Are war critics helping the enemy?

[bob_kark]

Clearly, Fonda was more than a critic. Your suggestion is that there is something analogous between Jane Fonda visiting and giving comfort to the VietCong and criticizing American foreign policy. There is not.

No, my remark would have more to do with her calling US military leaders "War Criminals," posing with North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners, even peering into the sights of an anti-aircraft artillery launcher used against US soldiers, and posing with US POWs while the POWs were forced to deny that they were tortured and denounce the US role in Vietnam:

Fonda apparently didn't notice (or care) that the POWs were delivering their lines under duress or find it unusual the she was not allowed to visit the prisoner-of-war camp (commonly known as the "Hanoi Hilton") itself. She merely went home and told the world that "[the POWs] assured me they were in good health. When I asked them if they were brainwashed, they all laughed. Without exception, they expressed shame at what they had done." She did, however, charge that North Vietnamese POWs were systematically tortured in American prison-of-war camps.

When the POWs did return home and reported the torture they suffered, Fonda claimed that we should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars" and that they were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest." She also made radio brodcasts denouncing US foreign policy for the North Vietnamese.

So, I'm not claiming "that there is something analogous between Jane Fonda visiting and giving comfort to the VietCong and criticizing American foreign policy." I'm stating that she did criticise American foreign policy and as a result, the enemy gained morale and US troops lost morale. She also legitamized, or attempted to, the North Vietnamese position in the war and their treatment of POWs. In addition, when, if really, these troops did make it home she made sure that they would not be welcome by many. Now, she had quite a bit of help in doing this, but again, she legitamized their discrimination.

For the record, I am not comparing this to criticism of the war in Iraq. As I stated before, I see questioning the reasons behind going to war and the execution of the war as keeping our system of checks and balances in place. Our President should have to answer to the people when he makes questionable decisions. I was merely answering the question placed with one example I knew of.

 

[a_unique_person]

????

Where are the American Indians today? Aztecs? Incas? Didn't the Normans invade France and take it over? Our whole history is comprised of countries invading other countries and consuming them. I'd say your premise is questionable.

Lurker

and if you look at many of the long running problems in the world today, they are the result of such actions. The only way to create a peaceful solution in the long run is to usually wipe out the original inhabitants.

 

[RandFan]

So, how much did she actually help the enemy?

How much? I'm not sure how much but it is clear that she "helped" them. Why is the degree so important to you?

From your (Snopes) link.

Her actions, offensive as they were to many, were primarily of propaganda value only.

How important was propaganda to Vietnam? I would argue that propaganda was vital to the North Vietnamese. How important Fonda's efforts were to the North Vietnamese is a difficult thing to gauge.

It is also undeniable that some American soldiers came to harm as a direct result of Fonda's actions, an outcome she should reasonably have anticipated.

That being said, that I would not have stopped Fonda. I think free speech to important.

 

[DavidJames]

Not sure. We were obtusing each other up to our ying yangs in that other thread before we finally understood each other, so I might be almost out.

Not me, I gots obtuse oozing out my walls.

I'll try again. You said, "If I was fighting a war and I saw my opponents squabbling over their participation, no doubt I would feel some level of comfort." The President said, ""But one way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way, and the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an enemy." I read that as the two of you being in agreement. So are you saying that his statement is accurate but he shouldn't make it, or what?

I will agree (as I have already) that squabbling at home can be interpreted by others as indecision and may prolong the fighting. But I also feel the alternative, squashing dissent, is far worse. What's the point of fighting for freedom and democracy if we aren't allowed to exhibit it. Note: By "allowed" I'm not saying anyone is preventing it, but by framing dissent as aligning with or providing comfort to, the enemy, is undemocratic and un-American.

 

[DavidJames]

you've assumed I must have particular views about a political event that happend during the Clinton presidency. Not only does it not have any bearing on this thread, you're not even close to the mark about what my opinions on the matter were. I suggest you ask yourself why you felt it necessary to include those remarks. The blind partisanship here isn't coming from me, it's coming from you.

I suggest you stop assuming.

The topic of the thread is "Are war critics helping the enemy? ". I was making an example of what you are apparently trying to find, a smoking gun of Bush saying something. A nuance which I see you failed to grasp, my bad. I was showing a pattern of behavior by the Bush administration, subtle ways of framing the debate. Not unlike that despite the huge number of Americans who believe Saddam was behind 9/11, apologists claim the administration never said that. Son of gun, they're right, no such quote can be found, yet the belief is there. The apologist may respond that Americans believe in all sorts of weird things to which I agree. Why do they believe, because there are charlatans selling them. No different here.

 

[Mycroft]

Sweet Jesus in a chicken basket. I am taking the position that nothing is more important than maintaining our liberties. Are you seriously taking the position that Freedom of Speech should be eliminated to protect Bush's war policy?

Let me point out that nobody is threatening your freedom of speech. Rather, what GWB does is he reminds you of the consequences of utilizing your freedoms in specific ways. If this freedom were being taken away from you, it would be taken away by men with guns, not one man making a speech.

 

[Mycroft]

and if you look at many of the long running problems in the world today, they are the result of such actions. The only way to create a peaceful solution in the long run is to usually wipe out the original inhabitants.

I call BS.

The Normans may have taken over, but they didn't wipe anybody out. The descendents of the Aztecs, the Incas and the American Indians are still alive today. There is no evidence to support your claim.

 

[gnome]

Let me point out that nobody is threatening your freedom of speech. Rather, what GWB does is he reminds you of the consequences of utilizing your freedoms in specific ways. If this freedom were being taken away from you, it would be taken away by men with guns, not one man making a speech.

Can I stop short of Godwin's law if I point out that one sign that the men with guns may eventually emerge, is attempting to rally public opinion to the idea that criticizing the leader is treason?

I don't know about you, but it scares the hell out of me.

 

[Mephisto]

Well, you know we would have won in Viet Nam if it weren't for those pesky war protestors.

The fact that a foreign power can almost never invade and then hold a country---once the indigenous population has risen up against them---has nothing to do with it. Ask England about India. Or France about Viet Nam for that matter.

Well, I'll use one that is frequently used on me:

THERE ARE NO PARALLELS BETWEEN VIET NAM AND IRAQ!

Many people here (and in r/t) have used this when I mention the two together, but I'm now beginning to understand what they are saying, which is basically, "Bush supported the war in Viet Nam, but didn't want to go into combat, whereas now he supports the war in Iraq (and still doesn't want to go), but he's willing to send YOUR SON (or daughter) into combat.

Personally, I believe you haven't fully considered the meaning of, "Freedom of Speech," if you:

A. believe that dissent is disloyalty

B. believe that disagreement regarding any government policy is injurious.

C. believe that the words liberal or conservative say everything there is to know about a person

D. hold a public office and routinely hold meetings among the citizenry, BUT include only those people who have been carefully screened and agree with ALL your policies.

E. support torturing other human beings for ANY reason

F. were voted into the highest office of the land only to distrust the citizens who put you there enough to secretly spy on their telephone conversations and their email.

(edited to add) How can an administration that is guilty of so many wrong things, point a finger at ME and say that I'm helping the insurgency by using my freedom of speech to voice my opinion?

 

[Ziggurat]

Not unlike that despite the huge number of Americans who believe Saddam was behind 9/11, apologists claim the administration never said that. Son of gun, they're right, no such quote can be found, yet the belief is there.

Here in the real world, I like to hold people accountable for what they ACTUALLY say. But I guess if you want to use different standards than that, well, I'm sure you can come to all sorts of fun conclusions.

But tell me: do you even know if the belief Iraq was involved went up or down since 9/11? Without that, you can't even establish a correlation between Bush's statements and public opinion, let alone a causation. Not much of an argument.

 

[Beerina]

Well, I'll use one that is frequently used on me:

THERE ARE NO PARALLELS BETWEEN VIET NAM AND IRAQ!

Many people here (and in r/t) have used this when I mention the two together, but I'm now beginning to understand what they are saying, which is basically, "Bush supported the war in Viet Nam, but didn't want to go into combat, whereas now he supports the war in Iraq (and still doesn't want to go), but he's willing to send YOUR SON (or daughter) into combat.

Personally, I believe you haven't fully considered the meaning of, "Freedom of Speech," if you:

A. believe that dissent is disloyalty

B. believe that disagreement regarding any government policy is injurious.

It can indeed be injurious. Words have effect. That's why free speech is front and center in the first ammendment.

This was the point of my earlier post about responsibility and speech. Yes, you have free speech, but don't pretend it can't have a bad effect just to give you a clear conscience to blather onward.

 

[rikzilla]

Not at all, the piece of land called Normandy was given to the Viking chief Rollo if he promised to stop raiding them. From Rollo came the Norman Dynasty.

Given as ransom in battle, yes. Invasion and taking over the country, no.

Then what of the Danes that invaded Northumbria, Mercia, and East Anglia? If not for Alfred the Great they'd have taken Wessex too. Then later in history the English invaded and subjugated Scotland and Wales. These invasions were all very successful...to this day those old Saxon kingdoms are know as the "Danelaw".

Those Vikings! They were ruthless....and ruthlessness often wins wars when forces are otherwise equally matched.

-z

 

[Mark]

(edited to add) How can an administration that is guilty of so many wrong things, point a finger at ME and say that I'm helping the insurgency by using my freedom of speech to voice my opinion?

The quick answer is that they have a hardcore of faithful who will believe/justify/spin anything they say or do no matter what. For those people, patriotism equals support of Bush and the Republicans, period.

 

[rikzilla]

The quick answer is that they have a hardcore of faithful who will believe/justify/spin anything they say or do no matter what. For those people, patriotism equals support of Bush and the Republicans, period.

The even quicker answer is that GWB has a free speech right to criticize Mephisto et al. Free speech is a sword that cuts both ways.

-z

 

[Mark]

The even quicker answer is that GWB has a free speech right to criticize Mephisto et al. Free speech is a sword that cuts both ways.

-z

Strawman, Rik. No one said he didn't have the right to say stupid things...clearly he does and uses that right at every opportunity.

 

[rikzilla]

So, how much did she actually help the enemy?

Keep in mind, I'm not the one who brought up Fonda. I ask if there many examples of critics actually helping the enemy?

Well there is this from that Snopes article:

On the one hand, Jane Fonda provided no tangible military assistance to the North Vietnamese: she divulged no military secrets, she gave them no money or material, and she did not interfere with the operations of the American forces. Her actions, offensive as they were to many, were primarily of propaganda value only. On the other hand, Iva Ikuko Toguri (also known as "Tokyo Rose") was convicted of treason for making propaganda broadcasts on behalf of the Japanese during World War II (although she claimed her betrayal was forced and was eventually pardoned many years later by President Gerald Ford), and Fonda's efforts could fall under the definition of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." It is also undeniable that some American soldiers came to harm as a direct result of Fonda's actions, an outcome she should reasonably have anticipated.

What Jane did was actual treason. She aided the enemy during war time in a direct way through overt propaganda. In my view dissent must be protected in a free society...but travelling to an enemy nation and crafting propaganda for them crosses the line between protected dissent and treason. I don't really see much difference between what Jane did and what Taliban-Johnny did except perhaps by degree of involvement with the enemy.



-z

 

[rikzilla]

Strawman, Rik. No one said he didn't have the right to say stupid things...clearly he does and uses that right at every opportunity.

As do you...

I was also addressing your quote of my friend Mephisto:

(edited to add) How can an administration that is guilty of so many wrong things, point a finger at ME and say that I'm helping the insurgency by using my freedom of speech to voice my opinion?

Like I said...the shorter answer is that GWB has every right to characterize his opponents in any way short of calumny that he wishes...just like Mephisto.

-z

 

[Mark]

As do you...

I was also addressing your quote of my friend Mephisto:


Like I said...the shorter answer is that GWB has every right to characterize his opponents in any way short of calumny that he wishes...just like Mephisto.

-z

And again, no one questioned his right to do so...merely that by doing so he was being hypocritical...or at least dead wrong.

Btw, I am not certain (I am not a military lawyer) if Jane Fonda's Viet Nam fiasco sank to the level of treason or not...but it was certainly ill advised and idiotic. It was also 35 years ago, so I have no clear idea what it is doing in this discussion...

 

[rikzilla]

And again, no one questioned his right to do so...merely that by doing so he was being hypocritical...or at least dead wrong.

Btw, I am not certain (I am not a military lawyer) if Jane Fonda's Viet Nam fiasco sank to the level of treason or not...but it was certainly ill advised and idiotic. It was also 35 years ago, so I have no clear idea what it is doing in this discussion...

Mephisto questioned his right to do so:

(edited to add) How can an administration that is guilty of so many wrong things, point a finger at ME and say that I'm helping the insurgency by using my freedom of speech to voice my opinion?

While I don't think he questioned Bush's Constitutional right to do so....he did phrase his statement as a question. I believe he meant it as a rhetorical question implying a moral answer that he (Bush) has no moral right...but it's a question which can be taken in other ways and doesn't really work well as rhetoric.

That's all I'm pointing out...no straw intended.

-z

 

[Mephisto]

It can indeed be injurious. Words have effect. That's why free speech is front and center in the first ammendment.

This was the point of my earlier post about responsibility and speech. Yes, you have free speech, but don't pretend it can't have a bad effect just to give you a clear conscience to blather onward.

Oh, but I'm not talking about something as serious as revealing the name of a CIA spy, nor am I talking about releasing information that points to the administration illegally spying on American citizens, I'm talking about our rights as American citizens to disagree with administration policies.

To equate spreading dissent over policies regarding the torture of prisoners with screaming "Fire" in a crowded theater is precisely what this administration wants - to demonize the use of Constitutional guaranteed free speech when it reflects badly on themselves.