a question and back up your points with constructive well thought out comments. You are losing any credability you may have had as a reasonable person open for discussion.

In ANSWER to the question I would say no-

IIRC Jane visited a pow camp and some of the prisioners gave her their SS numbers in a hope she would get the word out that they were alive and she turned them over to the NVA running the show resulting in the death and torture of those guys. I don't think the dissenters are as bad but they aren't good. And they are hurting the man/woman on the ground by giving some semblance of hope to the insurgents.


Rick_G - It seems to me (hold on:: the following is opinion and in no way can be used as a super duper fact! It is MY opinion and I am entitles to speak it)

It seems to me that your rhetoric has gone up since your son went to sea. Why is that - why won't you say the things you are saying when he is around to see them? I know he is on a boomer which means he is pretty much "out of the loop" Are you embarrased to speak such things infront of him? Why is it you try to not let your displeasure show infront of the ones you love but it is ok infront of others? Just a question to maybe see why you have gone so down hill in your posts since his departure - they used to be filled with reasoned thoughts and you were open to discussion but now you are just spewing hateful sound bites.

I am sure if we really wanted to play the PC game there are some Jewish people that support the war who might have a very personal problem with your above post, that post did nothing to further the discussion and/or make a point for yourself.

Just some points to ponder.

Listen, thoughtfully if you can. Nazi's hate Jews. Arabs were Nazi allies during WW2 and hated jews. Arabs still hate jews. Convert or die, sound familiar. Liberals are by and far anti Israel=Jews. Liberals believe the US is picking on poor innocent anti-semite terrorist.
Who are the modern Jew killing Nazi's? Be honest.......

The point I was making, although perhaps somewhat crudely (as seems to be the standard conservative fare), is that the Nazi's set up a system of government where the state rights usurped the individuals rights. That is what so many people on this board seem to think is what is most important. That you not speak out against the government because you will be unpatriotic, or some other such hogwash.

I know, I know, OBL and the rest of the terrorists check in here on a daily basis, and I am aiding and comforting the enemy. Let's not go there please.

As for my son, that is really none of your business, but if you must know, he lives quite far from here, and when he is in port, like most young sailors, he is busy with other pursuits, and really doesn't spend time reading posts by a bunch of old fogies. As to my or any other persons political stance, I raised him to think for himself, and to respect authority. I served in the military under Reagan, and I never had any problems following orders even though I didn't support his agenda.

If I see a member of the military in a bar, I will be the first to buy him a drink, and tell him how I appreciate him serving our country. That doesn't mean that I have to condone the foriegn policy of our current administration, or if I speak out against it, I want the war to go badly for our troops. They are the ones who get stuck doing the dirty work for a bunch of rich power mongers back in Washington, and I respect the hell out of them for doing their job in a professional manner. That's why I believe that Rumsfeld and the rest of his cronies should be taking the fall for the prison scandal. Yet, the only ones who will suffer will be the grunts who were following orders. That's the way it always goes, sh** rolls down hill.

I was just making an observation- REALLY. In your second post you presented your point and then discussed it- RATHER than just blast away with a hateful sound bite that did nothing to further the discussion.

The whole point of a forum is discussion, and I would say the reason this one is called the Campfire is because in the hunting/shooting community much of that discussion takes place round a campfire.

I have no problem with people who speak their mind but all that is being asked is that people THINK before they post.

My son watches a show on pbs called "Liberties Kids" basicly a cartoon bout the revolutionary war shown from a childs eye as he is a journalist. They had a show on the power of words - choosing words to get your point across while doing the most good.

I was mearly observing that as your son went to sea your posts seemed to become more knee jerk and based more on pure emotion than thought out responses.

I myself do not agree with a lot that goes on in pres Bushes govt, primarily the $ spent, immigration and the like but I never said (no anyone else) that you can not post your ideas, thoughts and such as they dis agree with others -
All I am asking is that more thought be put into posts rather than pure emotion that does little to further the discussion.

I used to be a member here a long time ago and stopped as my access to a computer went away, then I joined again several months ago. I have seen the recent rash of trolls and bickering, jus twant to try to get things back to a more civil and thoughtful level!!

I respect you and if you remember we ahd a discussion bout your son his rate and deployment- was nice and civil, I respect you and your right to disagree just requesting that people who do dissent do so with a modecum of decorum and tact!

BTW - I am not saying that I am perfect, just saying I'm trying to be better! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


V/R

Don't know why ya'll bother. Some of the guys are gonna bitch no matter who's in office. Reminds me of that old saying, "he'd bitch if he got hung with a new rope". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I appreciate you doing me the honor of recognizing my lack of partisanship. Others have had the temerity to call me a liberal Democrat--can you imagine?

Oh, the horror!

Hmmmm, Early on during my training for the mental health field one my mentors told me that the 3 top issues that landed people in psy hospitals were: sex. politics & religion.I don't remember the order now but all 3 topics sure do bring up strong emotions. I too am trying to find the self control to be be more tactful... EVEN WHEN I KNOW I'M RIGHT! Just kidding.... kinda 2nd wind

Teal,

There are some people who are unable to say anything without injecting a lot of negative emotion. These folks are also often rude and insulting. They are that way because they do not fare well when they stick to using logic and reason in a debate. They are more concerned about winning than having an informative debate.

Their use of ridicule, excessive sarcasm, etc is a sign that they are losing the argument. However, their ego will not let them be wrong, so they do whatever they think will make them look good personally. They think if they can be "quick witted" with clever barbs and insults, then they can counter the superior logic of their opponent. This does not work with me.

I have grown tired of such folks. I do not personally associate with such people, and here I put them on "ignore." Rick_G is one I put on ignore a long time ago. I don't mind it if a person occasionally uses negative emotion, but when it becomes their trademark I ignore them.

Perhaps you should save yourself the angst and put such folks on ignore as well. They really have no credibility here, so it's not like they are posting stuff that anyone is going to pay attention to.

Blaine

Teal, if I offended you I apologize. For the most part, the people on this board are quite conservative. I have had many discussions here with very conservative people, and have come away with some insight into why they think the way they do. While I might not agree with their point of view, they have a well thought out position, it is a pleasure conversing with them, and I enjoy the give and take. Steve No, TLee, and a few others come to mind.

Some others on this board are downright hostile to anyone who does not agree with their point of view, and resort to name calling and personal attacks in order to try and gain some sense of superiority. It's too bad that this type of behavior has to take place. To respond with more than a short, concise, to the point blurb to this type of person is a waste of time, as it only opens myself up to more of the aforementioned behavior. That is the reason I don't invest more energy into a discussion with these types of people, as I know it will only degrade into some senseless I'm right, you're wrong type of discussion.

Blaine,

No I do not think these people are as bad as Jane Fonda, she directly caused the death and torture of soldiers she saw, talked too, and shook hands with. To me that is disspectable and inexcusable, she will surely burn for that. Yes these people may and probably will cause the conflict to go on longer then it should and this will cost many lives on both sides, as the war protests did during the Viet Nam era. I do not feel it is wrong to have these beliefs nor too discuss them, but it is out and out treason to tell the troops this like Hillarity did. I also believe it is wrong for the media to pick this dissention up and make it world wide knowledge. Call it blind faith if you will but I think the country needs to stand behind our leaders 100% until this conflict is over, we can sort it out and micro analyze it later when no more harm to our troops can come from it.

Well, I kind of thought Rick went a little over the top with the Zig Heil business, but he is generally one of the more articulate (though misguided) crew who see everything through a prism of dislike for Bush that makes them interpret (or misinterpret) every fact and observation to fit their worldview. Drives me crazy sometimes, but I'm sure I have the same effect on them. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> One of the risks of that pesky First Amendment. If you're only talking to people who agree with you, it's not a discussion, it's just an echo chamber and nobody is learning anything, IMHO.

I don't think there is any valid comparison between such people and Jane Fonda and her ilk, who actively and knowingly worked for the defeat of the United States and its ally, and directly supported our enemies. She should have been indicted the minute she stepped back on American soil.

Steve, what the hell happening, we agree on something. I think that bit** Hanoi Jane should have been tried for treason.

Rick--I don't know if you've read it yet, but here's the Amazon link to a book by two lawyers setting out the legal case against Hanoi Jane, with the draft indictment that should have been filed, and a discussion of the evidence and legal precedents. They conclude, in essence, that she could and should have been convicted of treason, certainly after our prisoners were released and we found out about her passing their names to the Reds and the other things that weren't in the press releases from Hanoi.

Nixon just didn't have the cujones or political capital at the time to expend on a trial where the comsymp media would have been all on Jane's side. Here's the link:



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/078641247X/002-7142053-2803212?v=glance

Thanks for the link, I'll have to check it out. To be compared to someone like her for voicing a differing opinion is ludicrous, hence the zig heil remark. I think it is justifiable.

Rick - I was not comparing you to her!!!!!!!!

In fact I put her just a few steps above Hitler (not many) she complained about the treatment of the Vietnamese yet treated the American soldier jsut as bad as what she was complaining about!

I respect you and your opinion - but I respect it more when it is a well though out discourse and not a reply like the Zieg heil remark.

You may have missed my reply to the original question - where I stated I do not consider those who disagree with Bush in the same league as Hanoi Jane.

While the Bush presidency will be based and judged on the Iraq conflict (jusgment should be reserved for a while yet, the job ain't over and we need to see it in its entirety) there are other factors to consider when we vote in 160 or so days.

There will very likely be some seats open on the supreme court next term. Do you really want Kerry putting people there that do not recognise the 2nd amendment?

Steve,

There is a huge difference between pointed debate and constantly insulting personal attacks becasue you are losing the argument. We just don't need that kind of behavior, and if it is tolerated, it will continue.

Blaine

Snuffy,

I too think what Fonda did was despicable, but I really doubt she understood that her actions would harm the troops. During Vietnam, I don't think the public in general ever imagined that by protesting and be anti-war that the enemy would be emboldened. Maybe I'm wrong.

However, nowadays everyone knows. I wonder if Nick berg would have had his head sawed off with a knife if the US media weren't so willing to broadcast anything that will make them a buck?

Crud, it's not like the terrorists are competent troops or anything. We kill them at what, a 20-30 to 1 ratio? However, they know if they win the public relations war they will defeat us for sure.

Anyway, I do agree with you about having such discussion being good, but broadcasting them to the enemy is treasonous, and it's mostly in the name of selling news.

If we don't willingly restrict our comments via our own good common sense, then eventually the government will do it and thus will end the First Amendment. It's happened before and it's happening now. I hope it does not happen here.

Since you're ignoring me, I'm sure you won't read this. But why don't you watch 60 minutes tonight and catch Gen. Zinni's interview. You remember him, he was probably your Commander in Chief when you were in Iraq. Funny, he didn't read the same intelligence you did. Guess he got it all wrong. He obviously doesn't have the grasp of the military mind and the situation in Iraq like you do.



Here's a particularly relevant couple of paragraphs:



"Look, there is one statement that bothers me more than anything else. And that's the idea that when the troops are in combat, everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a result" says Zinni.



"I can't think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what's the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that's getting just as many troops killed? It's leading down a path where we're not succeeding and accomplishing the missions we've set out to do."