RE: Jane Fonda

RE: Jane Fonda (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Moloch -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 12:43:01 PM)
What are you smoking IRAQ invaded OUR ally, the ally that provides us oil. With such things as "years before he ever stole the White House" I tend to think that you are way too biased and unreasonable. Maybe I see it wrong but you soudn like a rabid communist.

caitlyn -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 12:50:29 PM)
Question: In 1898, what did the occupation of the Philippine Islands have to do with the "liberation" of the poor Cuban people? Our history is full of instances where we trump up wars, to get our way across the globe. That isn't an anti-American statement, just a realistic one. We are no different than the historical model of any other hyper-powerful country.

JohnWarren -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 12:55:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsMacComb quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren I wonder if she's forgotten Germany and Japan. I suppose Truman didn't occupy them, but if so, he sure fooled the Germans and the Japanese. Hell, for a while back there, the US Marines almost literally owned Haiti.... so much so, that when President Roosevelt came to visit, the local band struck up "The Hymn" thinking it was the US anthem. quote: John, I seem to recall something pertaining to Japan and Pearl Harbor. Obviously the US has assisted, and yes instigated, in other "political actions" and wars. I don't think comparing our "situation" with Japan in the 40s has anything to do with Bush invading Iraq. Your complete statement was "Kerry? What does he have to do with anything? Dumbfuck Bush is the only president to invade and occupy another country. Do you even read the papers? Ah , never mind, obviously not." I don't see anything about provocation or justification in that. Either there is a lack of historical knowledge on your part or you are writing imprecisely and sloppily; neither is my problem. quote: This is the first time in US history that the USA preemptively invaded and occupied another country with no just cause. Hmmm, what cause did we have to occupy Haiti and Nicaragua after WWI. Do you know how the entire nation of Panama was created? quote: It was based on bullshit made up "evidence" hand picked and determined by Cheney after his living at CIA headquarters for a couple months leading up to the invasion. PFNAC and other doctrines via Bush all but laid this out years before he ever stole the White House. Look, there is no shortage of evidence and info about this entire fiasco. They (BushCo) are war profiteers, war criminals and should be sent to the Hague. Iraq did nothing to us, never did (including Kuwait). Humanity at large has been far more violated by numerous African countries for which we (neither party) have ever done squat. BushCo rhetoric aside, Saddam was not as bad (yes he was an asshole) as many other dictators and again, he did We are in total agreement about Bush and his associates, but inaccurate statements don't help the situation. In fact, they create a situation that allows the other side to create a plausable deniable air by behind able to easily refute the statements of the ignorant and misinformed. I suspect that a lot of the "support" for Jane Fonda convertly comes from the Right since they can smear the resistence with the tag of traitor. [Thinking] Let me see, you support Fonda and you make historically inaccurate claims. quote: NOTHING to the US. I think mentioning Japan/Hitler in this regard is beneath you and your intelligence. [:)] Nope, it's just following up on your statement "Dumbfuck Bush is the only president to invade and occupy another country." For all his sins, he isn't.

caitlyn -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 12:57:30 PM)
Moloch ... Just in case you didn't know ... name calling only makes your position look weak, even if it isn't. Just thought you might want to know. [:D]

ArtCatDom -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 1:00:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsMacComb quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren I wonder if she's forgotten Germany and Japan. I suppose Truman didn't occupy them, but if so, he sure fooled the Germans and the Japanese. Hell, for a while back there, the US Marines almost literally owned Haiti.... so much so, that when President Roosevelt came to visit, the local band struck up "The Hymn" thinking it was the US anthem. John, I seem to recall something pertaining to Japan and Pearl Harbor. Obviously the US has assisted, and yes instigated, in other "political actions" and wars. I don't think comparing our "situation" with Japan in the 40s has anything to do with Bush invading Iraq. This is the first time in US history that the USA preemptively invaded and occupied another country with no just cause. It was based on bullshit made up "evidence" hand picked and determined by Cheney after his living at CIA headquarters for a couple months leading up to the invasion. PFNAC and other doctrines via Bush all but laid this out years before he ever stole the White House. Look, there is no shortage of evidence and info about this entire fiasco. They (BushCo) are war profiteers, war criminals and should be sent to the Hague. Iraq did nothing to us, never did (including Kuwait). Humanity at large has been far more violated by numerous African countries for which we (neither party) have ever done squat. BushCo rhetoric aside, Saddam was not as bad (yes he was an asshole) as many other dictators and again, he did NOTHING to the US. I think mentioning Japan/Hitler in this regard is beneath you and your intelligence. [:)] Now, I will say that I think this Iraq War was wrong to enter in to, by most measures. Most seriously, it has been a serious distraction of attention and resources from Afgahnistan, where they are sorely needed. That being said, can I offer you a tin-foil hat? How is invading one of our allies (Kuwait) doing nothing wrong? How is attempting to orchestrate the assassination of a President nothing wrong? And as for "preemptively invaded and occupied another country with no just cause", check out the history of Haiti and Cuba and get back to me. meow

xxmstrchasxx -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 1:23:52 PM)
quote: Good counterpoint, but the situations for each were in different realms. Jane Fonda was and is a noncombatant, does not wear the uniform of the US armed forces, and is not confined in her killing to the long established Geneva Convention. NastyDaddy, First, I can tell you were never in a war of any kind just by the way you talk here. Do you actually believe North Vietnamese followed the Geneva Convention in any way, shape or form? If you do then you are delusional. It never happened. The U.S. is the only one who even half way followed it.

MsMacComb -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 1:27:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moloch What are you smoking IRAQ invaded OUR ally, the ally that provides us oil. With such things as "years before he ever stole the White House" I tend to think that you are way too biased and unreasonable. Maybe I see it wrong but you soudn like a rabid communist. Crack. I smoke a wheelbarrow of crack per day but at least I don't drink the Kool-Aid, which you seem to. "Ally" indeedy. They are doing wonders fighting the war on terror with us and didnt they promise a lifetime of cheap gas at the end of the Gulf War? Yes they did. Hows that working out for you? You sound like a rabid young person who still sees the world as your biased little school history books taught you. Whatever. You will learn otherwise as you age. Iraq did NOTHING to us. [:)]

JohnWarren -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 1:31:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom quote: ORIGINAL: MsMacComb quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren I wonder if she's forgotten Germany and Japan. I suppose Truman didn't occupy them, but if so, he sure fooled the Germans and the Japanese. Hell, for a while back there, the US Marines almost literally owned Haiti.... so much so, that when President Roosevelt came to visit, the local band struck up "The Hymn" thinking it was the US anthem. John, I seem to recall something pertaining to Japan and Pearl Harbor. Obviously the US has assisted, and yes instigated, in other "political actions" and wars. I don't think comparing our "situation" with Japan in the 40s has anything to do with Bush invading Iraq. This is the first time in US history that the USA preemptively invaded and occupied another country with no just cause. It was based on bullshit made up "evidence" hand picked and determined by Cheney after his living at CIA headquarters for a couple months leading up to the invasion. PFNAC and other doctrines via Bush all but laid this out years before he ever stole the White House. Look, there is no shortage of evidence and info about this entire fiasco. They (BushCo) are war profiteers, war criminals and should be sent to the Hague. Iraq did nothing to us, never did (including Kuwait). Humanity at large has been far more violated by numerous African countries for which we (neither party) have ever done squat. BushCo rhetoric aside, Saddam was not as bad (yes he was an asshole) as many other dictators and again, he did NOTHING to the US. I think mentioning Japan/Hitler in this regard is beneath you and your intelligence. [:)] Now, I will say that I think this Iraq War was wrong to enter in to, by most measures. Most seriously, it has been a serious distraction of attention and resources from Afgahnistan, where they are sorely needed. That being said, can I offer you a tin-foil hat? How is invading one of our allies (Kuwait) doing nothing wrong? How is attempting to orchestrate the assassination of a President nothing wrong? And as for "preemptively invaded and occupied another country with no just cause", check out the history of Haiti and Cuba and get back to me. meow

MsMacComb -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 1:32:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren I don't see anything about provocation or justification in that. Either there is a lack of historical knowledge on your part or you are writing imprecisely and sloppily; neither is my problem. Hmmm, what cause did we have to occupy Haiti and Nicaragua after WWI. Do you know how the entire nation of Panama was created? [Thinking] Let me see, you support Fonda and you make historically inaccurate claims. There is always going to be unjust and quetionable activites during and after a war. But again its not the same. What transpired after WWI is not at all the same as invading Iraq. We also stayed in other countries post every other war. Some cases rebuilding, some cases police action, some cases debatable. What does this have to do with the fact that we have never before without provocation invaded and occupied another country?

Moloch -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 1:32:58 PM)
Sorry I didnt mean to come across as a prick as caitlyn pointed out, I dont remmeber Kuwait promising us cheap oil. I admit to being "rabid young person" with fascist like qualities, school books didnt teach me. When I wanted to know something about Iraq, I talk to my kurd neighbors and my Iraqi neighbors. Yes the Iraq didnt do anything to us, but is kicking iraq in the nuts in 1991 is equivelent of us stoping a gang rape, because that is what essentialy Iraq was doing in kuwait.

JohnWarren -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 1:37:23 PM)
ArtCatDom If your edit function still works on the previous message, you might want to go in and insert a quote: . It looks like the message you are replying to is part of your reply.

NastyDaddy -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 1:38:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom This is the first time in US history that the USA preemptively invaded and occupied another country with no just cause. Historically it was always done by using covert ops, recruiting of local insurgents, paid off puppets of governments, coup's and dictators (backfired with Saddam/Iraq), and with Oliver North style illegal arms sales and deliveries. All of this methodology was mostly unknownst to the American public, and most certainly usually without their support or direct knowledge of 'our' activity on other's soil. Once the right people were in the right places it magically opened up all kinds of foreign trade, the war industrial complex stocks our new foreign allies... and life is good (for the war machine). It would seem the BushCo/Haliburton presidency is indeed setting a new precedent for US foreign policy and global affairs. Today$ number$: Haliburton make$ a cool $50 million .... US troop$ kill a pregnant Iraqi woman, her unborn fetu$, and mother. You can bet George and Dick are happy camper$ with great new$ like that almost every day... don't me$$ with Texa$!

MsMacComb -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 1:39:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moloch Sorry I didnt mean to come across as a prick as caitlyn pointed out, I dont remmeber Kuwait promising us cheap oil. I admit to being "rabid young person" with fascist like qualities, school books didnt teach me. When I wanted to know something about Iraq, I talk to my kurd neighbors and my Iraqi neighbors. Yes the Iraq didnt do anything to us, but is kicking iraq in the nuts in 1991 is equivelent of us stoping a gang rape, because that is what essentialy Iraq was doing in kuwait. That was then, this is now. Do we invade Japan tomorrow just because of Pearl Habor? Do we launch a full on assault on England today because someone is still pissy about a couple hundred years ago? Two wrongs don't make a right. Saddam, I could give a fuck what happens to him and his Bathist Party. But while Saddam is hanging in a cozy little A/Ced cell somewhere and getting three squares a day this is whats happening to innocent Iraqis : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_women_killed

JohnWarren -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 1:53:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsMacComb quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren I don't see anything about provocation or justification in that. Either there is a lack of historical knowledge on your part or you are writing imprecisely and sloppily; neither is my problem. Hmmm, what cause did we have to occupy Haiti and Nicaragua after WWI. Do you know how the entire nation of Panama was created? [Thinking] Let me see, you support Fonda and you make historically inaccurate claims. There is always going to be unjust and quetionable activites during and after a war. But again its not the same. What transpired after WWI is not at all the same as invading Iraq. We also stayed in other countries post every other war. Some cases rebuilding, some cases police action, some cases debatable. What does this have to do with the fact that we have never before without provocation invaded and occupied another country? Nothing. As you seem to keep forgetting, my response was simply to your assertation that Bush was the only president to occupy another country. Oh, by the way, there was no occupation of Japan or Germany following WWI. The occupations took place a generation later after WWII. We didn't "other countries post every other war". In some wars, we just packed up and went home. Note the lack of an "occupation" of either Austria or Germany post-WWI. Have you ever read a history book? Frankly, I'm on your side... well, I'm on the side the opposes the war. I can't be sure of your motivation. Your style of "moving the target" discussion smacks of a Right Wing think tank.

NastyDaddy -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 1:59:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxmstrchasxx quote: Good counterpoint, but the situations for each were in different realms. Jane Fonda was and is a noncombatant, does not wear the uniform of the US armed forces, and is not confined in her killing to the long established Geneva Convention. NastyDaddy, First, I can tell you were never in a war of any kind just by the way you talk here. Do you actually believe North Vietnamese followed the Geneva Convention in any way, shape or form? If you do then you are delusional. It never happened. The U.S. is the only one who even half way followed it. You need a new crystal ball, or batteries for your old one chief. My military experience involving Iran, Panama, Grenada, Lybia, Iraq and a few other middle eastern garden spots are not for your 'telling' anything of or about them. Why would you speak like such a fool because I don't particularly share your viewpoint? That's pretty desperate... Also, by virtue of your comments inferring the Geneva Convention should only be considered valid if both sides adhere to it is rediculous at best. But the attitude of your bold inference is quite evident in the way many GI's today call their own shots... then make them, right or wrong. As I've said all along... JF did what she did because she felt it would help to put an end to a useless carnage. You and everyone else can hate her for her mistakes, I personally don't care.... but she didn't just sit on her lazy ass and just watch the casualty count figures rise daily... when it reached the 50,000+... and then 60,000+ DEAD US soldiers range, she felt changes were absolutely necessary. I've stated while I could understand her intentions/motivation, that I could not necessarily undertand her logic/actions.

xxmstrchasxx -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 2:07:06 PM)
quote: What the guy throws down looks a lot like the main tube from an 80 or 81 mm mortar but it could be a surface to surface missile. Exactly! Why would a farmer run at full speed to leave a farm tool? I have looked at the video close up and paused it during the process and I have never seen any farm tool that even resembles what he was carrying. The quality of the video isn't worth a damn either way and proves nothing one way or the other.

meatcleaver -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 2:12:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom I seem to recall something pertaining to Japan and Pearl Harbor. One of our problems when we discuss history and reasons for conflict is that we start at dates that are a convenience to the west without asking the pertinent questions of why countries are hostile to the west. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_Treaties_(China) That is just one example of many.

JohnWarren -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 2:44:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom I seem to recall something pertaining to Japan and Pearl Harbor. One of our problems when we discuss history and reasons for conflict is that we start at dates that are a convenience to the west without asking the pertinent questions of why countries are hostile to the west. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_Treaties_(China) That is just one example of many. This is getting a bit unfair. Those are not ArtCatDom's words. The quote/unquote html wasn't set correctly

ArtCatDom -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 2:56:02 PM)
Oomf! No editing anymore! Thanks for point it out though. meow

meatcleaver -> RE: Jane Fonda (5/31/2006 2:57:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren This is getting a bit unfair. Those are not ArtCatDom's words. The quote/unquote html wasn't set correctly I agree it is unfair but I made a point of saying the west in general and not the US inparticular. God knows, the Brits can't point a finger at anyone. The point is unfair to ArtCatDom but valid in general to discussions on the threads it is a valid point. Sorry ArtCatDom for usingyou to make a point.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02