Hanoi Jane speaks out at rally

[Raptorex]

 

[EnderJE]

You are right. absolutely. I was not trying to kill anyone when I was inducted.

lmao

 

[redguru]

At the time he was still a Naval Reserve LT and that rally was sponsored by FTA. Also, during this same period he attempted to sue for peace with Hanoi in a secret meeting in France, which is punishable under the UCMJ.

This picture however is fictitious.

This one however, is real

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp

 

[Raptorex]

 

[Raptorex]

 

[Raptorex]

LOLOLOLOLOL, my favorite.

 

[redguru]

LOLOLOLOLOL, my favorite.

AMPHIBIAN-EATING SURRENDER MONKEES.

 

[Raptorex]

AMPHIBIAN-EATING SURRENDER MONKEES.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

This whole thread is sickening, it brings back bad memories. this last comment makes me want to puke. and this guy Jacob, why are you so quick to condemn your country and it's military and not the islamic fascists? fellow i don't know what your age is but if you want to know about real torture check out what the japs did in ww2. we must be defeated in iraq, the left in this country and the democrat party have invested their very survival in our defeat and with their willing accomplices in the press they will make sure it happens.

I have not condemned my country. I condemn the people who's policies condemn this country. I also know I am not omniscent and my opinion can change when someone proves me wrong. I know the Japanese tortured Americans during WWII, but I also know Americans torture POWs and that is not affected by what the Japanese did in WWII. I also know America adopted a racist policy of internment during WWII and rounded up Japanese citizens in camps for it's 'protection'. I fall neither neatly into the left nor the right. I'm an anarchon-capitalist that sees history as a series of duplicating cycles and that many governments and successful political movements commit attrocities under the guise of the 'common good' and will take people they view as peons and place them in the battlefield as cannon fodder for their ideas or profit. I don't much doubt Jane would rationalize the justice of my head sawed off if she thought it would promote her vision of utopia, nor do I doubt would Dick Cheney, nor Hilary Clinton, nor do I doubt the Islamic fascists. I think religion is for the brainwashed, cowards, intellectual weaklings, or the lonely. I condemn many of the protesters for being sheep, but sheep from a different flock. I don't doubt a large percentage will become what they hate, nor realize how closely they resemble what they hate. I care more about bodybags filled with people then I do about the ideology that put them in the bodybags. I philosophically oppose the communist party, they are my anti-christ. I believe the United States can ideologically function as a beacon of individuality, but we encounter the universal problem of the will to power. Men in power have similar goals, and hence similar actions: maintain or expand that power. Now feel free to attack me where I really stand and not your preconceived notion of 'Liberal vs. Conservative'.

 

[Gambino]

You can call it worse even though you claim it is only possible, but you cannot claim I am wrong in saying Vietnam has nothing to do with Iraq. First you quote me as saying, "I don't get what this has to do with Iraq. Isn't it the US that constantly gets caught torturing Iraqis? It's not like the situation in Vietnam where people somehow managed to blame Fonda for American POW torture through a bizzare series of twisted logical steps." When I defend the relevant context of my position you reinvent the past, and claim you quoted and focus only on the single detail of how it differs " I don't get what this has to do with Iraq. Isn't it the US that constantly gets caught torturing Iraqis?" You are missing the relative context of the argument, "I do not get what this has to do with Iraq." You chose to focus on, "... Isn't it the US that constantly gets caught torturing Iraqis?" Then when I defend that, you backpedal and try to deflect from that argument and state, "I would call the possible deaths of US soldiers worse than torture. We just differ in opinions, I hope she protects you well in the future." in a weak attempt to attribute unpopular thoughts to me which are not in evidence. You can call it worse, but you also admit it only possible that she is guilty of American deaths, but never debate the most relevant idea, "What does this have to do with Iraq?" I stated previously that I thought Fonda was grossly stupid in her actions during Vietnam. I never defended anything Fonda does or did, nor do I look at her as my defender. What I do say is this, "How does Fonda's actions in Vietnam have any bearing on the veracity of her statements regarding Iraq."

people so desperatley want "iraq" to equal "vietnam"
I can see you don't, cheers to that.

and doing anything legally to fonda would only make the situation worse.
she would turn into a cheezy liberal martyr and the bluepeters/hr's/AAP's of the world would never shut up about her