For the young bloods in the audience, Jane Fonda may only be known as a aging Hollywood star or Ted Turner's ex-wife that made exercise videos. However, for others of us, there is probably no more polarizing and controversial figure from the era of the Vietnam War than Jane Fonda.

Fonda is back after a decade-long departure from the spotlight with a new autobiography, My Life, So Far and a new movie with Jennifer Lopez. She's been all over the TV and magazines promoting her book.

Some folks are less than thrilled by her return to the spotlight.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A man spit tobacco juice into the face of Jane Fonda after waiting in line to have her sign her new memoir. Capt. Rich Lockhart of the Kansas City Police Department said Michael A. Smith, 54, was arrested Tuesday night on a municipal charge of disorderly conduct.

Fonda covers a wide range of topics in "My Life So Far," including her 1972 visit to Hanoi to protest the Vietnam War, during which she was photographed on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. She has apologized for the photo, but not for opposing the war.

Smith, a Vietnam veteran, told The Kansas City Star Wednesday that Fonda was a "traitor" and that her protests against the Vietnam War were unforgivable. He said he doesn't chew tobacco but did so Tuesday solely to spit juice on the actress.

"I consider it a debt of honor," he told The Star for a story on its Web site. "She spit in our faces for 37 years. It was absolutely worth it. There are a lot of veterans who would love to do what I did."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...onda_spitter_14

As you may remember, during the presidential campaign there was a phony photograph circulated showing John Kerry attending a anti-war rally where Fonda was speaking. To this day, Fonda remains a despised figure by many Vietnam veterans who feel she was disloyal to America and put American soldiers directly at risk.

Fonda, an Academy Award winning actress, has apologized for her actions and said the notorious photo of her sitting at a anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down U.S. planes was the biggest mistake of her life and she regrets posing for the picture.

The question for debate is:

Should Jane Fonda be forgiven for her actions during the Vietnam War or are some sins so serious they can never be apologized for?

Should Jane Fonda be forgiven for her actions during the Vietnam War or are some sins so serious they can never be apologized for?

I wasn't alive during Vietnam...so perhaps my opinion would hold elss weight than others...but from what i have read, the acts committed by Jane Fonda go beyond just anti-war sentiment. You have freedom of speech, you have freedom of expression....but when you give aid and comfort to the enemy...even if it is pure propaganda...it is a treasonous act.

I would not forgive her because we all know the only reason she aplogized for the photo was to sell her book. We all know it and i would like someone to state otherwise after 37 years.

We all know the story...POWs were inspected at the Hanoi Hilton by Jane Fonda where she whispered in their ears, "aren't you happy how well your captors are treating you," or something about being "baby killers." The soldiers wrote down their social security numbers on tiny pieces of paper to let their families know they were alive...she took every piece and at the end, when the cameras were off...she handed it to the commanding officer in charge thus leading the torture and/or death of numerous POWs.

That's the story...whether its true or not? Hey, where there's smoke, there's fire. If in fact that is true...she should be charged with treason. I do not believe her actions were justified nor were they just expressing her freedom. We were at war and she did more than just oppose it by holding marches or giving speeches.

There are theories that many here on AD, including me, hold that it was the acts of Jane Fonda and other anti-war sentiment that went beyond protest during Vietnam that led to the continuance of the war and the deaths of more Americans. This isn't really a tough call.

Should Jane Fonda be forgiven for her actions during the Vietnam War or are some sins so serious they can never be apologized for?



Oh jeezzz.....

Jane Fonda apologized for some of her actions during nam quite some time ago, I think it was during a Barbara Walters interview. And that was fine, at least she stepped up and acknowledged that she caused some pain for people. Others who also caused problems and pain haven't done that. So, I voted in this poll for option #3 and Jane can go off and do whatever the hell she wants to do as far as I'm concerned. Not going to forget, much as I'd like to what happened back then and her part in it so I won't be buying her book or seeing her movie or even giving her the time of day, but I wouldn't go out of my way to hassle her either.

You know, for those of us who lived it, Vietnam was a really dark time, really bad stuff happened back then. Really bad. There used to be a popular T-Shirt that a lot of guys wore that said on the front "When I die, I'm going to heaven....." and on the back it said, 'Because I've spent my time in HELL!" Pretty well summed up the Vietnam "experience".

I don't know. Part of me wishes it would just go away, a BIG part of me wishes that most especially in the middle of the night sometimes. But, there's another part that says "Never forget" because I don't want that kind of crap to ever happen again to our fine young men and women who fight, and bleed and sometimes die for us.

We can debate and argue over the rightness and wrongness of war or a war and that's a healthy debate to have I think. But please people, whatever your position is, don't take it out on the sailors and soldiers. That's just plain wrong and unfair.

If Jane Fonda understands this and I believe she does, then she gets a pass from me. Just don't ask me to buy or read her book.

Should Jane Fonda be forgiven for her actions during the Vietnam War or are some sins so serious they can never be apologized for?

My response may surprise some. I was still a kid in 1972, and protested the war along with many of my peers. But even as a naïve teenager, I never blamed the soldiers for being there. Jane Fonda was an adult in 1972, with a far deeper understanding of the war and was completely responsible for her heinous actions. While many people protested the Vietnam war in many different ways, only Jane Fonda made it a point to visit the enemy, perform as a spokesperson for them and vilified (and endangered the lives of) American soldiers. For that, I don’t believe she should ever be forgiven, her pathetic excuse for an apology notwithstanding.

But, the stories about her activities there have been greatly embellished over time. Many stories, such as the SS number one are urban legends (see Snopes), but they still don’t negate the foolishness and vileness of her actions and the harm done as a result of them. There is nothing wrong with protesting an unjust war, but what she did went far, far beyond the pale. One can protest our country's role in a war without supporting the other side.

From the snopes site- the real stuff she did

In 1988, sixteen years after denouncing American soldiers as war criminals and tortured POWs as possessed of overactive imaginations, Fonda met with Vietnam veterans to apologize for her actions. It's interesting to note that this nationally-televised apology (during which she attempted to minimize her actions by characterizing them as "thoughtless and careless") came at a time when New England vets were successfully disrupting a film project she was working on. It's also interesting that not only was this apology delivered sixteen years after the fact, but it has not been offered again since. More than a few have read a huge dollop of self-interest into Fonda's 1988 apology. (Finally, in an interview in 2000, almost thirty years after the fact, Fonda admitted: "I will go to my grave regretting the photograph of me in an anti-aircraft carrier, which looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes. It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized such hostility. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless.")

To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law."


So, my FEELING is it is a very self serving apology.

I don't agree with the Iraq war, and I despise everyone in the GW administration. However, I would never go sit in an Iraqi gun battery that fires on America troops, and declare the soldiers killed over there as "war criminals"- I do think it crosses the line, albiet a very grey one, into treason.

Bahgdad Bob never fired a shot in anger, nor was, from what I gather, more than just a silly mouthpiece for Saddam. If he were American while doing the same thing over there, I would say he is a traitor, and should be charged with treason.

I think she should have to spend the rest of her life in jail for treason. - and that was my vote.

Should Jane Fonda be forgiven for her actions during the Vietnam War or are some sins so serious they can never be apologized for?[/quote]
I will begin by stating my assumption that Ms. Fonda did nothing beyond expressing her opinion on the war. I am further assuming that she took no physical action to give physical aid to the North Vietnamese. If my assumptions be incorrect, then the opinions I offer here are revoked. That said, I maintain that Ms. Fonda has nothing to apologize for and is in no need of anybody's forgiveness. We must draw a sharp and adamantine boundary around the expression of political opinion. Even if she had stood in Hanoi and declared to the world, "The Americans are wrong to fight this war and I hope every one of them dies, and I wish the North Vietnamese people send them packing and I will dance on the grave of every dead American soldier", she has nothing to apologize for. That's a political opinion and it is protected by the First Amendment. And if you want to get legalistic and maintain that the wartime conditions override the First Amendment, re-read the Constitution. It says that only Congress can declare war. Congress never declared war, so, legally speaking, there was no condition of war and there is no legal override to the First Amendment.

Voltaire's quote is perfect for this situation: I disagree with what she said but I will fight to the death for her right to say it. All true Americans who cherish freedom and liberty will feel the same way.

"We all know" ?? Who is we all? I don't know Jane Fonda, and I don't
know why she apologized for the photo. Have you ever met her? Do you
associate with people who know her? Sometimes people have a genuine
change of heart. Whether she did or not, is for her to know.



Wow. An uncorroborated story.



Why do you assume that? She was an actress, for Pete's sake. Her celebrity
doesn't make her a war expert and it doesn't make her wise.

Should Jane Fonda be forgiven for her actions during the Vietnam War or
are some sins so serious they can never be apologized for?

I don't think it matters much what we all think, really. In the grand scheme,
it is her own ability to forgive herself that will affect her life. As for me, I
am willing to accept that she has had a change of heart because a lot of time
has passed, and she has undoubtedly had the opportunity to reflect on her
actions of the past.

I have a lot of mixed feelings here. The closest of the poll choices to my own thoughts is "Forgive but not forget." That's probably a pretty good rule to follow in general, for many situations.

I was a pre-teen to teenager during the Vietnam War. Even during that ignorant time of my life, I was a peacenik. I don't think I ever fell into the trap of thinking that opposing a war means supporting the other side, however. (We all know today's example of this.)

Fonda's actions during this time seem to me to be best described as foolish, bordering on dangerous. I am not at all fond of the entire idea of "treason," because I am not fond of the idea of nations. Even so, I don't think anything that Fonda did (to my limited knowledge) deserves to be treated as a crime.

In general, I try not to judge artists on their beliefs or actions, but on their works. Orson Scott Card's public statements on same-sex marriage distress me, but he has written some fine science fiction and fantasy. To me, Fonda will always be Barbarella, in the charmingly goofy film of the same name.

[quote=Erasmussimo,Apr 20 2005, 06:58 PM]
Should Jane Fonda be forgiven for her actions during the Vietnam War or are some sins so serious they can never be apologized for?[/quote]
I will begin by stating my assumption that Ms. Fonda did nothing beyond expressing her opinion on the war. I am further assuming that she took no physical action to give physical aid to the North Vietnamese. If my assumptions be incorrect, then the opinions I offer here are revoked. That said, I maintain that Ms. Fonda has nothing to apologize for and is in no need of anybody's forgiveness. We must draw a sharp and adamantine boundary around the expression of political opinion. Even if she had stood in Hanoi and declared to the world, "The Americans are wrong to fight this war and I hope every one of them dies, and I wish the North Vietnamese people send them packing and I will dance on the grave of every dead American soldier", she has nothing to apologize for. That's a political opinion and it is protected by the First Amendment. And if you want to get legalistic and maintain that the wartime conditions override the First Amendment, re-read the Constitution. It says that only Congress can declare war. Congress never declared war, so, legally speaking, there was no condition of war and there is no legal override to the First Amendment.

Voltaire's quote is perfect for this situation: I disagree with what she said but I will fight to the death for her right to say it. All true Americans who cherish freedom and liberty will feel the same way.

[/quote]


I agree with many Vietnam protestors that the war was wrong in the first place, and we should not have been there, no problem with those protesting AT HOME that fact.


Here is where the borderline treason comes from:

1) She went to the enemy (official goverment representatives of the foriegn enemy, the North Vietnamese officials ie- goverment) and knowingly helped thier propoganda machine. She accused the soldiers in combat of being "war criminals"- okay, the SS note and stuff was thoroughly debunked- I am not debating that fact but the rest, with the posing for pictures in the anti-aircraft guns that were obviously used to shoot at US soldiers- well, that is where the line is crossed. When you pose for a pic like that- you are aiding and abbeting the enemy.

She was an adult, and not a particularly young one at the time. She knew better, and did it anyway.

The apology- asDoomed Planet pointed out- I have no idea why she made it, sincere or not. IMO- it is a self serving one. Her career sucks right now. The best she has is a cheesy book. The last apology was when the vets were blocking production of one of her movies an accepted form of the very type of protest she was making during Vietnam- so, to me, I can not "know" - but rather, the apology rings hallow for me.

I don't really see anything treasonous about Fonda's actions here (from what I've read on these posts and a quick bit of googling)...her actions were certainly unpatriotic and unwise, however, had she committed treason, then why was she not arrested or punished by the US authorities?

If America accepts the principle of freedom of speech, then you have to accept that people may say or do things you completely disagree with. If Jane Fonda sincerely believed that the North Vietnamese were in the right and that the US was an unjust agressor, then she did nothing wrong. Other people may have ethical stances that differ from our own. Even if she was doing those things out of cynical reasons, then ethically she may have been out of order, however legally she did nothing wrong.

If the US is involved in a war, and there are some US citizens who strongly feel that the US is in the wrong, then they have to be able to protest against the actions of their country AND that country's army without being labelled as traitors. Otherwise you stop being a country based on freedom and become one based on nationalism.

Just because you have freedom of speech in regard to the government does not mean that you have freedom from any backlash from other private citizens (who also have the freedom of speech) your speech may cause.

With Freedom comes responsibility. If you are going to act on your freedom of speech and speak you mind, you need to accept the fact that some will disagree with you, some may even become angry with you, and this could result in some acting against you using their own rights including freedom of speech.

Here's a modern example of freedom and consequences. PETA, has done several undercover investigations of slaughter houses, and the handling of chickens in them, which they showed to be horrid. Some of that video made it to the national news some time ago. PETA then took all this information to Kentucky Fried chicken (one of the largest purchasers of chicken in the nation) and demanded that they stop buying chicken from abusive slaughter houses, knowing that if KFC took such a stand, the slaughter houses would change or go broke.

KFC was perfectly within their rights to say no to PETA and continue with business as usual. As a result, PETA exercised and continues to exercise their rights and have created a Kentucky Fried Chicken boycott, and held several legal protests at KFC locations.

KFC exercised their rights, and the result was PETA exercising their rights in a way that possibly damages KFC economically.

The point is not who is right or wrong in this situation (though that might make a good topic on it's own), the point is that freedom is a two way street. When you exercise your rights, you can possibly cause others to exercise their rights in opposition to you.

Jane Fonda's actions were deplorable. It is one thing to protest a war you think is wrong. It is another to goto the enemy in that war and assist their propaganda machine. That being said, sometimes you have to move on. Will I be buying her book? No. Partially because I still hold here actions in Vietnam against her (though I was quite young at the time), but also because I find her to be a particularly boring person of little substance.

Something the protesters should consider is that the only reason this woman gets any press time at all these days is because of the actions of the protesters themselves. It is possible, that the protests will result in more book sales, due to more publicity, which is likely the opposite of the protesters goals.

Yeah, kinda. I can forgive her for doing something quasi-illegal and incredibly stupid...But I'm not too Fonda the timing of this appology [thank you, I'm here all week]. Would she have appologized if she wasn't trying to sell a book? I doubt it. So I voted forgive but not forget. As far as I'm concerned her act was tantamount to treason, but she was let off the hook because the war was unpopular. If she took pictures with members of the SS during WWII, then this would be a different story, but since most Americans had reservations about the war, her treason was let go.

CP

I'd like to ask if there is not one 60's hippie amongst us?
Not a one. Not one person here. All of AD posters have miraculously skipped over the entire generation of hippiedom, or were straight laced individuals during the movement. Not one of us protested the war in Vietnam, not a one did something illegal, immoral or unconscionable in that time. All were upstanding and government supporting citizens, pro-war, pro-wonder bread with its vitamin fortified A, D and C.

Thats spectacular, because when I was a child almost everyone thought the Vietnam war was a big mistake, and history has not proved that wrong. We lost, and it was not some hollywood celebrity that made it happen but your own government. Its time we place blame where it is due for heavens sake and stop venting in depth frustrations on people in the public eye. The facts of the matter go much deeper and the desire to blame an 'actress' or 'entertainer' shows the shallowness of the publics ability or desire to confront an issue and the real people at fault or fix or solve a problem, or deal with their own responsibility for the problem in the first place.

Does anyone really think that Fonda is more than just a projection of the guilt and shame brought upon us by the loss of the Vietnam War?
The war was wrong, that is a fact even by hindsight, nevermind what people were thinking and doing IN its time.

Jane Fonda is a mirror, the biggest of all mirrors of the Vietnam era it appears. She made the wrong mistakes for the right reasons, but it was an era of discontent and protest.

Now, because people cannot get over that their government let them down, that they have no current point of blame, that Vietnam was never declared a war, that it was lost due to 'federal government' incompetance, lets not blame Johnson or Macnamara for being fools, lets blame Jane Fonda!
We all know just as surely that Susan Sarandon is at fault for dissent of the Iraq war and the ineffectiveness of our soldiers there. It is definatively her fault if we do not succeed or receive backlash from our actions. Such powerful beings these women! Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Martha Jefferson would have been proud, for achieving what they could not achieve, the vote or national recognition as a power.

Jane Fonda is an easy mark. Do you think the North Vietamese hail her as some bastion of communist thought representing the downfall of the US?
Was she truly single handedly responsible for the torture of US soldiers in North Vietnam, or do ya think they just might have tortured them anyway?

So, when Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein, and we sent him a bunch of arms and chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians, leading to todays killing of thousands of US soldiers against Iraq, was that treasonous? Should he and Reagan be forgiven for causing us this current state of affairs and untold deaths of american men and women?

Should President George Bush be held responsible for a drunk driving arrest at the age of 30, hardly young, and Dick Cheney for two convictions at the age of 21 and 22 within 8 months of each other, including a driving license suspension?

Should Arnold Schwarzenegger be held in contempt for one time being an open admirer of Hitler and whos father was a Nazi?

Lets not have a two faced perspective and let the real political players off with a shrug while projecting onto nobodies to make oneself feel justified somehow.

I have clear memories of the Vietnam police action. It was never referred to as a war while it was going on. The government spin of police action was the official bovine pucky of the day. I had a brother over there in 1969-70, and he came back strung out on drugs. Mama san's gangi was one thing, the opium was another. It took a year before he finally got straight. So in 1972, while I attended college to make darn sure a trip to Canada wasn't necessary, what Jane Fonda did was absolutely meaningless. The police action was already a complete failure.

And Nixon was the lying talking head back then. He's dead. Jane Fonda is still alive. And some Vietnam vets have become heros in their own minds.

I know what I did back then, and I'm not ashamed of it, nor will I apologize for opposing that police action. I know what my brother did as well, and why he was the way he was back then -- and why he is the way he is today. My brother joined to avoid the draft. Getting out of the draft was a family project for all of us from the day my brother turned 19, in 1966. Joining looked good, and the first tour of duty was in Turkey, relatively safe. The second surprise tour was in Vietnam, after Tet.

The lying SOBs who put my brother into harms way are not forgiven. Jane Fonda was never hated. It was a wrong police action, and I am terribly sorry for all the men and women who fell, the names engraved on The Wall (which I have visited many times) and represented by the military nurse statue. I dated a future military nurse shortly after high school graduation.

So I don't have to forgive Jane Fonda. My brother is vaguely aware she exists. I also don't find her all that interesting. I think the Vietnam vets who still hate her are sad cases. Hate Johnson; hate McNamera; hate the lying politicians. It's misdirected passion, a sign of not wanting to face up to reality.

But I don't fault the vets for their passions. We are all human. They deserve our compassion, even when the takes on reality get warped beyond reason. Jane Fonda did literally nothing. Those other guys did way too much.

Marlene Dietrich, a glamorous star of silent cinema, one of the most famous and popular actresses during 1930s - 1940s, was often accused of treason by her countrymen:

Link


Link


And yet:


Before I am eaten alive here I'd like to point out that in no way I am comparing the Nazi Germany with United States of 1972. However, most people here agree that the war in Vietnam was wrong and the United States was the aggressor. The point that many have expressed here is that it doesn't matter whether your country is right or wrong - you never turn against your fellow countrymen. Marlene Dietrich helped the allies - the same people who were shooting at her fellow countrymen. Let's not forget that most German soldiers were drafted, just like during the Vietnam era, and had to die in a monstrous war initiated by their leader regardless of their political sympathies. It was, without a doubt, very disheartening for them to see the most famous actress of their homeland dancing and singing for the American and British troops. She could have had refused to participate in Nazi propaganda machine a la Leni Riefenstahl, but wasn't it downright treasonous of her to openly aid people gunning for her countrymen? Was it honorable for Marlene Dietrich to do what she did? The public opinion nowdays seem to think so. The city of Berlin even issued the official apology to her on her 100th anniversary. If that is the case, what is the difference between her and Jane Fonda?

Should Jane Fonda be forgiven for her actions during the Vietnam War or
are some sins so serious they can never be apologized for?

Ahh....Hanoi Jane resurfaces again. As with all human activities, Fonda's actions are subject to differing interpretations. The problem is to find interpretations which suggest objectivity.
On the one hand, Fonda had every right under the concept of free speech to say what she did, and her actions pale in comparison the political machinations behind the Vietnam war. Her greatest sin would appear to be her choice of venue for exercising that right. It's one thing to voice dissent........it's quite another to travel willingly to the enemy's camp and voice that dissent. Whether or not she is contrite in her latest apology, nobody can say but her. But it could be a bit coincidental with the release of her book.

On the other hand, her actions did cause emotional injury to many Vietnam vets, and she has become the magnet for ire over the handling of the war by politicians, disagreement with anti-war protestors, and our pullout. (we lost the war, but we weren't militarily defeated)

That all being said, Jane Fonda is barely a blip on my radar, her book will not be read by me, as it ranks down the list with other self important celeb bio's and Kitty Kelly books.

I guess I would forgive Fonda for poor judgement, but I have compassion for my former brothers in arms who cannot forgive for whatever reason......they have been to a hell that I have not walked through, and I won't judge their feelings.

Should Jane Fonda be forgiven for her actions during the Vietnam War or
are some sins so serious they can never be apologized for?I have read all the earlier comments. I too remember Hanoi Jane, and like many here agree that she doesn't make much of a blip on my screen either. To me she is truly a nobody.

Having said that, I will now state that her actions during Vietnam went way before freedom of speech. Was it treason - heck yes and that's what I thought back in 1972. She should have been taken out and hung. Thirty-three years later, my opinion has not changed one bit. What she did is absolutely unforgivable and I think that I will not forget or forgive.

And I never said she was a "war expert". As a woman of 34 years, I would expect more common sense than that of a teenager. Giving "aid and comfort" (or whatever you choose to call it) to the enemy of your own free will should have been a no-brainer. I think this expresses it well:

And even as a 60-whatever year old woman, she still has no common sense. Writing a book about the whole experience, putting a different self-serving spin on it now that 30+ years have gone by and think that it won't open old wounds is just plain dumb. I suppose everyone has heard this story by now:

Should Jane Fonda be forgiven for her actions during the Vietnam War or are some sins so serious they can never be apologized for?

Jane Fonda is now 67-years-old. I assume her apology was made good faith. If some do not want to accept the apology, then that says more about them (some of whom didn't live through the hell of Vietnam and its aftermath) then it tells me about Fonda.

The reaction to Fonda's apology is yet another instance of diverting our attention from the real issues--the continued death toll in Iraq, Tom DeLay's behavior, creeping inflation, Social Security, the price of crude oil and gasoline, Bush's possible nominees to the Supreme Court and as well as other offices and the up and down fluctuations of the stock market. These diversions include, but are not limited to The Swift Boat Veterans, Terri Schiavo, the pope's illness, the pope's death and the selection of a new pope. Slinging around names like "Hanoi Jane" and "treason" have arrived just in time to afford conservatives another diversion. If they push this hard enough, it just might take some of the heat off Tom DeLay.

Well, for starters, Marlene Dietrich was an American citizen at the time. If she had been a citizen living in Germany, her fate would have obviously matched that of Sophie Scholl, who was executed by guillotine. Errol Flynn's career certainly came to a standstill for his support of the Nazis, and no one apologized to him. On the other hand, Jane received academy awards and is very rich today. That is the ill treatment some posters here are ranting about? BOO HOO.

Should Jane Fonda be forgiven for her actions during the Vietnam War or are some sins so serious they can never be apologized for?

When cases of torture began to emerge among POWs returning to the United States, Fonda called them liars. I'd say if I had been among the numerous tortured POWs during the war, it would be hard to forgive her. As for me, I don't have much of an opinion either way. I wouldn't invite her to eat at my table, or ask her for an autograph, or buy her book, but I don't have any major grudges with her personally.

Since I was not a veteran of that war, I can really just hold judgement on her. But, if I was put in the shoes of a vet, I suppose I would forgive her, but never forget. Personally, when I saw her apologize on Larry King, I couldn't help but thing that it was a little too convenient. I think it would be appropriate to move on, but that she should never be made to forget the anguish she's caused.

Should Jane Fonda be forgiven for her actions during the Vietnam War or are some sins so serious they can never be apologized for?


I'll consider ever feeling the least bit of annoyance with Jane Fonda's actions when Lt. Calley and all his kind are no longer walking free in America.

Until then, she did nothing while in Vietnam, or anywhere else, to so much as shake a finger at. Perhaps it's easier to look at Fonda's "Crimes" than it is to look at the crimes US soldiers, CIA, and officials carried out? Especially since the crimes continue in Iraq?

Should Jane Fonda be forgiven for her actions during the Vietnam War or are some sins so serious they can never be apologized for?

Well, clearly I wasn't even a glimmer in my parents' eyes during that war, but I do have an opinion on it.

My question would be - why does anyone still care? I mean seriously, if you still get riled up at the mere thought of Fonda 30+ years after a war then clearly you should really think about moving on with your life. That just isn't healthy. Whatever she did real or perceived, is history - 8th graders are reading about it in textbooks right now. They are probably reading the disney-ized version of it, but it is ancient history for all intents and purposes, no more real to them than the Romans.

The person quoted in this story really shouldn't be very proud of himself. You spit tobacco in the face of a woman... is that supposed to be something we should strive for? Come on.

The thing that is proven time and time again is that controversy sells. Look what it did for Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11. Look what it does for pundits of all political stripes for their books and radio shows. I'm sure Fonda is making her rounds on the apology circuit precisely because she knows that it'll create a buzz. She isn't apologizing because she feels she did something wrong (and from responses in this thread it appears she has already done so once), and she isn't apologizing so she can get old vets to buy and read her book. She is apologizing because it'll create controversy and maybe a few people from my generation will wonder why she is relevant and pick up her book, maybe. If for no other reason than to see what the next "end of the world injustice" is about.

In my opinion the whole thing is just annoying because it means that the media is going to take another excursion into the irrelevant for a few news cycles while the really important matters of the day go uncovered.

This is an instance like a Coulter situation where a spit in the eye or a pie in the face to me may just be appropriate although I would never personally support it.

She unlike John Kerry did give aid and comfort to the enemy. What she did was despicable.

Everyone can repent and she can be forgiven but like Robert Byrd in the KKK or Strom Thurmond raping a 15 year old it should never be forgotten or taken lightly.

Acknowledging your perfunctory response to the topic in question, might I inquire as to your reasoning?:



And why is that?



How exactly does it say "more about them (some of whom didn't live through the hell of Vietnam and It's aftermath) than it tells me about Fonda?"

What does it say about "them?"

What does it tell you about "Fonda?"...

Then you abandon the "topic" of "debate" (you know..as in "Off-Topic") and dismiss it as a "diversion" from the "real issues" as perhaps ordained by thee (self annointed supreme arbitor of that which constitutes "real" issues) as if there were not many other forums/topics to discuss such issues. Are these issues important as well? Sure! But I didn't see them listed in the question for debate! I suppose Tom Delay and Karl Rove conspired with Jane Fonda as to the timing of her recent book release/comeback tour?:



I suppose it could be construed as "constructive" if the purpose of debate here was to "spin" the discussion on very specific questions/threads into a long disjointed laundry list of a one person's official "important vs. non-important issues to discuss." Last time I looked, there was every opportunity and plenty of forums to introduce such topics.

As to my opinion regarding Jane Fonda... I was a toddler when she decided to fly halfway around the world and hang out with the North Vietnamese Communists who were trying to take over the entire Vietnamese Peninsula and impose that ideology on their neighbors (just as we were trying to impose our Capitalist Democracy on same). My Dad was in the Air Force stationed in Italy. My Mother had been discharged from the Marine Corps (would you believe it) for "Partying" (drinking) on base. Some of my earliest memories are of my Mother vociferously chatting with friends about "that pig Nixon!"

I don't remember actually hearing about the Fonda controversy until high school.
I simultaneously think that what she did was generally stupid and harmful to our soldiers, but also that she had the right to conduct her life as she chose. I think she had the right to do what she did and I also think everyone else has the right to respond and react to what she did (short of violating her rights with physical interference).

I was prepared to give her kudos when I heard she would not press charges against that spitting Nam Vet. But then I remembered that this occurred (coincidentally?) during a book tour/movie comeback. I'm not sure how tough a decision it really was to not press charges. Can you imagine the headlines if..."Hanoi Jane JAILS disabled Vietnam Veteran"

Having said that, as I understand it, Fonda is a born again Christian. And while I continue to be an agnostic (and voted "Forgive but Not Forget in the poll), over the years I have witnessed several friends and relatives discover their "Faith". And despite my cynical presumptions, in each and every one of them I sensed an honest and sincere desire to commit their every waking hour to loving their fellow man and doing right. So based upon personal experience, I'm going to "assume" she is sincerely sorry. If not, the term "obtuse" comes to mind.

All you pro-war people, especially military always want to go to your wars and then recieve tons of pity for doing so, even when half the world thinks its wrong. You expect noone to object, even when they object to abuse of power for the sake of specifically 'your lives' in the military.
Sometimes I think we should just let you go off and have your wars and your killing fantasies if thats what you want to do, but expect NOTHING of gratitude, pity or yellow ribbons because its really just your death wish, this killing thing- not ours, so do your bit and have at it, but dont pretend you do it for us, because you dont.

Jane Fonda never killed anyone, which cannot be said for those angry at her. She had a big mouth but she didnt have a gun and she didnt sheepishly march to slaughter other people because her government foolishly told her to do so.
People went there, murdered other people and had no idea what the hell they were doing it for and have no justifiable reason for doing so today, except they were pawns in their governments great lie, as usual. It must be a hard thing to deal with. Perhaps one time in history someone will just say NO.
Until that day, blaming Jane Fonda for what happened with the war, protest against the war, US government incompetance and ones own stupidity is just a pathetic attempt to elevate oneself to a level of meaning and superiority, when in fact there is none in this case. The soldiers were duped. Im sorry thats what happened. Concentrate on Fonda after 40 years if they like, it will not change the facts that they were lied to and used. Better to deal with that than keep lying to oneself and blaming someone else for some stupid acts o bravado. Im sure in the Vietnam Vet there are many heinous acts which time whould be better spent asking for forgiveness for oneself rather than placing blame on someone else.

First, my apologies for my delayed response; I was out of town.

No, she did not go to the enemy. We have had no enemies since August, 1945 because we have not been in a state of war since that time. Congress has not issued the legally required declaration of war, therefore no state of war existed, therefore no treason could be committed.

I agree that there is a larger moral issue here that is not so easily dismissed, but the issue of treason is a no-brainer. I remind you that the Administration of Richard Nixon, no bleeding-heart anti-American liberal he, never attempted to prosecute Ms. Fonda for treason. If even Richard Nixon wouldn't prosecute her for treason... well, you get the idea.

"emotional injury"? Are we to create a new class of sin, the injury arising from being exposed to beliefs we find objectionable? Am I justified in claiming injury from those on this forum who contradict my sage declarations? Is political speech to be declared a form of personal assault?

I think if you actually took the time, you would be hard pressed to find very many "Pro-War" people in the US Military.

Death wish? Was that really the motivation behind those who were DRAFTED to serve in Vietnam? I highly doubt it. As for my voluntary service in the US Military decades later, my goal was education in a trade, specifically electrical work. When a real war came to my door, I did not cheer, nor did I cower. I accepted my role in it as one I had chosen, when I volunteered to serve as a means to bettering my education. I swore an oath, and I honored it.

Did I want yellow ribbons, parades, etc.? Frankly no. I would have much preferred to remain assigned close to home and family, and never see this country in a war. However, when the country did goto war, regardless of the politics of it, it was my sworn duty, as a member of the US military at the time, to go.

When I decided to return to the military through the reserves, it was because of the Iraq situation heating up. However, I did so, not because of a death wish, nor because of a love of war. I did so because I had been a participant in the last war in the region, I felt we left the job unfinished, and I felt obligated to make my experience available because not doing so, in my mind, put more young kids at risk.

I would like to ask you one thing: What is the difference between you saying all those who served have a death wish, and someone else saying all those who dodged the draft were cowards? I don't see a difference, each statement is both nieve and bigoted.




You can really say with certainty that all those who served in Vietnam killed people? Blanket statements rarely contain the truth.




Yes she had a big mouth. And she had the right to use it. However, what she had to say damaged the opinion others had of her, just as what other protesters had to say did the same. But, she went a step further, she went and visited with the country and government we were fighting, she helped their propaganda machine and as a result, many who served in that conflict, who have resolved differences with most other protesters in regard to this war, can't quite find it within themselves to forgive her.

As for the charges of murder. Perhaps you should review the history of the region and see what the North Vietnamese regularly did to the South Vietnamese before leveling such charges. The most brutal side in this conflict was the North Vietnamese. We can argue about the need for America to involve herself there, though frankly, it would not be much of an argument as I would likely agree with you. But to paint every person who served over there as a murderer (which I guess is a tad better then baby-killer) is a dis-service to all those who served. Some crossed the line, unfortunately, that is something that can happen in war, but you are talking as if every vet of that conflict did so. That is inaccurate at best and a perfect example of bigoted thinking at worst.

It is obvious that you do not understand life in the Military. There is no such thing as free will, only following orders. To blame the soldiers for the actions of the politicians is a perfect example of what was wrong with the protesters of the vietnam war. Spit on a soldier who lived to come home, a man who was obligated to go, and chose to honor that obligation. Blame the man on the ground instead of the politician that sent him there.



You might want to re-think accusing others of superiority issues. It seems to me that problem is in full effect on both sides of this issue.



Sorry, but having family members who served and are still alive I can tell you that the vast majority are not "Concentrating on Jane Fonda". They won't be buying her book, and they do not spend time or money on her movies or what not, but outside of that, they really don't give her a thought.

How is this boycott of her by a good portion of the vets any different then a boycott of say Denny's Restaurants for various incidents of possible racism? The vast majority of Vietnam vets choose to treat her as just another thing they will not support because they disagree with her actions.

No one blames her for the war. That is ridiculous. Many have deep resentment for her actions during the war. In a free country, that is their right.

A VERY small minority take it too far. In the case of the guy spitting on her I hope he was charged with assault. Outside of actions such as that, any other protest or boycott that is peaceful is simply Americans choosing the exercise their first Amendment rights just as she choose to do thirty plus years ago.

Should they forgive her. That is up to them. However, consider this:

How many people do you know that still held Nixon in contempt all the way up to the day he died and beyond?

How many people do you know that still held Nixon in contempt all the way up to the day he died and beyond?



I will hold him in contempt until the day I die. He was ready to declare martial law, should the protestors get more out of hand. He was a traitor to the United States and should have been tried and sentenced as such.

Thank you for making my point. As can be seen above, Jane Fonda is not the only one held in contempt by the opposition decades past the offense.

I oppose fascism. Hence, I'm more inclined to sympathize with Fonda.

But it does seem the antiwar crowd is more inclined to forgive (not saying that's a good thing). When was the last time someone spit tobacco in Lt. Calley's face?

And while we're on the subject, why isn't Calley in prison where he and the others who participated in the My Lai massacre belong?

I hated, hated, HATED Richard Nixon with a passion that no president past or present has ever aroused within me.

But that doesn't mean I loved Jane Fonda.

Jane Fonda then reminds me of what MoveOn.org's type of liberalism is like today: Smug, arrogant and completely out of touch with the interests of common people. It's an elitist type of superiority where Fonda seemed to be saying, "You poor fools have been duped by the likes of LBJ and Nixon. But I have seen the light and I will make you see it too."

Jane Fonda was a fool to go to Vietnam. She was used by the North Vietnamese for propaganda purposes and nothing she did shortened the war by one damn day.

She had a right to her opinion. Then and now. But she never inspired me even in my most radical days. I thought Fonda never understood from up high in her ivory tower that while millions of Americans opposed the Vietnam War and wanted the troops out, the vast majority weren't going to sing the praises of Ho Chi Minh even if they disliked Tricky Dick Nixon.

It doesn't even things up for a ticked-off Vietnam Vet to spit tobacco juice into an old Hollywood actress trying to sell a biography. It's a crude, no-class move. Organizing a boycott of bookstores selling Fonda's bio or a peaceful protest wherever she appears would send a more effective message of anger and disdain for Fonda's previous words and deeds. Making her a victim does nothing but help sell more copies of the book.

If we've learned anything recently, it's that most people are tired of fighting the Vietnam War and tired of trying to assess blame on who lost it. John Kerry sure found that out.

I won't be reading Jane Fonda's book and I won't be seeing Monster-In-Law, but I won't spit on my television everytime her image flickers across the screen. I enjoyed Klute, Cat Ballou, The China Syndrome and They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, but I've no desire to rush out and watch the director's cut DVD. Jane Fonda is much more interesting for what she was, not for what she is.

We're not that far from the day when someone will ask her, "Didn't you use to be Jane Fonda?"

Turn the page. Move on.

I expect that if Calley wrote a book about his life, and showed up to a book signing he would not be warmly received by everyone (if anyone?). You're comparing apples to oranges. Mass murder to PR support. Yes, there are people in the world who have done horrible things. In fact, the North Vietnamese did too. This isn't a "who is more evil" contest, and if you can find a worse attrocity someone else is free and clear. Sexual harassment is wrong even though rape is worse. Nonviolent racism is wrong even though violent racism is worse. Fonda's conduct did hurt people. Some feel that she played a large part in the ill treatment they received when they came home from hell. She is famous, makes a good living from popular support, and some are still angry at her. Thus the topic question.

Instead of diving headfirst into a strawman, why don't you just debate the topic???? You can call it what you like, but the bottom line is, when you are in combat, and you see a fellow American posing on the very hardware used by the enemy to bring down your fellow countrymen, then to many Vietnam vets, it's emotional injury. Why don't you just refer to it as 'hurt feelings' or whatever will make you happy.

Artemise


It's a pity you can speak so eloquently on other topics, yet write so vacuously about something you quite obviously know nothing about in another. Unless you now expect or desire others to do the same to you on other topics which you have great interest and experience in......please do not attempt to speak for what we in the military expect, object to, desire, think or wish. Your post speaks volumes for what you don't know.

I'd like to question two aspects of this statement. First is the statement that she hurt people. Clearly, Ms. Fonda did not break any arms, bite any ears, or burn any toes. She hurt people's feelings. Why does this constitute a substantive claim in her case? If we are to hold against any person the possibility that his/her words might hurt somebody's feelings, we are going to make campus political correctness look anarchically indulgent.

Second, I question the notion that soldiers returning from Vietnam received ill treatment at the hands of those at home. This strikes me very much as popular mythology, a few random cases blown all out of proportion by those seeking to make political hay. I was on campus during the peak years of the antiwar movement, and as you might imagine almost all of us were passionately opposed to the war. Yet I never met a single person who held personal animus towards the soldiers themselves. I do not recall anybody using the term "baby killers". I certainly never met anybody who intimated in any way a desire to spit upon a soldier. We all had friends who were drafted and serving in Vietnam, and felt nothing but sympathy for them. My brother served in Vietnam, and he has never mentioned any experience of civilian mistreatment. I recently put just this question to a longtime friend, also a Vietnam veteran, who also reported no experiences of personal animosity directed towards him.

Yes, there were hotheads in the antiwar movement who hated everybody associated with the war and took it out on the soldiers. I never met any of these. Yes, there were soldiers, such as Lt. Calley, who deserved animus directed against them. But such cases were rare.


My comment is dead on topic. If we are to consider the question of forgiveness for Ms. Fonda, we must consider the character of the actions that supposedly require forgiveness. Her actions generated nothing worse than hurt feelings. If you wish to declare a principle that hurting another's feelings is a public sin requiring both public apology and public forgiveness, than I shall declare that your principle hurts my feelings, and will apply it to you, and we can hold a public discussion of your worthiness as a human being and determine whether you are morally bound to apologize to me and whether we shall forgive you. Is this crazy scenario not absurd enough to dissuade you?

Well, feelings can be hurt and people can be offended and that is the nature of life. Shall I assume then that you also believe that speech that is offensive or causes "hurt feelings" to those of color, a particular religion, sex, or sexual persuasion is equally benign?

First you say:



Then you follow with:



My uncle was an airplane mechanic. My uncle served honorably during Vietnam. My uncle returned home to be greeted by a raging group of protesters calling him all sorts of names, including "baby-killer". My uncle was spit on at that time. Later in the week my uncle had the misfortune of running into a group of "Pacifists" on the way to a bar. When they called him names, he told them where to go. They attacked him and beat him badly enough to cause him to spend the night in the hospital.

Since my Uncle, to the best of my knowledge, was never "in-country", was never in a position to kill someone, and most certainly never made it into the newspapers I am hard pressed to find a reason for such treatment.

It did happen, and it happened to men that did nothing more then follow the law and wear the uniform when they we called to do so. I did not happen to all of them, but it did happen.

Did all of the anti-war protesters act this way? Of course not. But then, the same can be said for the vast majority of the Vietnam Vets in regard to the spitting incident involving Mz. Fonda.

You reference Lt. Cayley again. I wonder, should we judge the entire Green Movement by the actions of the Unabomber in the same fashion that some would seem to choose to judge every Vietnam Vet by the actions of Lt. Calley?

Propaganda is a tactic used during wartime (by both sides) to impact morale. It is absolutely effective, which is why it is almost as old as the printing press. Loss of morale causes loss of life, and Fonda's recorded comments were also used by the North Vietnamese to dishearten POWs at a time when often hope was the only thing keeping them alive.

Edited to add: BTW, one of my brothers served in Vietnam, too (as did my father for three tours). They don't think the ill treatment soldiers received is a myth. They saw it firsthand.

***To nip it in the bud before I get a caustic response from anyone, I'm not suggesting that we eliminate freedom of speech. Jane was free to say what she did, even if it was used by the enemy. But I do believe she hurt people through her commentary. Propaganda can be more effective than a weapon at times, which is why it is so widely used.

What's absurd is the notion that you are basing your argument on the premise that Fonda is owed public forgiveness or non-forgiveness for her actions. She could kept out of the public eye and she wouldn't have generated any of the current rehashing of her controversial exploits.
She brought herself back under scrutiny, some are forgiving her, some are not, but she is entitled to neither in a legal aspect.

Thank you Mrs. P for bringing the propaganda aspect into the discussion. Many people use propaganda daily and don't realize it, and many do so overtly. Most don't realize the harm it can cause during a time of war, if done well.

We have long recognized the principle that there are valid constraints on free speech. We hold expressions of sexuality in some limited circumstances to be illegal, and in other cases to be improper, and in other cases to be acceptable. Similarly, we hold incitement to riot to be illegal. And we hold snide references to gender, race, religious faith, etc to be morally unacceptable. The principle in all cases is not that hurting people's feelings is wrong, but that hurting people's feelings without justification is wrong. And we grant political speech much higher standards of indulgence -- because it's impossible to draw a reasonable line on what constitutes morally acceptable political speech and what does not. The world is full of bigots who want to apply legal or moral sanctions on those who express poltical opinions they disagree with, claiming that such expressions hurt their feelings. Whether it is Nazis marching in Illinois, KKKers marching in St. Louis, communists, gays, hardhats, skinheads, or whatever, the claim that another person deserves condemnation because his/her political expressions hurt your feelings is common among bigots of all persuasions -- and it is undeserving of support from decent people. And no, I am not calling you a bigot, because you are not explicitly making such claims -- your logic is drifting dangerously towards that waterfall.

Both you and Mrs. Pigpen cite cases of relatives who received ill treatment upon returning home. Well and good; you have two or three anecdotes to support your claim and I have two anecdotes to deny it -- all of which adds up to a wash. I realize that no proper statistical database of such events was ever compiled, so I suppose that we cannot arrive at a clear statement of how prevalent such behavior was. I remain skeptical because it's just too easy to misattribute any altercation to whatever cause a participant chooses. If two guys get into a fight in a bar, is it because one has long hair or the other is wearing a uniform? Who started it? There was lots of antipathy back then between hawks and doves; I remember an occasion back then where I feared for my safety merely because I was in the presence of a goodly number of off-duty military chaps who had taken notice of my long hair. Those were passionate times, and claims of victimization by those on either side are easily blown out of proportion.


Certainly not -- and I certainly do not judge every Vietnam vet by the actions of Lt. Calley.

This is certainly a dilemma, and your argument was used during the Vietnam war to condemn all criticism of the war. The problem with your argument is that it cannot provide any reasonable limit to speech. If we accept the claim that any expression of uncertainty about our policy can be used as propaganda by our opponents, and that such propaganda results in physical injury to our soldiers, then there is no logical alternative to banning all such political expression. There is no way to draw a line and say, "THIS political speech is critical of our policy and can be used by our opponents as propaganda, but it's gentle enough that we can overlook it -- but THAT political speech is critical of our policy and can be used by our opponents as proganda, and it is too harsh and so deserves condemnation."

There are those who claim that, once the nation has decided to go to war, then we must all close ranks behind that effort and nobody should criticize it. There are two flaws in this reasoning. First, while it has merit in the case of a congressionally declared war, it is much weaker in the case of an executive action decided upon by the President and merely acquiesced to by the Congress.

Second, "the nation" consists of everybody in this country, not just those who decide to go to war. "The nation" has never decided to go to war; there were isolationists and pacifists even during World War II. The majority may decide to go to war, and that's perfectly correct and proper. But, having made that decision, the majority is very much in the wrong to claim some sort of moral or political absolute correctness to their decision. If it was questionable before the vote, it's just as questionable after the vote, and pretending otherwise don't make it so.

The nation was divided over Vietnam; it would not have been prudent to stifle the cumulative wisdom of a significant minority -- later a majority -- of the population. Politics is healthy only in a climate of healthy political debate; cutting off debate renders us vulnerable to serious policy errors. And in fact our military effort in Vietnam WAS a serious policy error; Jane Fonda's basic thesis was sound, although some of the details of her presentation were questionable.


Say what? It is absurd of me [to base my argument on the premise that (Fonda is owed public forgiveness or non-forgiveness for her actions)]? Let me chop that sentence down to a more manageable size: "It is absurd to assume that Fonda is owed a yes or no." Huh? Would you expand your meaning here?

She publicized her book and therefore some forgive and some don't but she is entitled to neither forgiveness or non-forgiveness in a legal sense? Are you arguing that this is not a legal matter and therefore, there's nothing to discuss? I agree that the matter of forgiveness is a moral issue, not a legal one -- but I don't understand what you're driving at.

Propaganda can also be used to aim anger at the wrong group. To make war protestors the scapegoats for the war, and not those who drafted men and forced them to go in the first place, and not soldiers who are war criminals and who aren't being prosecuted (because their actions were acceptable to those responsible for prosecuting and sentencing). Propaganda can and is used to make us look superior to others. Propaganda was used in Nazi Germany, too. Lt. Calley and all those who participated in these atrocities shouldn't have to come out with a book deal to be remembered and considered. What they did was vile beyond words, and the fact that they aren't in prison is something every American should think deeply upon. And the fact that it's happening in Iraq, as I type this, and civilians and soldiers who weren't dumb enough to take pictures are getting off with administrative punishment instead of being perpwalked into US courts and/or court martials should be considered, too. What does it mean when someone beats a man to death and gets off with little or no punishment? It means the ones who would otherwise be doing the punishing sanctioned his or her behavior. And if our nation's rulers sanction this behavior, what does that make them? And shouldn't we then look at the propaganda they push (their press releases, statements, and embedded journalists), and ask ourselves, "How much like Nazi Germany are we today? How much like Nazi Germany will we be tomorrow?"

Instead, the press is having a big hurrah about Jane Fonda. And that, too, is propaganda.


And my Lt. Calley thread is gone, too. And that is censorship. It was a legitimate question and made a legitimate point. Guess it wasn't a point this board's moderators want people discussing. Why?

As I said, I am not denying Jane her right to free speech. This thread is in regards to the consequences she has received for her speech. I maintain that she used her influence and fame to hurt some people via propaganda. Jane Fonda did propagandize on behalf of the North Vietnamese government. She declared that American POWs were being treated humanely (when many were not) and condemned U.S. soldiers as "war criminals". Later she denounced them as liars for claiming they had been tortured. Is wartime propaganda effective? Yes, it’s recognized as one critical element of military strategy.

John McCain said, "These people, Ramsey Clark, Tom Hayden, and Jane Fonda, were on the side of the North Vietnamese. I think she only saw eight selected prisoners. I was beaten unmercifully for refusing to meet with them." Now, did Jane personally beat him? No, but I think it’s inaccurate to say she had nothing to do with it.

So you claim that some moral culpability attaches to Ms. Fonda for the torture of Mr. McCain. I deny this, because I claim that moral culpability arises from intent. No intent on the part of Ms. Fonda to contribute to the torture of Mr. McCain is evident from her actions. Therefore, there is no moral culpability.

The concept of "moral negligence" might be adduced to attach moral culpability to Ms. Fonda. That is, she didn't intend to have Mr. McCain tortured, but that was the result of her actions, and she should have known that it would be the result of her actions. I deny this claim as well. There is nothing intrinsic to her decision to meet with prisoners to suggest that this would lead to the torture of some prisoners.

Should Fonda Be Forgiven?

Yes, I beleive she should be forgiven, even if what she did is not forgotten. People do stupid, thoughtless, hurtful things when they are young. She's apologised for it repeatedly, that's really all she can do. I know many vets will go to their graves hating her for what she said, some because her "war criminals" claim defamed them but others...because it defined them. What she said and did was hurtful and wrong, it broadbrushed all vets as war criminals but let's be honest for a moment, some of them WERE war criminals. Fonda in her youth made the mistake often made by the young...extremist views. In painting all military personel as war criminals she hurt their morale, their pride and their honor. At that age Fonda (and many other young Americans) failed to distinguish the fact that most soldiers were decent, brave young men pressed into horrible conditions and attempting to stay alive, while only a small group of soldiers commited atrocities.

Personally, I would have sided with the Vietnamese people, too. Our atrocities were far greater than their's, and there is some evidence that the CIA actually paid sabateurs to blow up bombs in civilian areas and blame the North Vietnamese for it. It is certain that many of the 'atrocities' committed by the N. Vietnamese existed only in the sick mines of CIA agents. However, atrocities were without a doubt carried out by both sides. I hate to measure torture, murder, rape, and the mass killing of civilians by degree. One incident a war criminal makes, and one incident excused by a nation's leaders makes war criminals of all who excuse it. However, if I had to choose a side, I would not have sided with America. The war was wrong, millions died, and lives on both sides were crushed and ruined.


There are plenty of Vets who feel much as I do. Happens most of these vets don't have an unkind word to say about Fonda or other war protestors. But those vets aren't safe targets for the media (God help the media if they harass these guys, and God help the person foolish enough to spit tobacco in their faces), so everyone goes after Jane Fonda instead.

http://www.vvaw.org/


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pilger_J...nam_Heroes.html

Actually, I asked the question to:

A> Solicit an Answer
B> Get a better understanding of your position

I personally do not think that speech should be limited in anyway (short of yelling fire or bomb in a crowded area), other then how an individual chooses to limit it to avoid public condemnation. I also oppose hate speech laws, rules, etc. The public has done a fine restricting this sort of speech by reacting appropriately to it. When the government starts to react to it, it's not hard to envision this process being abused to eventually restrict, or punish exercises of free speech simply because it is in opposition to the government.

My Logic, is simply that speech that is political or opinion in nature should be free of government constraints, regardless of the fact that it may "hurt the feelings" of others. However, those that feel hurt by these expressions of free speech are also free to respond, and act accordingly. Obviously the spitting incident is not speech, it is assault, and the gentleman should be prosecuted. But other actions such as peaceful protest, vocalizing distain, boycotting products and services,, etc, is a perfect example of free expression in action.



It is quite possible that this is overblown. I have no idea what the frequency of these events were, I was extremely young at the time. However, you stated:



I was responding to the first two parts of this. It happened, at least to my uncle, thus it is not a myth.

As for the last part I went on to say:



I thought I was being pretty clear in stating that:

A> I do not think all anti-war protestors acted this way
B> I do not think this sort of thing happened to EVERY service member returning from Vietnam.

One point you make, that I wish I had added, is that the reverse was also true. Anti-War protesters did find themselves on the receiving end of hateful comments and outright violence at times as well. Be it against returning service members, or against anti-war protesters conduct like this is simply wrong.