>She's a very cool lady with a great head on her shoulders.
Made me spit out my coffee. Hanoi Jane Fonda isn't very cool, and does not have a great head on her shoulders.
>She's a very cool lady with a great head on her shoulders.
Made me spit out my coffee. Hanoi Jane Fonda isn't very cool, and does not have a great head on her shoulders.
I'll go down that road with you. I agree with Jane on a great many issues, I'm sure. I certainly don't dislike her for her overall political leanings. And yet, I can't look at her without thinking about what she did in Vietnam.
The idea that she passed POW secrets to their captors has been debunked to my satisfaction. But the other stuff she did, calling our POWs liars and touring to support the army we were fighting, is beyond the pale.
Like, you can say we shouldn't be attacking Iran and I won't argue against you. But if you actually went to Iran in support of their soldiers and armies over ours, except maybe as a journalist who documents bad stuff you discover us doing, then I'm going to invite you to stay there.
How do you feel about Americans who go serve in the IDF, and avoid serving in the US military, and then come back to the US?
Indifferent. We're not at war against the IDF. Go and join the French Foreign Legion for all I care, so long as they're not fighting American forces.
That's a bit of a weird position to take. You seem to put "American forces" in a special bucket where, even if the actions the US military are taking is wrong, the support and reputation of "American forces" should still be protected at all costs, and the people they're doing wrong things to don't get to have any support.
Let's imagine an alternate universe where Russia didn't invade Ukraine. There were rumors that they were considering it, though, and Europe was not feeling particularly secure, afraid that Russia would not stop with Ukraine. This Ukraine is, like in our universe, nominally an ally of the West, though not the closest of terms. Poland, a US ally and NATO member, afraid that Russia would invade Ukraine and use it as a forward base to attack Poland, decides to preemptively invade Ukraine in order to establish its own forward base, a buffer zone.
I think many people in the US, myself (half Polish from my mom's side) included, would think this was a horrible thing for Poland to do. A bunch of us decide we're going to support Ukraine, protest on their behalf, and donate to their cause. Would you object to that? If not, then that's hypocritical. If so, that's... not a great look for you either.
> You seem to put "American forces" in a special bucket where,
I'm a vet. My default setting is to support American troops unless they're shown to be acting wrongly.
> even if the actions the US military are taking is wrong,
That's a bizarre little strawman. No. I can support the soldiers, sailors, and airmen while believing their leadership is wrong. By civilian analogy, I support the employees of HHS even if I think their boss is an idiot.
> the support and reputation of "American forces" should still be protected at all costs, and the people they're doing wrong things to don't get to have any support.
Your words, not mine. I don't feel that way. American leadership orders all kinds of jackassery. The people doing their jobs, presuming they're not committing war crimes (sorry if that was going to be your next gotcha), have my support. I've not heard any accusations that the POWs Fonda "visited", as though Hanoi Hilton was a zoo and they were wildlife on display, were legitimately war criminals. If they were, I would not support them. I for damn sure would not have supported the North Vietnamese government against our own solders, though. If our guys were in the wrong, it would be perfectly possible to prosecute both sets of people.
> Let's imagine an alternate universe
Let me stop you right there. We don't have to invent increasingly contrived scenarios to debate the core case: is it OK to provide aid and comfort to the enemy? It's not. It doesn't mean you have to automatically say your own military is flawless, either. But in the common case, I'm vastly more likely to support the general actions of the US military over those of the People's Army of Vietnam. I don't think that's an especially hot take.
Replying to myself: indifferent in the context of Americans committing what I consider to be traitorous acts against Americans. If you go join the IDF and shoot your way through Gaza, I'm going to think you're a POS. But I think you'll be a different kind of POS than Fonda was in Vietnam, which is the discussion at hand here.
She was early, consistent, vocal, brave, and in the light of history morally right in her opposition to the Vietnam War.
> early, consistent, vocal, brave, and in the light of history morally right in his opposition to [political taegets]
You just described Hitler. Hanoi Jane Fonda is repugnant in her support of the Viet Cong.
Whoa there. The US being wrong to make war in Vietnam absolutely does not vindicate those who supported the Viet Cong!
position is one thing. implementation of that position is another.
Maybe, but her posing in North Vietnamese anti-aircraft guns was pretty despicable, not brave. Nepo baby PR stunt or not.
The war was despicable. The napalming of children was despicable. The mass rape and murder of children and women at My Lai was despicable.
What she did was not that.
Massacre at Hue as despicable. The mass rape and murder of children and women at Saigon was despicable.
What Hanoi Jane Fonda did was that.
[flagged]