entertainment

Jane Fonda to play Nancy Reagan in U.S. film

78 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

78 Comments
Login to comment

Haha, karma. I bet Mrs. Raygun isn't too pleased about this.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I guess they couldn't get Meryl Streep.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It's like getting Attila the Hun to play Jesus. Hollywood never ceases to amaze.

In recent years she has expressed regret over the incident, but many U.S. conservatives still despise her, arguing she betrayed American troops.

Hanoi Jane was reviled by my father and his colleauges in the Army. I remember seeing a poster of Fonda on that anti-aircraft gun when I was a young elementary school kid. There are plenty of Vietnam vets that opposed the war but those that are proud of their service don't want to hear of Fonda's "regrets". Only a full and abject apology will do.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Good casting decision. And Max Von Sydow did play Jesus once. Now, that's weird casting.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Didn't they once share the same clairvoyant?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

There are few conservatives in Hollywood that are "out", for to be identified as a conservative is a career killer in the precincts of the American entertainment industry. So much for "tolerance". Generally, the entertainers that can succeed in the entertainment industry are those who made it big before they were identified as conservatives .

Some conservative celebrities include: Kelsey Grammar, Adam Sandler, Chuck Norris, Kathy Ireland, Gary Sinese, and Jessica Simpson.

I hope that this upcoming film is fair in its representation of not only Mrs. Reagan but also all of the presidents and first ladies.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I hope Jane knows how to operate a ouija board, as that was how Nancy ran the country when Ronnie was too senile to do much. Basically the whole second term was based on fortune tellers and their devices.

Most artist are liberal because when the far right types take over they usually kill artists. Its that simple.

Conservatives have never forgiven Jane for being 100% correct about the lost war in Vietnam. If the US stopped the war right after Jane was in Hanoi then a lot more veterans would be alive today instead of in the graveyard. Somehow that simple point is lost by the republicans lost in a hate filled delusion.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Hanoi Jane was reviled by my father and his colleauges in the Army. I remember seeing a poster of Fonda on that anti-aircraft gun when I was a young elementary school kid. There are plenty of Vietnam vets that opposed the war but those that are proud of their service don't want to hear of Fonda's "regrets". Only a full and abject apology will do.

Why should she have to apologise? America had no right to be in Vietnam, but just like today, acted like the rest of the world was its backyard and it could do what it wanted. She doesn't owe American soldiers an apology because she sat on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft battery.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Anyone waiting for an apology is going to be in for a long wait. I'm still waiting for her to apologize for appearing in such mediocre movies as The Electric Horseman. One sentence review: Willie Nelson soundtrack good, Willie Nelson acting bad.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I will not see any movie/media/event that has Hanoi Jane in it. Hanoi Jane committed the crime of treason against her country by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. She chose to travel to the enemy’s territory and vilify the very US soldiers who were carrying out the orders of their government and by doing so, upholding her right to protest. If she had a problem with the war, she should have been on the steps of the Whitehouse screaming at the government, or anywhere else she chose within the US, this would have been appropriate. It is too late for Hanoi Jane to apologize, she chose not to be an American by her actions, I choose not to recognize her as a person of worthy of any respect or forgivness.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I will not see any movie/media/event that has Hanoi Jane in it. Hanoi Jane committed the crime of treason against her country by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. She chose to travel to the enemy’s territory and vilify the very US soldiers who were carrying out the orders of their government and by doing so, upholding her right to protest. If she had a problem with the war, she should have been on the steps of the Whitehouse screaming at the government, or anywhere else she chose within the US, this would have been appropriate. It is too late for Hanoi Jane to apologize, she chose not to be an American by her actions, I choose not to recognize her as a person of worthy of any respect or forgivness.

What was America doing in Vietnam in the first place? I don't see much difference between people protesting against arrogant American involvement in Vietnam on the streets of Washington and Jane posing on the North Korean anti-aircraft. She's allowed to be against the war if she wants, doesn't make her any less 'American'. The UK's involvement in Iraq came against alot of criticism from the populace, yet I never heard the charge that any of these anti-war Brits were no longer British. Typical black and white, 'you're either with us or against us' American thinking. And I don't think Jane cares if you respect or not riffraf, lol.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@oginome

The United States has been involved in several conflicts that I too feel it had no business being involved in. The United States is arrogant and often takes the stance of Might is Right. I support the right to free speech and protest by every citizen. There is a line however between protest and dissent by US citizens and actively taking part in aiding a country/faction the United States is engaged in conflict with. There were thousands and thousands of anti-war protesters during the Viet Nam War in the US. Many were high profile actors, businesspersons, politicians and people from all walks of life. These people participated in all types of protests, all over the US and vehemently voiced their disapproval of the war and the US involvement, sometimes violently. These people did their job as dissenting citizens and went back to their lives with honor when the cause was won. Hanoi Jane chose to go over to the enemy and stand with them and declare she supported them, this made her a traitor. If you love your country and the way of life it represents, you do not throw it under the bus when you feel it has made a mistake and is on the wrong road, you protest and work to change the politics through activism within the legal, political and social frame work. As you stated, Hanoi Jane may not care about my respect or the 10s of thousands like me, but that does not negate or change the fact that she is a traitor to her country by any measure.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Riffraff,

she is an american like you, maybe even more patriotic as she tried to stop the US from making a huge mistake that killed 50,000 US soldiers for nothing. Nothing. She was right and you are wrong. Her protests along with millions of others saved more US lives than the right wing supporters of a failed war have done, in fact you folks help to have more GIs killed.

Many on this JT board of your kind cheered for Shock and Awe during the dark Bush days. Nothing much to cheer about now, and 5000 GIs are dead, many thousands more screwed up for life. For nothing. Yes, just keep pretending that supporting failed wars is more patriotic than being brave enough to stand up and say Iraq was a huge lie and a huge failure. As many of us truth telling liberals predicted before bush invaded. Just like Jane did during Vietnam. Killing GIs in failed wars is not patriotic. It is a war crime. Just like Vietnam was. 2 million Vietnamese died during that failed war.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I can't believe Jane Fonda is 74. She is a good actress, she was great in 9 to 5 with Dolly Parton and Lily Tomlin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Zurcronium

Sir, I can assure you Hanoi Jane is not an American like me. I have the personal integrity and loyalty not to travel to the stronghold of my countries enemy and by my words and deeds, betray my country and its defenders to that enemy. You made a lot of erroneous presumptions about my political persuasions and positions. The fact that I condemn Hanoi Jane for her actions during the VN war does not make me a right wing conservative. You should go back and read my response to “oginome”, it addresses the very same issues you brought up. Since you labeled yourself as a Liberal and pointed out the clairvoyance powers of the liberal persuasion, I will say that I find the far left as distasteful as I find the far right. The US has not fought a real war since WWII. Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc have all been police actions that were ill-conceived and fought with no real popular backing or political will. The listed countries have been involved in internal secular/tribal/religious wars for centuries before the US showed up. It is ridiculous to think that the US could change centuries of internal hatred that has defined these countries and a failure of both US political parties and its leaders for not recognizing this. It can be argued that since there was a national draft in place during the VN war, that the soldiers serving in the military were sacrificed to a war without a clear objective or winnable objective. Hanoi Jane’s actions did not save one of those soldiers’ lives; in fact actions such as hers are used by the enemy to prolong the conflict and to rally its own supporters. We would not be having this debate if she had acted like a responsible citizen and conducted her protests on her home soil or in any other free country for that matter. There is a line between protest/dissent/civil disobedience and traitorous actions………. She crossed that line.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Americas only enemy in Vietnam was its fear and hatred of communism and today America has a relationship with the very same communist country.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Zichi

Now if you load your rifle right

And if you fix your bayonet so

And if you kill that man, my friend,

The one we call the foe,

And if you do it often, lad,

And if you do it right

You'll be a hero overnight

You'll save your country from her plight

Remember God is always right

If you survive to see the sight

A friend now greeting foe...

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The United States has been involved in several conflicts that I too feel it had no business being involved in. The United States is arrogant and often takes the stance of Might is Right. I support the right to free speech and protest by every citizen. There is a line however between protest and dissent by US citizens and actively taking part in aiding a country/faction the United States is engaged in conflict with. There were thousands and thousands of anti-war protesters during the Viet Nam War in the US. Many were high profile actors, businesspersons, politicians and people from all walks of life. These people participated in all types of protests, all over the US and vehemently voiced their disapproval of the war and the US involvement, sometimes violently. These people did their job as dissenting citizens and went back to their lives with honor when the cause was won. Hanoi Jane chose to go over to the enemy and stand with them and declare she supported them, this made her a traitor. If you love your country and the way of life it represents, you do not throw it under the bus when you feel it has made a mistake and is on the wrong road, you protest and work to change the politics through activism within the legal, political and social frame work. As you stated, Hanoi Jane may not care about my respect or the 10s of thousands like me, but that does not negate or change the fact that she is a traitor to her country by any measure.

She's not unpatriotic by supporting Vietnam's right to self-determination which America arrogantly interfered with to pursue its own agenda. She was protesting against America's interference when she sat on the tank, just like the protesters in Washington and other American cities were doing. No real difference, doesn't make her a traitor or any less of an 'American'. Americans even today call other Americans 'unpatriotic' and 'un American' for not supporting America's imperialistic ambitions. Jane took a stand, which I thought that as an American, she has a RIGHT to do, so she could show not that every American supported this disgusting war. She helped America's image. People should thank her and all the other protesters. It's the war-mongering lunatics who ruin America's standing in the world.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I don't see much difference between people protesting against arrogant American involvement in Vietnam on the streets of Washington and Jane posing on the North Korean anti-aircraft.

Complicated issue to say the least, however there is certainly a big difference between lawfully protesting US actions in your own country and going to the very country the US is at war with and sitting on the very weapon being used to kill US soldiers. One is, again, lawful protest. The latter certainly can be considered giving support to the enemy and going as far as to cheer them on rather than just protesting her own governments actions. I think this is the sticking point in the discussion.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

America should follow UK's lead - it's not considered un-Scottish or un-Irish if their people side with England should there be self-determination issues.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Complicated issue to say the least, however there is certainly a big difference between lawfully protesting US actions in your own country and going to the very country the US is at war with and sitting on the very weapon being used to kill US soldiers. One is, again, lawful protest. The latter certainly can be considered giving support to the enemy and going as far as to cheer them on rather than just protesting her own governments actions. I think this is the sticking point in the discussion.

It could also be considered lawful protest. Again, American arrogantly imposed its will on a sovereign country. Jane posed with the North Vietnamese troops to show she supported Vietnam's right to self-determination, it was a civil conflict that the US had no right to get involved with. It she was photographed with American-backed South Vietnamese troops, then her message would have been lost.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It could also be considered lawful protest.

Under US law? Actually the opposite seems to be true. This is not about whether the US should have been involved in Vietnam. That is an entirely different discussion. This is about Ms. Fonda's actions while she was in Vietnam. Her actions there do seem to fall under the definition of giving support and comfort to the enemy, which does appear to be treason under US laws. Just because the US government chose not to pursue the matter does not mean Ms. Fonda did not cross the line from protestor to active supporter of the enemy. In fact, it is quite clear that she crossed the line. Even Ms. Fonda states that she regrets her actions in Vietnam.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

" It she was photographed with American-backed South Vietnamese troops, then her message would have been lost"

and she would've saved a pint of blood

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Under US law? Actually the opposite seems to be true. This is not about whether the US should have been involved in Vietnam. That is an entirely different discussion. This is about Ms. Fonda's actions while she was in Vietnam. Her actions there do seem to fall under the definition of giving support and comfort to the enemy, which does appear to be treason under US laws. Just because the US government chose not to pursue the matter does not mean Ms. Fonda did not cross the line from protestor to active supporter of the enemy. In fact, it is quite clear that she crossed the line. Even Ms. Fonda states that she regrets her actions in Vietnam.

The 'lawful' argument can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Her posing on the tank doesn't necessarily mean she was proving 'support' to the enemy. Alternatively, you could say the protesters in American cities were also 'supporting the enemy' by campaigning for the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam. It's not 'treason' to sit on a tank and have somebody take your picture, she's entitled to take any view that she wants as a citizen of a so-called democracy. And even if Jane Fonda regrets her actions today, that still doesn't mean what she did was wrong.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

and she would've saved a pint of blood

Not really. The spilling of blood was the American government's decision.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Her posing on the tank doesn't necessarily mean she was proving 'support' to the enemy. Alternatively, you could say the protesters in American cities were also 'supporting the enemy' by campaigning for the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam.

You are describing two very different actions. Protesting US actions in US cities is completely different from actively going to Vietnam and posing on a weapon aimed at US soldiers and making propaganda radio broadcasts for Vietnam. Tokyo Rose was convicted of merely making the radio broadcasts. In her case, she claimed she was forced to do so and this is entirely possible. However, Ms. Fonda's case is very different. Here, a 34 year old adult made the decision to get on a plane, fly into an enemy country and sit smiling on a weapon aimed at US soldiers and make propaganda radio broadcasts. Under the laws of treason, her acts were acts of treason. There are no such laws related to protesting in US cities about US actions you disagree with.

Again, you seem to be unintentionally confusing the act of protesting and what Ms. Fonda did. She not only protested against US actions, she took it a huge step away from that and actively gave physical support to an enemy country. While you may disagree with US policy that is very different from going over to the enemy and working for them. That is what Ms. Fonda did.

Now, you are free to think that she was morally correct for doing that, if you so desire. That does not change that fact that her actions fall under the definition of treason against the US under US laws.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Again, you seem to be unintentionally confusing the act of protesting and what Ms. Fonda did. She not only protested against US actions, she took it a huge step away from that and actively gave physical support to an enemy country.

There was no "enemy country." There was no declared war. That's what makes the Fonda case completely different from what happened in WWII. It is why Fonda could not be legally charged with treason.

What the US called "south Vietnam" was not a recognized country by most of the world, including the U.S.'s NATO allies. When the US invaded Cambodia and bombed Laos, we didn't declare war on those countries either. Were they "enemy countries?"

As a Vietnam Vet, I respect the stance took by Jane Fonda and her actions to call attention to the wholesale criminal acts committed by the United States against the people of southeast Asia. The US went to fight in Vietnam because the people of that country threatened to elect a government that was not to our liking -- a government the Vietnamese people eventually got, and which relations between us and them are cordial at the very worst.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

There was no "enemy country." There was no declared war. That's what makes the Fonda case completely different from what happened in WWII. It is why Fonda could not be legally charged with treason.

You are incorrect. There is no legal requirement for the US to be at war for someone to be charged with treason. Ms. Fonda's acts fall under the definition of treason even if there was no declared war.

Declared or not, there was a war. Vietnam recognizes there was a war. Ms. Fonda went to North Vietnam and provided assistance to a country that was fighting against the US. She was not merely there to stop a war. She was there to actively support the North Vietnamese government against the US.

When US POWs returned home, Ms. Fonda claimed their stories of torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese were lies.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I respect the stance took by Jane Fonda and her actions

Honest question: Do you seriously respect her sitting on a weapon that could have been aimed at you? I understand respecting war protesters. I really do. What she did went way beyond that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Do you seriously respect her sitting on a weapon that could have been aimed at you?

Answer: Yes. I realized later that I was actively abetting and supporting criminal activity.

Just as I respect the helicopter pilot who trained his guns on his own troops, threatening to blow them away, during the My Lai massacre. (Decades later, that pilot was recognized as performing an act that was praiseworthy.)

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Respectfully, the question I asked and the example of My Lai you gave were not the same at all. However, I cannot argue against the fact that you respect her for possibly aiming a weapon at you or someone you knew. I respect you too much to ever put you in the catagory you have used in your response. That pilot you mentioned was a hero. I do not believe Ms. Fonda was for her actions for the reasons I mentioned in earlier posts. Completely different situations.

Thank you for your response.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Jane Fonda is also responsible for the loose socks fashion trend. Communist plot or capitalist shill? Discuss in 50 words or less.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You are describing two very different actions. Protesting US actions in US cities is completely different from actively going to Vietnam and posing on a weapon aimed at US soldiers and making propaganda radio broadcasts for Vietnam. Tokyo Rose was convicted of merely making the radio broadcasts. In her case, she claimed she was forced to do so and this is entirely possible. However, Ms. Fonda's case is very different. Here, a 34 year old adult made the decision to get on a plane, fly into an enemy country and sit smiling on a weapon aimed at US soldiers and make propaganda radio broadcasts. Under the laws of treason, her acts were acts of treason. There are no such laws related to protesting in US cities about US actions you disagree with.

Again, you seem to be unintentionally confusing the act of protesting and what Ms. Fonda did. She not only protested against US actions, she took it a huge step away from that and actively gave physical support to an enemy country. While you may disagree with US policy that is very different from going over to the enemy and working for them. That is what Ms. Fonda did.

Now, you are free to think that she was morally correct for doing that, if you so desire. That does not change that fact that her actions fall under the definition of treason against the US under US laws.

Sorry, I don't think she was being treasonous just because that's what US law decided. As a citizen of a democratic country, she should be allowed to take whatever view of the war she wans, and if that includes backing the North Vietnamese troops, the so be it. The Land of the 'Free' needs to be update its laws. And again, what she was supporting was Vietnam's right to self-determination, which the US was interfering with, that's why she backed the North troops. The US was in that country illegally, it had no right to go to Vietnam. The US government's own actions were a war crime, nevermind Jane sitting on a tank.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sorry, I don't think she was being treasonous just because that's what US law decided.

Well, as I wrote, you are free to think that she was morally correct for doing that, if you so desire. That does not change that fact that her actions fall under the definition of treason against the US under US laws.

if that includes backing the North Vietnamese troops, the so be it. The Land of the 'Free' needs to be update its laws.

I am not sure that there are many, if any countries that generally would legally allow such behavior.

Again, this discussion is not about whether the US should have gone into Vietnam. It is a very different, and equally complicated, discussion. I have merely been focusing on her actions and the legal ramifications of them in the US legal system. As an aside, whether I disagree or agree, I enjoy reading your point of view very much. I look forward to more of your posts.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That pilot you mentioned was a hero.

Yes, I agree. For the record, I would never confuse Jane Fonda with a real hero. She is not, by my definition of one.

But I respect any American who was doing what they could to try to end that insane adventure.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I will not see any movie/media/event that has Hanoi Jane in it. Hanoi Jane committed the crime of treason against her country by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

America's greatest enemy was (and is) its own leaders.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

America's greatest enemy was (and is) its own leaders.

Actually, I like Pogo's words: We have met the enemy, and he is us.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Well, as I wrote, you are free to think that she was morally correct for doing that, if you so desire. That does not change that fact that her actions fall under the definition of treason against the US under US laws.

If it fell under US treason laws, then those laws are an infringement on her freedom. She shouldn't have had to face treason charges, because she sat on a tank and a photo was taken (and thankfully she didn't).

I am not sure that there are many, if any countries that generally would legally allow such behavior.

OK, let's take an even more extreme example. If a UK citizen posed with one of Saddam Hussein's army officers and talked about the brutality of the war in Iraq, they wouldn't face treason charges in the UK. In fact, 'treason' wouldn't even enter the head of most UK citizens.

Again, this discussion is not about whether the US should have gone into Vietnam. It is a very different, and equally complicated, discussion. I have merely been focusing on her actions and the legal ramifications of them in the US legal system. As an aside, whether I disagree or agree, I enjoy reading your point of view very much. I look forward to more of your posts.

I enjoy your posts as well, definitely some of the few I can read on this site without my eyes feeling like they're bleeding, lol.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Why should she have to apologise? America had no right to be in Vietnam, but just like today, acted like the rest of the world was its backyard and it could do what it wanted. She doesn't owe American soldiers an apology because she sat on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft battery.

I haven't expected her to. She is a socialist through and through and has always been a supporter of the communist government. But her expressions of "regret" in recent years is an attempt to have it both ways. What she did was highly offensive to many Americans - especially many in the military. I've seen the visceral distaste for her first hand. She has not asked for forgiveness and she surely has received none.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As a Vietnam Vet, I respect the stance took by Jane Fonda and her actions to call attention to the wholesale criminal acts committed by the United States against the people of southeast Asia.

And despite it's recent economic opening to the West, Vietnam remains a place of high poverty, lacks respect for human and political rights, and has a very low standard of living. Congratulations, the Vietamese people have suffered for decades thanks to the anti-American war protestors like Hanoi Jane. By contrast South Korea is a fully modern country with many freedoms and a high standard of living. On behalf of the Vietamese people, thank you very much for helping "The Man" keep the people down.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What she did was highly offensive to many Americans - especially many in the military.

To hell with Americans taking offense - especially the military.

During the Vietnam era, protestors recognized that soldiers were also responsible for volunteering and otherwise partaking in the war, and were just as guilty as the government that ordered them there. There can be no war if soldiers don't go fight it. They used to call soldiers "baby killers". Today, everyone says "support the troops", and its stupid and backward. You cannot just blame the government while praising the people who become soldiers for "just following orders".

But even what protestors did back then did not stop the evil, misguided American meddling in the Vietnamese Civil War, not even with Jane's stunt. Actually backing off of protesting methods, and merely waving signs and screaming in the general direction of the WH is not going to end the evil, misguided American meddling in Afghanistan! I applaud when Americans join the Taliban and fight American soldiers. Wrong is wrong. None of this "my country right or wrong" bullocks for me! Wrong is wrong! If you do wrong to the tune that people die, you deserve to have people try and kill you, even your own brother, just as a cop will shoot a murder in the act to try and stop him. What Jane Fonda did was NOTHING compared to what principled Americans SHOULD have done.

My only dissapointment in Jane Fonda is that she has any regrets about the incident. She should have stuck to her guns.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

And despite it's recent economic opening to the West, Vietnam remains a place of high poverty, lacks respect for human and political rights, and has a very low standard of living.

Recent? Vietnam always had trade with the West and instituted its "doi moi" trade opening within 10 years after the reunification of the country. It has one of the fastest growing economies in the world -- roughly 10% per year -- but is committed to ensuring that the distribution of wealth is balanced so that everyone prospers from its growing economy. In 30 years, Vietnam is estimated to have an economic output that is 70% of that of the UK.

Congratulations, the Vietamese people have suffered for decades

Not anything like they suffered during the time the United States was killing them by the tens of thousands.

By contrast South Korea is a fully modern country with many freedoms and a high standard of living

Gee, but that is just so completely ignorant. I had been to Korea in the early 1970s. At that time it was a very backward country with a military dictatorship. One thing South Korea had in common with the puppet regime in South Vietnam regarding "free enterprise" was lots of women whoring themselves for the Yankee dollar. (And thousands of illegitimate kids.)

On behalf of the Vietamese people...

Ah, they appointed you as spokes-doofus. Too funny.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

She is a socialist through and through

So are most of America's allies! Are you trying to insult them too, or just Jane Fonda?

But her expressions of "regret" in recent years is an attempt to have it both ways.

Yeah, that part is true. But with so many bitter, vindictive and totally misguided supporters of any American war no matter what running about, who can blame her?

I've seen the visceral distaste for her first hand.

I have a visceral distaste for all American soldiers and vets save those from WWII and those who are repentent, like yabits.

Fonda was not only right to sit in the AA battery. She would have been right to pop off a few shots and down an American war plane.

But hey, if my own father were killing your wife, I would shoot him dead before you could even remember where you left your gun. My only loyalty is to principles, not friends, family or country, and those who violate sacred principles are my enemy, while those who hold them dear are my allies.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Hollywood hates America. No one is surprised by this.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I chuckle to see big tough nihilists, pretend Libertarians, defending a woman who, ten years after her stint as useful idiot of the VC, was on TV flogging aerobics videos to the aging harridans of the "peace movement" who populated the burbs of Reagan's America.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

those who violate sacred principles are my enemies

"sacred principles", wow what a mouthful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hollywood hates America.

What a bizarre thing to say! More than Hollywood condemns the wars of American empire, it glorifies them. Look at a movie like Platoon. For all its anti-war messages, most men walked away thinking war was way cool. And I doubt Charlies Sheen, son of Martin Sheen, had any intention of selling war glory to America.

Yet, I cannot remember Jane Fonda starting in anything remotely like that.

My guess is that Jane Fonda loves America, but hates war mongers no matter what color flag they drape themselves in.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I chuckle to see big tough nihilists

I chuckle to see how mental contortionists can tie together war protest with aerobics videos and think that such a slap-dash corelation of totally unrelated concepts equates to a point while not making its writer look he is a few cards short of a full deck.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

defending a woman

Stop! That's it right there, in a nutshell!

Conservatives defend people, not principles, and mistakenly think all others are doing the same.

Liberals defend principles, not people, and mistakenly think all others are doing the same.

I am not defending Jane Fonda. I am not protecting her. I am not in her corner no matter what. I am defending her trip to North Vietnam. Full stop.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I haven't expected her to. She is a socialist through and through and has always been a supporter of the communist government. But her expressions of "regret" in recent years is an attempt to have it both ways. What she did was highly offensive to many Americans - especially many in the military. I've seen the visceral distaste for her first hand. She has not asked for forgiveness and she surely has received none.

She was a supporter of Vietnam's right to self-determination, not necessarily the 'communist government'. What she did was show millions of people all around the world that not every American supported America's imperialistic expansion and bully boy tactics. She doesn't need to ask for forgiveness. Will all the Vietnam vets who VOLUNTEERED for this insane war and helped inflict misery, destruction and death on a country who's right to self-determination was attacked ask the Vietnamese people for forgiveness though?

And despite it's recent economic opening to the West, Vietnam remains a place of high poverty, lacks respect for human and political rights, and has a very low standard of living. Congratulations, the Vietamese people have suffered for decades thanks to the anti-American war protestors like Hanoi Jane. By contrast South Korea is a fully modern country with many freedoms and a high standard of living. On behalf of the Vietamese people, thank you very much for helping "The Man" keep the people down.

You are aware than South Korea was a military dicatorship until the late 80s, where torture and widespread human rights abuses were routine and common? This is the delighful regime that American backed wholeheartedly for decades. It was change from within that turned South Korea into a democracy. Vietnam's economy is GROWING, like you said yourself its opening was 'recent', but it did it on its own terms, and now it is beginning to reap the benefits. And which capitalist system will they most likely take their lead from, yes, it'll be the same one South Korea and China modelled themselves on - Japan's, not America's disastrous economic model which encourages huge divided between rich and poor and as we can see, has been an abject failure. Anglo-Saxon capitalism is a holy mess.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

oginome

"She [Fonda] was a supporter of Vietnam's right to self-determination, not necessarily the 'communist government'. "

In her own words (to an audience of American university students) :

"If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

<"If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist."

Read what I wrote again, I said 'not necesarily. Her own belief in the wonders of communism doesn't change the fact that what she was arguing for was Vietnam's right to self-determination, which was completely hijacked by the American government.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Lieberman2012, so she supported communism and the North Vietnamese government, both of which were supported by the people of North Vietnam, against a capitalist invader that wanted to do things against the wishes of the people. What the heck is wrong with that?

Look dude, if you take a group of people to an uninhabited island, and they want to make a polygamous society based on honor thievery, with you as both King and religious figurehead, I will support their right to do so. Its neither here nor there whether she thinks or thought communism was the cat's meow. Its what the people of North Vietnam thought that matters. Of course, it also matters what the people of South Vietnam thought. The trouble is that the United States decided one of them didn't count. And that is the root of the whole issue. You don't go around getting bodily involved in other people's civil wars. And if you do, you deserve all the ill you get.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Of course, it also matters what the people of South Vietnam thought. The trouble is that the United States decided one of them didn't count. And that is the root of the whole issue.

The root of the issue that Fonda got involved in actually involved a general election that was supposed to have happened in 1956 to enable all the people of Vietnam to decide what kind of government they wanted. The United States did not allow that election to take place because they saw the inevitability of the people of Vietnam freely electing the government they fought for and eventually won in 1975.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Gee, but that is just so completely ignorant. I had been to Korea in the early 1970s. At that time it was a very backward country with a military dictatorship.

Yes, at that time it was. I guess you know nothing about the Korea of today compared to the Vietnam of today. I am certain that you would rather live in a communist country in which you have no rights but are equally poor as everyone else. But most of the world - even China - has tried that egalitarian, economic justice nonsense and learned that it is and always will be a dead-end.

Recent? Vietnam always had trade with the West and instituted its "doi moi" trade opening within 10 years after the reunification of the country.

Note: you are right - I meant to say the recent economic opening with the US.

Ah, they appointed you as spokes-doofus. Too funny.

Ahh, nothing like a level headed debate eh yabits? Sounds like you are losing... and you know it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Mustard

So are most of America's allies! Are you trying to insult them too, or just Jane Fonda?

Yes, they and even America have become ever more socialist since Jane Fonda's heyday in Hanoi. And our massive national debt's are evidence of the complete failure that the socialist experiment has been,

Fonda was not only right to sit in the AA battery. She would have been right to pop off a few shots and down an American war plane.

You are an odd chap! How can one wonder why so many Americans dislike Fonda so heartily.

My only loyalty is to principles, not friends, family or country, and those who violate sacred principles are my enemy, while those who hold them dear are my allies.

Your fundamentalists convictions seem almost religious.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@oginome:

Anglo-Saxon capitalism is a holy mess.

Combined with the European/Democrat welfare state - that is certainly correct.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium

Most artist are liberal because when the far right types take over they usually kill artists. Its that simple

Hilarious. So you'll take Russian rock n roll of the 50s and 60s over what came out of the US in the same period?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And our massive national debt's are evidence of the complete failure that the socialist experiment has been,

In no way do a bloated standing military and protracted, needless foreign military excursions have anything to do with socialist principle.

And our massive national debt's are evidence of the complete failure that the socialist experiment has been,

Right. That is why the Nordic countries had no debt or a tiny amount until 2005. All that time they were socialist with little debt, and now that they have debt, its because of socialism. Sure.

You are an odd chap!

Since most people are too weak to stand alone, and give in to their weak minded compulsion to be loyal to people rather than principle, I take that as a compliment.

Fighter and bomber aircraft violating principles of self-determination deserve to be shot down regadless of the flag painted on the side. Don't make this about America. Its not. The craft could be from France, Japan, Israel, China, Iran, Russia, Canada or Tuvalu for all I care. Shoot it down, before it kills someone.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Combined with the European/Democrat welfare state - that is certainly correct.

Nope, Europe's problems lie with the implentation of a single currency in different sovereign countries and unregulated lending and borrowing. Look at the different countries for a change instead of just talking about 'Europle' like so many Americans love to do. Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries are the most 'socialist' countries in Europe and they're the countries which continue to have the strongest economies. The southern countries are collapsing because of economic polices and corruption, in Greece, for example, tax evasion was widespread amongst not just business, but the POPULATION in general. All these countries had weaker social safety nets than Germany did. Germany is a SOCIALIST CAPITALIST country, its standard of living is much higher than America's, it has a much narrower divide between rich and poor, is much safer, has a higher educational standards and is the world's strongest exporting country after China. Hmm, I think the European/Democrat welfare state, when done properly, really does triumph over Anglo-Saxon capitalism, the reality is glaringly obvious. Keep arguing for more tax cuts Americans, LOL.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Fighter and bomber aircraft violating principles of self-determination deserve to be shot down regadless of the flag painted on the side.

You and Jane Fonda do not live seem to be living in the world as it really is. You can't just wish for a peaceful world and make it so. The communists did not ascend in Vietnam in a vacuum. They were supported by communist nations. The Chinese were the first to recognize the communists as the official government of Vietnam and they provided them with arms to fight the French. Besides, are you so held to principle that you are okay with self-determination through force of arms even without outside intervention?

Jane Fonda was an outsider that intervened in the war on the side of the Communists. There are a lot of people in the West who feel a kinship with communism because they are drawn to the idea of "social-justice" that it purports to achieve. However, they ignore the coercion that it requires to force people to suppress their own personal wants and desires to make it happen. Therefore communism and socialism in general are an illusion that can never be. It is contrary to human nature which no amount of ideological enlightenment can change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nope, Europe's problems lie with the implentation of a single currency in different sovereign countries and unregulated lending and borrowing.

I don't think the single currency is what is destroying the socialist model in Europe. However, I will say that the larger the scale the more difficult it is to implement socialism. The single currency essentially allowed the most calcified statist nations in Europe to subsidize their dysfunctional governments at the expense of their harder working and less corrupt neighbors.

Lending and borrowing is regulated in Europe. But regulations will always break down eventually due to the imperative of funding an unworkable economic model. Nordic nations and Germany are able to sustain socialist systems longer due to their national character. But over time that will break down as well in a economic system that subsidizes those that do not contribute to the system.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You and Jane Fonda do not live seem to be living in the world as it really is. You can't just wish for a peaceful world and make it so. The communists did not ascend in Vietnam in a vacuum. They were supported by communist nations. The Chinese were the first to recognize the communists as the official government of Vietnam and they provided them with arms to fight the French. Besides, are you so held to principle that you are okay with self-determination through force of arms even without outside intervention?

What China does (giving arms to the Vietnamese so they can fight against French imperialist aggressors who had no right to be in Vietnam either) doesn't justify America swooping in, just the kind of boorish, arrogant action which is so typical of America. China gave arms, but it didn't go into Vietnam and wage war there in the 1960s - America did.

Jane Fonda was an outsider that intervened in the war on the side of the Communists. There are a lot of people in the West who feel a kinship with communism because they are drawn to the idea of "social-justice" that it purports to achieve. However, they ignore the coercion that it requires to force people to suppress their own personal wants and desires to make it happen. Therefore communism and socialism in general are an illusion that can never be. It is contrary to human nature which no amount of ideological enlightenment can change.

Jane Fonda was an American citizen, not an 'outsider' who spoke out about the situation since she had a right to and because she respected Vietnam's right to pursue its own path and could see her government didn't, unfortunately. Your paragrah about the evils of communism doesn't change the fact that America was completely interfering with Vietnam's right to self-determination. America is so backward, people being called 'treasonous' for arguing against America's imperialist expansions.

I don't think the single currency is what is destroying the socialist model in Europe. However, I will say that the larger the scale the more difficult it is to implement socialism. The single currency essentially allowed the most calcified statist nations in Europe to subsidize their dysfunctional governments at the expense of their harder working and less corrupt neighbors.

The 'socialist model' is not being destroyed in Europe, the Northern countries are more determined that ever to hold onto their model, because they can see what a disaster short term, boom-and-bust Anglo-Saxon capitalism is and how successful theirs is in comparison. You recognise that the single currency was a disaster, but only for the nations where the economic policies were disastrous and corrupt anyway. I've already stated that the European countries which are in deep recession now had less robust safety nets that Germany did - 'socialism' was not the reason, but economic profligacy, same as why the UK and America are in the mire now too.

Lending and borrowing is regulated in Europe. But regulations will always break down eventually due to the imperative of funding an unworkable economic model. Nordic nations and Germany are able to sustain socialist systems longer due to their national character. But over time that will break down as well in a economic system that subsidizes those that do not contribute to the system.

Actually, unregulated lending was common in Europe. It's one of the reasons why Greece collapsed. The 'national character' argument is a joke. And how will these Northern European countries break down, they've been social capitalist since even before America's Reagonomics disaster, and yet it's America's economy which ended up collapsing. And yet you still think more privatistion is the answer, when we can already see in your country what a disaster is has been? You're not looking at the evidence. Keep predicting the 'breaking down' of the social capitalist economic system, which there is no evidence to predict, Germany continues to be a roaring success, even after a difficult decade in the 90s when it had to absorb a broken down, bankrupt Communist country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More self-determinations around the world like Tibet, Syria, Cyprus, Taiwan, Kuril..........

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The 'national character' argument is a joke.

says the guy who shoehorns America into every thread here.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

More self-determinations around the world like Tibet, Syria, Cyprus, Taiwan, Kuril..........

If there is oil at stake, then suddenly American becomes concerned about human rights abuses committed by other countries. Funny how America seems reluctant to liberate the people of Tibet.... America doesn't get involved in other countries because it's concerned about human rights abuses and wants to spread democracy, it gets involved if it feels its interests are at stake. At least be honest about it. There's no altruistic motive here.

says the guy who shoehorns America into every thread here.

Doesn't contradict anything I've said. I abhor America's economic system, its gun ownership laws and its health care system, not to mention the sky high crime rates and gaping and ever widening divide between the rich and the poor. And of course, its blood soaked military adventures. That's a concrete reality, nothing to do with any 'national character' nonsense, that argument is a cop-out, because it tacitly condones Germany as some sort of superior civilisation, since obviously the Germans have qualities the rest of us could never hope to emultate. That's idiotic, Germany got it right and their policies can be emulated by other world countries. We can all see how the USA and the UK have failed, while Germany remains a powerhouse. I don't see why the US can't follow Germany's example - oh yes, far too much pride and arrogance in their own system, which is a disaster. Again, not 'national character', but something that can be changed with an overhaul of the education system and more enlightened attitude to the world outside its borders.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

China gave arms, but it didn't go into Vietnam and wage war there in the 1960s - America did.

Where are your principles now? Both China and the US were players in the region affecting the self determination of the people of Vietnam. The difference is just a matter of degree. So much for your black and white principles.

Jane Fonda was an American citizen, not an 'outsider' who spoke out about the situation since she had a right to and because she respected Vietnam's right to pursue its own path and could see her government didn't, unfortunately.

You misunderstood what I was saying here. Fonda was an outsider when she went to Vietnam and supported the communist forces against the South - against her fellow citizens. You seem to support intervention that you agree with but oppose intervention that you do not agree with.

The 'socialist model' is not being destroyed in Europe, the Northern countries are more determined that ever to hold onto their model

The northern Europeans are a small part of all of Europe and even there, the model is under stress. Germany has fared better overall but that is due to it's cultural cohesion. But just as the social programs in the US have begun to fail, so they will in Germany.

America is so backward, people being called 'treasonous' for arguing against America's imperialist expansions.

Your argument seems to be with the whole idea of treason. I think there is such a thing and you apparently do not. Fonda was not just arguing against US intervention. She went to Vietnam to lend physical support for the killing of her fellow citizens.

...because they can see what a disaster short term, boom-and-bust Anglo-Saxon capitalism is and how successful theirs is in comparison.

First off, the Anglo-Saxon's in America originate from Europe. Europe is also Anglo-Saxon. Socialism is the disaster because it wallows in it's disasters and are unwilling to respond outside of ideology. Capitalism responds to economic failures and rebuilds. Rejuvenation is built-in to the system. Over the past century, huge numbers of people have emerged from poverty not because of socialism, but through capitalism.

And yet you still think more privatistion is the answer, when we can already see in your country what a disaster is has been? You're not looking at the evidence.

In the US, the disaster is the weight of it's social programs. During the mid to late 1980's, the America economy grew to upwards of 8%. Today, the US economy is barely moving and endures annual deficits of $1.5 trillion annually. Why? To pay for it's social programs. Socialism is an albatross around America's neck. I can see the evidence. You are willingly looking away from it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Doesn't contradict anything I've said. I abhor America's economic system, its gun ownership laws and its health care system, not to mention the sky high crime rates and gaping and ever widening divide between the rich and the poor.

I guess I won't be running into you on my next vacation to Hawaii.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where are your principles now? Both China and the US were players in the region affecting the self determination of the people of Vietnam. The difference is just a matter of degree. So much for your black and white principles.

Sorry, but you need to re-read what I said. China providing support to the Vietnamese to fight against their French colonisers does NOT justify America's own interference in Vietnam's civil war.

You misunderstood what I was saying here. Fonda was an outsider when she went to Vietnam and supported the communist forces against the South - against her fellow citizens. You seem to support intervention that you agree with but oppose intervention that you do not agree with.

No, not 'against her fellow citizens', she was against American soldiers going to Vietnam and killing Vietnamese and being killed themselves. She supported Vietnam's right to self-determination, which America was compromising by putting their troops in the country and trying to change the outcome of a civil war that had nothing to do with America. Her government and fellow citizens (the ones who volunteered to go to Vietnam) were the ones in the wrong.

The northern Europeans are a small part of all of Europe and even there, the model is under stress. Germany has fared better overall but that is due to it's cultural cohesion. But just as the social programs in the US have begun to fail, so they will in Germany.

The model is under stress because of the situation in the more profligate Eurozone countries, but it is certainly not going under. Germany's economy doesn't show any sign of collapse. 'Cultural cohesion', that's right up there with 'national character'. Yes, there is cohesion in Germany, but the German population is composed 10% of immigrants and there are other cultures even within Germany itself, for example the Bavarians are considered distinct from the rest of their countrymen. The reason why there is SOCIAL (not cultural) cohesion in Germany is because of more responsible and just better government and economic polices, which have resulted in a much smaller divide between rich and poor, more equitable distribution of wealth, health care being available to all and people not carrying around guns for their 'safety'. Those are all factors in how cohesive a place is, and come from policies and the government. 'Culture' is a weak excuse, when you look at what kind of country Germany was 70 years ago and now see that it has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Blame the political system that is in place for America having next to no cohesion today.

Your argument seems to be with the whole idea of treason. I think there is such a thing and you apparently do not. Fonda was not just arguing against US intervention. She went to Vietnam to lend physical support for the killing of her fellow citizens.

She went to Vietnam to show that she was against American interference in a civil war in a country America had no understanding of, not to support 'the killing of her fellow citizens'.

First off, the Anglo-Saxon's in America originate from Europe. Europe is also Anglo-Saxon. Socialism is the disaster because it wallows in it's disasters and are unwilling to respond outside of ideology. Capitalism responds to economic failures and rebuilds. Rejuvenation is built-in to the system. Over the past century, huge numbers of people have emerged from poverty not because of socialism, but through capitalism.

All of Europe is not 'Anglo-Saxon'. But anyway, where Anglo-Saxon capitalism originated from is not the argument here, both the US and the UK have pursued a different from of capitalism from other countries in Europe, a form of capitalism which is based on boom and bust short-termism, where finance is elevated above all else and privatisation is called for at all costs. You don't seem to understand that there are different forms of capitalism. Germany is NOT 'socialist', it is SOCIAL CAPITALIST. Why don't you seem to understand? We've already seen the triumph of the social capitalist model over the Anglo-Saxon one already, the Northern European countries continue to have strong, robust economies, even in the fourth year of global economic turmoil, while the US and the UK continue to flounder.

In the US, the disaster is the weight of it's social programs. During the mid to late 1980's, the America economy grew to upwards of 8%. Today, the US economy is barely moving and endures annual deficits of $1.5 trillion annually. Why? To pay for it's social programs. Socialism is an albatross around America's neck. I can see the evidence. You are willingly looking away from it.

Actually in the 1980s, with Reagonomics in full swing, America began to incurr its first trade and current account deficits, you can't blame 'socialism' for that. Your country hasn't seen a trade surplus since the early 80s, America fell into economic collapse in 2008, as the consequences of these insane economic policies finally came to fruition, and that's why America's economy is barely moving today.

I guess I won't be running into you on my next vacation to Hawaii.

Probably not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, but you need to re-read what I said. China providing support to the Vietnamese to fight against their French colonisers does NOT justify America's own interference in Vietnam's civil war.

I got what you said. However, the world isn't as simple as you make it seem in your black and white principled world. You can blame the French for starting it all if you want, but when outside Communist weapons and advisors entered the war and the French left, there would have been a slaughter. Opposing Communism was the right thing to do just as opposing socialism now is the right thing to do. I just hope the socialists don't start killing people so that free people will not have to do the same. When the Communists starting killing people to overthrow the indigenous government, that's when the whole self-determination argument you have been making falls apart.

Again, this is my problem with Jane Fonda. She put herself right in the middle of this war and on the wrong side of history. Defending communism is wrong and always will be wrong.

No, not 'against her fellow citizens', she was against American soldiers going to Vietnam and killing Vietnamese and being killed themselves.

You are not making much sense here. The American soldiers - whether they volunteered or were drafted - shared the same citizenship as Fonda. Furthermore, the American soldiers were fighting as allies of the South against the communist North. The Communist North wanted Chinese and Soviet arms and got them. The South later wanted support from the US and got it. The Vietemese were not innocent bystanders. The different sides asked for outside help. Surely you know that to be true.

Blame the political system that is in place for America having next to no cohesion today.

I do. Multi-culturalism and the welfare state is killing America.

She went to Vietnam to show that she was against American interference in a civil war in a country America had no understanding of, not to support 'the killing of her fellow citizens'.

That is a distinction without a difference. Having herself used as a propaganda prop by the Communist North while sitting on a weapon is an ignorant thing to do.

All of Europe is not 'Anglo-Saxon'.

Yes, and I didn't try to say it was either. My point being that all of those horrible people you seem to be seeing in America are mostly all from somewhere else - and not all the same place. There are huge numbers of English, Irish, Germans, Poles, Italians, and people from other corner of Europe. More than that, we have large numbers of people from just about every country in the world living in one place or other. Branding America as "Anglo-Saxon" as if it were a curse word is misinformed at best. I can think of few places with perhaps the exception of England that has the variety of peoples and cultures co-existing in a single country.

Germany is NOT 'socialist', it is SOCIAL CAPITALIST. Why don't you seem to understand?

I do see your point about Germany and some other particular countries in Europe. However, my focus has not been on any single European country. I was making more of a generalization given the failure of the attempt at European integration and the crisis that it was precipitated. Germany took on the problems of the more socialist countries such as Greece, Italy, and Spain among others by agreeing to be a part of this larger entity. Again, I feel that it's failure is cultural. The German character is made of much sterner stuff than that of the Greeks or the Spanish. A culturally cohesive society can get by with a certain amount of socialism. The Social Capitalist model in more diverse societies such as the US and the UK is doomed to failure. To her credit, Angela Merkel understands this and that is why she spoke out against multi-culturalism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I got what you said. However, the world isn't as simple as you make it seem in your black and white principled world. You can blame the French for starting it all if you want, but when outside Communist weapons and advisors entered the war and the French left, there would have been a slaughter. Opposing Communism was the right thing to do just as opposing socialism now is the right thing to do. I just hope the socialists don't start killing people so that free people will not have to do the same. When the Communists starting killing people to overthrow the indigenous government, that's when the whole self-determination argument you have been making falls apart.

Again, this is my problem with Jane Fonda. She put herself right in the middle of this war and on the wrong side of history. Defending communism is wrong and always will be wrong.

No, I don't live in a black and white world. Even if communism is as evil as you say it is, it doesn't give America any justification to go into Vietnam and 'put things right'. Typical arrogance and meddling. This was an INTERNAL matter. If the Geneva Accords had been held, the communist party would have been voted in by the population. America interfered with this. And again, what Jane was arguing for was the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam so Vietnam could pursue its own path as it was entitled to as a sovereign nation. She was on the right side of history.

You are not making much sense here. The American soldiers - whether they volunteered or were drafted - shared the same citizenship as Fonda. Furthermore, the American soldiers were fighting as allies of the South against the communist North. The Communist North wanted Chinese and Soviet arms and got them. The South later wanted support from the US and got it. The Vietemese were not innocent bystanders. The different sides asked for outside help. Surely you know that to be true.

Yes, of course I know that, but just because the Northern Vietnamese got help from the Chinese doesn't justify America's interference 'they did it, so we should be allowed to as well'. So a democracy is going compare itself to a dictatorship? Two wrongs don't make a right, and again, America went one step further, by actually PLACING American troops in Vietnam, which the Chinese did not do. It's a matter of degree yes, but a BIG matter of degree. Again, the majority of the population would have voted for the communists, America saw that and that's why it swooped into this civil war and tried its best to prevent that from happening - completely impeding Vietnam's sovereignty.

I do. Multi-culturalism and the welfare state is killing America.

Reagonomics destroyed America, trade and current account surpluses completely disappeared, and America has been running up ever larger deficits since. By far the world's largest debtor nation today, when it was a creditor in the early 80s. The 'glorious' Reagan years saw an increase in the divide between rich and poor and an increase in poverty in general, which put more strain on America's already flimsy social safety net.

That is a distinction without a difference. Having herself used as a propaganda prop by the Communist North while sitting on a weapon is an ignorant thing to do.

That was North's doing, she's perfectly entitled to sit on a tank, and if they want to take a picture, then it doesn't make her a traitor.

Yes, and I didn't try to say it was either. My point being that all of those horrible people you seem to be seeing in America are mostly all from somewhere else - and not all the same place. There are huge numbers of English, Irish, Germans, Poles, Italians, and people from other corner of Europe. More than that, we have large numbers of people from just about every country in the world living in one place or other. Branding America as "Anglo-Saxon" as if it were a curse word is misinformed at best. I can think of few places with perhaps the exception of England that has the variety of peoples and cultures co-existing in a single country.

Actually, you said 'Europe is Anglo-Saxon'. And so what, America is NOT the only country which has made up of immigrants or has a multi-ethnic population, look at your next door neighbour Canada, or even Australia, they've managed to hold all these cultures together and still have universal health care and the like. I think you forget that even in Europe, citizens travel between countries all the time, especially so in the Eurozone's case, and it hasn't put a strain on Germany's social capitalist system. I brand the US as 'Anglo-Saxon' when it comes to its economic policies. Germany's population is as multi-ethnic as the UK's is, just like the UK, 10% of their population is made up of immigrants.

I do see your point about Germany and some other particular countries in Europe. However, my focus has not been on any single European country. I was making more of a generalization given the failure of the attempt at European integration and the crisis that it was precipitated. Germany took on the problems of the more socialist countries such as Greece, Italy, and Spain among others by agreeing to be a part of this larger entity. Again, I feel that it's failure is cultural. The German character is made of much sterner stuff than that of the Greeks or the Spanish. A culturally cohesive society can get by with a certain amount of socialism. The Social Capitalist model in more diverse societies such as the US and the UK is doomed to failure. To her credit, Angela Merkel understands this and that is why she spoke out against multi-culturalism.

I agree that the European integration programme was a mistake, but again, it was because a single currency was implemented in different sovereign countries, which would always have led to disaster. The Eurozone is not like the US, which is made up of states which result in one country. The Eurozone has never been one country. Again, the Greeks were undone by corruption and tax evasion, not their social safety net.. None of the countries in Southern Europe who are experiencing economic turmoil now ever had a social safety net that was as robust as Germany's. Germany and the UK are mirror images of each other, except one country is a success and one is a failure, due to their different systems of capitalism. Germany recognises the importance of manufacturing, while the UK throw away its manufacturing to focus on finance and 'services' - LMAO. Thatcher's privatisation frenzy, along with Reagonomics are the reason for both the UK and America's economic collapse. Germany focused on building an export oriented economy, and is one of the world's top 3 creditor nations today, it's sensible economic policies, and higher educational attainment by its citizens are why Germany now leads the way. Germany experienced the same problems related to multi-culturism (it has now recognised that integration is the way forward) as the UK has, but their economic situations today couldn't be more different. Nothing to do with multiculturism or the robustness of the welfare system, which sits at similar levels in both countries.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No, I don't live in a black and white world. Even if communism is as evil as you say it is, it doesn't give America any justification to go into Vietnam and 'put things right'. Typical arrogance and meddling. This was an INTERNAL matter.

It was an internal matter until it wasn't. Look, the North wanted help from the Chinese and Soviets. The South wanted help from the West. If they didn't ask for help then you would have a point. But they did so you don't. How about this. Say the UK asked the US for help during WWII and the US says no because that would be meddling. Well, it's not that simple... If a Europe dominated by Nazi's is okay by you, then yes America shouldn't be so arrogant.

And again, what Jane was arguing for was the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam so Vietnam could pursue its own path as it was entitled to as a sovereign nation. She was on the right side of history.

By your logic, Fonda was meddling in Vietnam's internal matters by being an outsider involving herself in an internal matter for Vietnam. By the way, she was sitting on a "Chinese" anti-aircraft gun.

The 'glorious' Reagan years saw an increase in the divide between rich and poor and an increase in poverty in general, which put more strain on America's already flimsy social safety net.

Sorry you can't re-write history. President Obama has run up more debt in a single year than Reagan had in two full terms as president. Unemployment was over 11% from the Carter years but was brought down to nearly half of that. The American economy boomed for a generation. The divide between rich and poor is greater now under our current Socialist-Capitalist president that at any time since the Great Depression. Food stamp recipients are at a record level. The Reagan years were not glorious. But they were not half as bad as they are now under Obama.

Germany's population is as multi-ethnic as the UK's is, just like the UK, 10% of their population is made up of immigrants.

Roughly 99% of America's population is made up of immigrants. The UK has a much greater outside influence due to it's centuries of trade with other nations throughout the world. Germany has much less of an outside influence on their culture. Regardless, Merkel still thinks multi-culturalism is bad - and she is right.

Germany focused on building an export oriented economy, and is one of the world's top 3 creditor nations today, it's sensible economic policies, and higher educational attainment by its citizens are why Germany now leads the way.

Very true. They built on their strengths in manufacturing and you have to give them credit for that. America's manufacturing decline began in the 1970's not the 1980's. When the Japanese miracle hit America didn't even see it coming.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was an internal matter until it wasn't. Look, the North wanted help from the Chinese and Soviets. The South wanted help from the West. If they didn't ask for help then you would have a point. But they did so you don't. How about this. Say the UK asked the US for help during WWII and the US says no because that would be meddling. Well, it's not that simple... If a Europe dominated by Nazi's is okay by you, then yes America shouldn't be so arrogant.

Yes, it was an internal matter. America did not sign the Geneva Accord. If elections were held, than the communists would have won. The dictatorship in the South existed only because of American backing. America had already interfered by not letting the Vietnamese democratically elect their own government, so the fact that Diem asked for American help doesn't mean America was justified in doing what it did. And there is a massive difference between the Soviets and the Chinese providing arms and the Americans actually putting troops in the country and engaging in full on war with the Vietnamese population Again, two wrongs don't make a right, your attempt at equalising America's actions with that of China during the same period would only work if America had only provided arms and not also sent its troops in. And the only reason the US got involved in the war against the Nazis was because it was attacked by an Axis country, Japan, not because the UK asked it to.

By your logic, Fonda was meddling in Vietnam's internal matters by being an outsider involving herself in an internal matter for Vietnam. By the way, she was sitting on a "Chinese" anti-aircraft gun.

Jane Fonda was a citizen of a democratic country who went to Vietnam to ask American troops to withdraw and stop meddling in internal matters. It was America that had involved itself in an internal matter for Vietnam. Like many people, Jane recognised this was a gross infringement on Vietnam's right to self-determination. Hence why she went.

Sorry you can't re-write history. President Obama has run up more debt in a single year than Reagan had in two full terms as president. Unemployment was over 11% from the Carter years but was brought down to nearly half of that. The American economy boomed for a generation. The divide between rich and poor is greater now under our current Socialist-Capitalist president that at any time since the Great Depression. Food stamp recipients are at a record level. The Reagan years were not glorious. But they were not half as bad as they are now under Obama.

Sorry, but America went into economic collapse during the dying days of the Bush administration, long before any 'socialist' policies were implemented by Obama. Unemployment was brought down by Reagan, but he also raised poverty. America's 'boom' resulted in an even more fractitious divided society, where the gap between rich and poor grew hugely, and this boom ended up being shown for what it actually was when your country's economy collapsed in 2008, a collapse that was rooted in the insane Reaganomic policies of the 80s. Obama inherited a 20 year mess, it will take a long time for America to recover from its economic insanity.

Roughly 99% of America's population is made up of immigrants. The UK has a much greater outside influence due to it's centuries of trade with other nations throughout the world. Germany has much less of an outside influence on their culture. Regardless, Merkel still thinks multi-culturalism is bad - and she is right.

So is Canada and Australia. The UK had an imperialist influence on the countries it dominated, but having an empire in the 1800s doesn't mean social capitalism would never work in the UK today. Germany also had colonies, albeit smaller ones. Again, the UK's imperial past has nothing to do the current situation, the proportion of immigrants in Germany and the UK today are at very similar levels, and both countries are multi-ethnic, but one has a poor economy, and one an extremely strong one, based on the different systems of capitalism adopted.

Very true. They built on their strengths in manufacturing and you have to give them credit for that. America's manufacturing decline began in the 1970's not the 1980's. When the Japanese miracle hit America didn't even see it coming.

Actually America still had a manufacturing industry in the 70s even if it faced Japanese competition, just as Germany also faced Japanese competition. Today Germany and Japan face Korean and Chinese competition, but they're not going to just dismantle their industrial sectors because of this. Competition doesn't mean you have to necessarily give up. Unfortunately, instead of continuing to compete in manufacturing and up its ante, America threw it away to focus on finance and its trade and current account surpluses became history. A Japanese miracle didn't mean America had to choose the path of economic implosion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just don't follow Germany's Euro disaster.............

Problem with Euro economy is systematic; problem with US economy is political.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nancyrella

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just don't follow Germany's Euro disaster.............

Problem with Euro economy is systematic; problem with US economy is political.

Actually, the Euro disaster is not 'Germany's', Germany only agreed to a single currency in exchange for East and West Germany being united, it wanted to keep the Deutschmark.

There's no such thing as the 'Euro economy', the Eurozone is made up of sovereign countries which made the disastrous single currency policy such a debacle. Germany and other Northern European economies continue to remain strong. The problems in the American economy are DEFINITELY systematic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problems in the American economy are DEFINITELY systematic.

Nope, political. The politicians just have to get their heads off their asses. Need more agreements between the parties to get things moving. The 2011 US Congress was the least productive Congress in decades because of letting ideological differences preventing things from getting done. For instance, the budgets could've been done for the whole year instead of fighting every 3 months, and that instability is spooking the markets from looking at long-term forecast planning.

Meanwhile, the Euro at its current framework just doesn't work, therefore systematic. Either tighten up the different national economies if they want to share the same currency, or free them go on their own ways with their own currencies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nope, political. The politicians just have to get their heads off their asses. Need more agreements between the parties to get things moving. The 2011 US Congress was the least productive Congress in decades because of letting ideological differences preventing things from getting done. For instance, the budgets could've been done for the whole year instead of fighting every 3 months, and that instability is spooking the markets from looking at long-term forecast planning.

No, systematic, America's form of capitalism had already been in place for decades LONG before Obama came into office. Again, America's economy collapsed in late 2008 BEFORE Obama was elected, in the twilight days of an eight year Republican rule. America's 'Market Oriented' capitalism compared to Germany's 'Social Capitalist' model has proven to be a failure. This is completely systematic and something so few Americans want to look at or understand, especially the ones who call for lower taxes, LMAO.

Meanwhile, the Euro at its current framework just doesn't work, therefore systematic. Either tighten up the different national economies if they want to share the same currency, or free them go on their own ways with their own currencies.

The decision to implement the Euro was POLITICAL, yes it led to a disaster, but having sovereign countries using the same currency would always have led to major problems down the line. Europe's crisis today results from an insane political decision which went into play in early 2002, the Euro should be discontinued and each country return to their national currency. The Socialist Capitalist model is much more adept at coping with economic turmoil than other forms of capitalism as we have seen from the last four years. Germany has dealt with the Euro crisis without having its own economy collapsing in turn. America's trade and current account deficit has continued to grow for nearly 30 years now, yet this huge problem was largely ignored until recently. Reagonomics led America down its self-destructive route.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites