Hanoi Jane speaks out at rally

[heatherrae]

It doesn't fail. Fondas past is brought up to detract from the real issue. Are you the same person you were 34 years ago? The name of the thread is "Hanoi Jane speaks out at rally", not "Hanoi Jane speaks out at rally and all the protests are negated because we have pics of the stupid bitch entertaining Viet cong from almost 40 years ago." It's a thinly veiled attempt at a smear campaign in an attempt to negate arguments against American presence in Iraq and that's the logic that fails.

Even if she is the same person, her arguments against Iraq should be weighed by their current merit and the veracity of the statements, not pictures of Fonda sitting on an anti-aircraft gun almost 4 decades ago. That is my point. It's not relevant that the people torturing the Iraqis are caught. It's more relevant that they tortured Iraqis. By virtue of the fact we know the Vietcong tortured POWs means that the Viet Cong were caught and that does not negate anyone's responsibility to what was done in the past or done in the present. The current situation in Iraq has nothing to do with Vietnam. What Fonda did during Vietnam has nothing to do with what is currently going on in Iraq.

If she was a spy for the Vietcong, then she should be tried for treason. However, I don't think there was any evidence that she was. By your very use of language you tip your hand that this is mere speculation. Her going over there and making an asshole of herself by entertaining etc just makes her dumb.

 

[mountain muscle]

No, but I see people burning her at the cross, but leaving the others who have committed the same crime free. Is one okay and the other one not?

Again, based on the definition that you've provided, I agree that she's guilty and should be hung. Then again, I also think that all missionaries, the Red Cross, and any Aid foundation should also be hung for the same reason. You can't apply the rules to one person and not another.

I am glad you agree about her.

Now link proof of the other's treason too please. I want to see who we are letting off.

While you're at it explain how the US Constitution has governance over an international organization. Since we are talking about a solitary citizen.

 

[EnderJE]

I am glad you agree about her.

Now link proof of the other's treason too please. I want to see who we are letting off.

Sure, google "red cross vietnam war" and I get the following links...

http://www.google.ca/search?q=red+c...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The first one is http://www.illyria.com/vnwredcross.html. Looking at http://www.illyria.com/vnwmany.html#Civilian Nurses , they've got stories of the people who they have helped and hurt.

If they aided the enemy (like Marion Mullin and Pat Walsh *seemed* to do), then they should also be hung, correct?

 

[mountain muscle]

Sure, google "red cross vietnam war" and I get the following links...

http://www.google.ca/search?q=red+c...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The first one is http://www.illyria.com/vnwredcross.html. Looking at http://www.illyria.com/vnwmany.html#Civilian Nurses , they've got stories of the people who they have helped and hurt.

If they aided the enemy (like Marion Mullin and Pat Walsh *seemed* to do), then they should also be hung, correct?

did you link anything to US citizens?

 

[EnderJE]

I am glad you agree about her.

Now link proof of the other's treason too please. I want to see who we are letting off.

While you're at it explain how the US Constitution has governance over an international organization. Since we are talking about a solitary citizen.

The international organization has members that are citizens of all nations. Some of those citizens belong to the US. Are you saying that the US constitutions is second place to the rules of the international organization and that the US citizens are not subjected to the constitution if they are acting on behalf of the international organization?

I don't see what the problem is. If the treason is defined as you have defined it and apply to all subjects in a country, then what's the problem?

 

[mountain muscle]

One other thing Ender,

While you're linking red cross bs. Did any of them make millions in the us, as us citizens, and photograph themselves on enemy warcraft in their uniforms, for the benefit of the enemy, thousands of miles from their homeland?

 

[mountain muscle]

The international organization has members that are citizens of all nations. Some of those citizens belong to the US. Are you saying that the US constitutions is second place to the rules of the international organization and that the US citizens are not subjected to the constitution if they are acting on behalf of the international organization?

I don't see what the problem is. If the treason is defined as you have defined it and apply to all subjects in a country, then what's the problem?

Do you have any clue as to what the red cross does? You're argument is non existant.

 

[EnderJE]

One other thing Ender,

While you're linking red cross bs. Did any of them make millions in the us, as us citizens, and photograph themselves on enemy warcraft in their uniforms, for the benefit of the enemy, thousands of miles from their homeland?

Ah, now you've missed the point. At least be consistent.

You've stated how treason is defined (albeit slightly loosely). I got that. Given the definition that you've provided, I agree that she should be tried and hung. I asked about others. You asked for links and I found some. What's the problem?

All I'm saying is that there were others. If you hang one, then you must hang them all, shouldn't you?

I don't care about the specifics of what she did over the others because they all fall within the definition of treason that you provided. What's the problem?

Like I said, I'm agreeing with you. I'm just saying that we shouldn't stop there.

Now if you wanted to hang her for making shitty movies, then fine.

 

[redguru]

Ah, now you've missed the point. At least be consistent.

You've stated how treason is defined (albeit slightly loosely). I got that. Given the definition that you've provided, I agree that she should be tried and hung. I asked about others. You asked for links and I found some. What's the problem?

All I'm saying is that there were others. If you hang one, then you must hang them all, shouldn't you?

I don't care about the specifics of what she did over the others because they all fall within the definition of treason that you provided. What's the problem?

Like I said, I'm agreeing with you. I'm just saying that we shouldn't stop there.

Now if you wanted to hang her for making shitty movies, then fine.

The Red Cross/Red Crescent is recognized by treaty (the Geneva Conventions) to which we are a signatory, constitutionally we couldn't.

 

[EnderJE]

Do you have any clue as to what the red cross does? You're argument is non existant.

I understand what the Red Cross does. Your definition includes the comment about helping the enemy. It does not make a reference about humanitarian purposes. Thus, I understand that all efforts that would be seen as helping the enemy (whether by intelligence, food, water, doctors).