Scumbag Veteran Spits in Fonda's Face

“"we could sit here for days on end and provide examples of libs acting good and cons bad, and vice versa"

crash bang
6:30:58 PM
4/20/05

oh, look, heres one now:



Man Spits in Jane Fonda's Face at Book Signing



AP

Michael A. Smith called the spitting incident a "debt of honor."

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (April 20) - A man spit tobacco juice into the face of actress Jane Fonda after waiting in line to have her sign her new book, police said.

The man ran off but was quickly caught by police Tuesday night and charged with disorderly conduct.

Fonda has been on tour and doing interviews to promote her just-published memoir, "My Life So Far." The thrice-married, two-time Academy Award winner covers a wide array of topics, including her 1972 visit to Hanoi to protest the Vietnam War, during which she was photographed on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. She has apologized for that photo, but not for opposing the war.

Capt. Rich Lockhart of the Kansas City Police Department said that although Fonda did not want to press charges against Michael A. Smith, 54, of Kansas City, he was arrested on a municipal charge of disorderly conduct after off-duty officers caught him just outside Unity Temple, where Fonda was signing books.

Lockhart said Smith was released on bond late Tuesday night and is due to appear in municipal court on May 27.

Smith, a Vietnam veteran, told The Kansas City Star on Wednesday that Fonda was a "traitor" and that her protests against the war were unforgivable. He said he normally does not chew tobacco but did so Tuesday solely to spit juice on the actress.

"I consider it a debt of honor," he told The Star for a story on its Web site, www.kansascity.com. "She spit in our faces for 37 years. It was absolutely worth it. There are a lot of veterans who would love to do what I did."

Fonda drew a crowd of about 900 for her appearance, said Vivian Jennings, whose Rainy Day Books of suburban Fairway, Kan., sponsored the event at Unity Temple in Kansas City. Fonda, 67, spoke for about 15 minutes, answered questions for another 15, then began signing copies of her book.



AP
Jane Fonda began her book tour for 'My Life So Far' on April 5.

Jennings said Fonda received a standing ovation when she came out and when she finished speaking. Alan Tilson, one of those who had his book signed but left before the incident, said the crowd was very "warm and supportive" to Fonda and he was surprised to learn what had happened.

Jennings said the actress never got up from her seat and continued autographing books after the tobacco juice was wiped off.

"The important thing is that she was so calm and so gracious about it," Jennings said of Fonda. "She was wonderful."

Jennings said that the man had a book to which the name "Jody" had been affixed as he approached to have it autographed. She said that when Fonda got the book, she looked up and said, "You're not Jody."

"At that moment, he turned his head quickly and spit a trail of tobacco juice," Jennings said. "He immediately jumped off the stage and started running down the aisle."

Fonda, who flew to Minneapolis Wednesday for another appearance on the book tour she began April 5, issued a statement through Jynne Martin of Random House, which published her book.

"In spite of the incident, my experience in Kansas City was wonderful and I thank all the warm and supportive people, including so many veterans, who came to welcome me last night," Fonda said.”

“and i just know you lovely righties will probably applaud this guy, but if someone were to do this to rush limbaugh or ann coulter youd be all in a lather

hi to sarge and oryx. something tells me we'll be seeing alot of you

i tried my best to do an oryx imitation in the thread title. hope you like it.

stovestomper takes pride in being the anti-violin. i guess i have to be the anti-oryx. the anti-christ (buddha bear) was already taken.”

“I don't think my Dad would do the same thing but he's probably applauding this guy. I think it'd be pretty difficult for someone our age, Crash Bang, to understand exactly what the soldiers of Vietnam went through when they came home. There wasn't any "I support my troops but not the war", it was baby-killer this and murderer that. Those guys and women had no support. I imagine when Jane Fonda did what she did it was like sticking four more knives in and twisting them too. She didn't just have pictures taken she litterally supported the enemy financially. But, I only know what my mom and dad have hinted at because my dad won't talk about Vietnam, still, and I was born after he came home.”

“thats a good post, sass. probably the only level-headed post we'll get on this thread.”

“I don't know. It seems like an awful long time to hold a grudge. But we have no idea what that man went through then and since.”

“btw, i am in no way condoning or condemning the vietnam war, or the actions or words of jane fonda. i am demonstrating that no group has cornered the market on the moral high ground. i am sure that is a point that will be lost on many, even as i plainly state it.”

“Hey, I was mistaken. Jane Fonda did not support the vietcong finacially. What she did was hand over a buncha POWs notes to their loved ones to their captors.”

“I am a veteran, not of the Vietnam war, but of the Gulf War and four years of service. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING that woman can say or do will make up for what she did. I have no problems with a person using their free speech to protest a war on the steps of the capitol building, I will defend that right as staunchly and as proudly as anyone in the military. When you use your status as a popular icon to travel to a country at war with the United States, and you are a citizen of the United States, you are a traitor. You are giving the enemy a propaganda coup that helps their morale and hurts ours. Nothing can absolve her of what she did. Posing for pictures in an anti aircraft gun position used to shoot down Americans was absolutely unforgivable. To support a regime that was as brutal and savage as the North Vietnamese and their splinter group, the Viet Cong, was a slap in the face to America and Americans. I take my hat off, bow, and salute to the man who did what many others only wish they could do.”

“Regarding your reference to Ann Coulter and Rush, what have they done in their past where they would deserve to have someone spit in their faces? If they had done something similar to what Hanoi Jane did then they would deserve it too.”

“The proof is in the pudding with Vietnam.
It is an independent country run by it's own people, for better or for worse.

Vietnam is the nummber two exporter of rice, with Thailand being first.

They still produce rubber.
I have no idea if working conditions for the plantation workers are any better under native control than it was under foreign domination.

Americans were lied to about the reasons for going to war there.
We were told that our "friends" in Vietnam were going to be overrun by rotten foreigners and that if we didn't stop it those same people would gobble up the U.S. eventually.

The real reason was to protect the foreign-owned commercial interests from native take over.

Aside from the cost in human lives the money spent on the war was more than the commercial interests were worth.

I think the grudges are misdirected.
Every U.S. president from Truman to Nixon had blood on their hands.”

“Actually Sass that is a myth. She did many things but no one has been able to substantiate that rumor. Here is a long but informative peice on her actions in Vietnam..

The right to freedom of speech is one of our most cherished rights. It is also a double-edged sword: the same right that allows us to criticize our government's policies without fear of reprisal also protects those who endorse and promote racism, anti-semitism, ethnic hatred and other socially divisive positions.

Rarely is this dichotomy so evident as when a democratic nation engages in war, and the protection of civil liberties clashes head-on with the exigencies of a war effort. Protesting a government's involvement in a war without also interfering in the prosecution of that war is a difficult (if not impossible) feat, a situation that has sometimes led the government to curtail the freedom of speech, such as when the U.S. Sedition Act (passed during World War I) made criminals of those who would "willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States." Under this law, peacefully urging citizens to resist the draft or simply drawing an editorial cartoon critical of the government became illegal. (The Sedition Act was later overturned.)

The most prominent example of a clash between private citizen protest and governmental military policy in recent history occurred in July 1972, when actress Jane Fonda arrived in Hanoi, North Vietnam, and began a two-week tour of the country conducted by uniformed military hosts. Aside from visiting villages, hospitals, schools, and factories, Fonda also posed for pictures in which she was shown applauding North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners, was photographed peering into the sights of an NVA anti-aircraft artillery launcher, and made ten propagandistic Tokyo Rose-like radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as "war criminals." She also spoke with eight American POWs at a carefully arranged "press conference," POWS who had been tortured by their North Vietnamese captors to force them to meet with Fonda, deny they had been tortured, and decry the American war effort. Fonda apparently didn't notice (or care) that the POWs were delivering their lines under duress or find it unusual the she was not allowed to visit the prisoner-of-war camp (commonly known as the "Hanoi Hilton") itself. She merely went home and told the world that "[the POWs] assured me they were in good health. When I asked them if they were brainwashed, they all laughed. Without exception, they expressed shame at what they had done." She did, however, charge that North Vietnamese POWs were systematically tortured in American prison-of-war camps.

To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law."

Were Jane Fonda's actions treason, or were they the exercise of a private citizen's right to freedom of speech? At the time, the legal aspects of this question were moot: President Nixon was engaged in trying to wind down American involvement in Vietnam and had to face another election in a few months, so politically he had far more to lose than to gain by making a martyr out of a prominent anti-war activist. (No requirement in either the Constitution or federal law states that the U.S. must be engaged in a declared war, or any war at all, before charges of treason can be brought against an individual.)

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

The most serious accusations in the piece quoted above — that Fonda turned over slips of paper furtively given her by American POWS to the North Vietnamese and that several POWs were beaten to death as a result — are proveably untrue. Those named in the inflammatory e-mail categorically deny the events they supposedly were part of.

"It's a figment of somebody's imagination," says Ret. Col. Larry Carrigan, one of the servicemen mentioned in the 'slips of paper' incident. Carrigan was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and did spend time in a POW camp. He has no idea why the story was attributed to him, saying, "I never met Jane Fonda."

The tale about a defiant serviceman who spit at Jane Fonda and is severely beaten as a result is often attributed to Air Force pilot Jerry Driscoll. He has repeatedly stated on the record that it did not originate with him.

The story about a POW forced to kneel on rocky ground while holding a piece of steel rebar in his outstretched arms is true, though. That account comes from Michael Benge, a civilian advisor captured by the Viet Cong in 1968 and held as a POW for 5 years. His original statement, titled "Shame on Jane," was published in April by the Advocacy and Intelligence Network for POWs and MIAs.

The unknown author of the "Hanoi Jane" e-mail appears to have picked up Benge's story online and combined it with fabricated tales to create the forwarded text. Some versions now circulate with Benge's name listed; others quote his statement anonymously.

In fact, Fonda carried home letters from many American POWs to their families upon her return from North Vietnam, and rumors that a POW was beaten to death when he refused to meet with her were nothing more than rumors. Still, legally treasonous or not, Jane Fonda's actions merit the contempt felt towards her, and her inclusion in ABC's 30 April 1999 "A Celebration: 100 Years of Great Women" rightly angered many who failed to see what was so "great" about this woman. She didn't go to North Vietnam to try to bring about peace or to reconcile the two warring sides or to stop American boys from being killed; she went there as an active show of support for the North Vietnamese cause. She lauded the North Vietnamese military and citizens while she denounced American soldiers as "war criminals" and urged them to stop fighting, she lobbied to cut off all American economic aid to the South Vietnamese government even after the Paris Peace Accords ended U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, and she publicly thanked the Soviets for providing assistance to the North Vietnamese. And she did all this not as a reckless youth who rashly spouted ill-considered opinions now best forgotten, but as a 34-year-old adult who should be expected to bear full responsibility for her actions.

In 1988, sixteen years after denouncing American soldiers as war criminals and tortured POWs as possessed of overactive imaginations, Fonda met with Vietnam veterans to apologize for her actions. It's interesting to note that this nationally-televised apology (during which she attempted to minimize her actions by characterizing them as "thoughtless and careless") came at a time when New England vets were successfully disrupting a film project she was working on. It's also interesting that not only was this apology delivered sixteen years after the fact, but it has not been offered again since. More than a few have read a huge dollop of self-interest into Fonda's 1988 apology. (Finally, in an interview in 2000, almost thirty years after the fact, Fonda admitted: "I will go to my grave regretting the photograph of me in an anti-aircraft carrier, which looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes. It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized such hostility. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless.")

Whether the war was right or wrong, those who risked (and gave) their lives fighting it deserve respect, and for Fonda to brand men who were held captive and tortured as "liars" and "hypocrites" (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) in order to defend her political views was and is unpardonable.”

“Having said all that, Jane Fonda is an embarrassment.

Spitting tobacco juice in anyone's face is the act of a twisted mind.

I would be ashamed if any of my young men did such a cowardly thing.....and to a woman.

There is no excuse for that kind of behavior.”

“I am sorry he spit anything in Jane Fonda's face.

He should have stabbed her to death with a bamboo stake, or beheaded her with a sword, which is what has happened to any number of American POW's in enemy hands.

That might send a message that there is no statute of limitations on treason.

Then as a veteran demand his constitutional right to a jury of his peers, a jury of former POW's.”

“Created by the CIA in Saigon in 1967, Phoenix was a program aimed at "neutralizing"—through assassination, kidnapping, and systematic torture—the civilian infrastructure that supported the Viet Cong insurgency in South Vietnam. It was a terrifying "final solution" that violated the Geneva Conventions and traditional American ideas of human morality.

There was plenty of ugliness to go around.”

“MarkO, the geneva convention applies to soldiers in uniform, not to insurgents.
So no action against insurgents would be against the Geneva Convention.
Destroying civilian non-combatant property would be against the Geneva Convention, so what Hitler did in bombing Polish, Dutch, Belgian, French, and English cities would be a violation, but equally so would the Allied bombing of Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo. Even Bagdad in the first Iraqui war. Saddam Hussein should have been brought up on war crimes for firing Scuds at Haifa, a civilian target in a neutral country.

The general provisions against torture are in the Human Rights Commission and do apply to everyone.

The Vietnam war was a part of the containment policy to prevent the USSR from having major naval stations around the globe. Vietnam was a little country caught in the middle of global positioning by the 2 nuclear superpowers USA and USSR, where nuclear annihilation faced the losers.
A lot of the world waited until one of these 2 made a mistake that had a high probability of killing very human on earth.”

“nothing can be done about it now but we shouldn't have been in Nam to start with.

The US was at a disadvantage in that war. We had to fight within the rules while the Vietcong had no rules. Since when has there been rules in war anyway?
(does this sound familiar)

As far as Jane Fonda, she wasn't the only person against the war. If that had been anyone else you would have never heard anything about it. Even though I was against the war I was drafted and would have went if needed. Thank goodness I didn't make it.

Did she deserve to get spit upon, probably not but he could have given her a good old fashion cussing out. If it was a guy would he have spit on him? maybe, maybe not because the guy might have responded with a fist to he head.”

“I served during the early days of Vietnam, when we all pretty much believed what we were told by Johnson. Wayne Morse of Oregon was the lone senator against the war.

I followed my military service with 11 years working for a defense department agency, doing intell work on Nam for about half that time.

Two points to make here: Manuka is wrong again. The Viet Cong could, perhaps, be construed to be insurgents, and perhaps the Geneva Convention would not have covered them. But the North Vietnamese regulars were not insurgents as such, and the convention did cover them.

And yes, our side did commit atrocities against not just insurgents, but civilians as well. Has everybody forgotten My Lai?

The Vietnam war was a complicated affair that began at the end of WW II. Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist and a socialist (not a communist as such at the time) who had studied in the United States. He overthrew the French, but at the resulting treaty convention the country was split in two with a US backed government in the south and Ho Chi Minh in the north. Under the convention, the people of Vietnam were supposed to vote for which of the two governments they wanted, with reunification to follow the vote. The north held an election; that in the south was cancelled with the backing of the Eisenhower administration. As far as Ho was concerned, his government had won the only election that was held, so he set about to overthrow the Diem government and complete what he viewed as the liberation of his homeland.

The United States sent advisors to the South Vietnamese government and the rest is history. The Gulf of Tonkin attacks on two US destroyers never occurred, but Johnson got his war resolution and set out to "contain" communism. There was nothing to contain. Had the US not been involved in Vietnam, the Soviet Union had zero interest there. Indeed, after Ho overthrew the South Vietnamese regime, the Soviets faded and faded fast. The Vietnamese and Chinese have a long history of antagonism, so China never was part of the equation.

Personally, I don't thing Jane Fonda should have gone to Hanoi, but she did. As far as I'm concerned, we had no business being in Vietnam. The pretext for going there was, as is today the case with Iraq, spurious at best, but more of an outright lie. We supported a succession of military dictatorships, not a democratic government, or anything close. Elections were fraught with fraud and manipulation, all of which was widely reported at the time.

Incidentally, since we're on the subject, Vo Nquyen Giap was the commanding general during the French Indochinese war and the victor at Dien Bien Phu. He was the defense minister during the U.S. war. He was a brilliant strategist whose main strengthe was an uncanny ability to gauge enemy strengths and weaknesses. His one mistake, and it was a major one, was believing he could defeat the United States military. But he did correctly assess that US public opinion would ultimately tire of the war while the North Vietnamese were fighting for the liberation of their entire country. Unable to defeat the American military, he pulled back and bided his time while diplomacy took over with the view of letting the US declare victory and go home.

In the final assault, all of his strategic precepts were put into operation when he rolled the tanks south. Having studied Giap, I knew that was the end.

The loss to the US was not a military loss, but a political loss. It failed to do what it set out to accomplish by failing to correctly ascertain the situation it entered. It was another case of shooting from the hip without knowing what we were aiming at or why.”

“Interesting post Geo.

Friends of ours just returned from a trip that included Vietnam. The poverty they witnessed was staggering. Ho Chi Minh's grave is a major attraction.
last edited: 4/21/05 9:41:15 AM”

“Geobeet, citing that I am wrong again.

I was responding to Marko's comment about actions taken against insurgents.

MarkO does not mention NVA.
Don't trip over yourself in your rush to prove me wrong Geobeet.
Pretty much all CIA actions were also taken by non-uniformed personnel which also places them outside the Geneva convention.”

“Poverty in all of Southeast Asia is staggering. If you spend time in one of those countries, you know the meaning of the term third world. You also learn how good we have it here. And you can begin to appreciate not only how good we have it, but the sacrifices that made it that good.

You also learn that other people have hopes, dreams, pride, and that they have learned that whatever comes from us comes with strings attached.

Were US bases in Southeast Asia a boon to the local economy, or a blight of prostitution and drug trade? Were Americans the bearers of prosperity, or the merchants of vice?

They're the ones who paid the cost. We pulled up stakes and left.”

“"MarkO, the geneva convention applies to soldiers in uniform, not to insurgents."

Does it apply to murdering civilians?
last edited: 4/21/05 9:53:27 AM”

“playing devils adovacte here.

how can you tell which civilans were actually the enemy. They all looked a like.

Men, women and children were all used to kill the US soldiers.”

“Thanks for punishing manuka, Geo.

Ewker, they applied any and all means to win their independence.

There was plenty of ugliness to go around.
last edited: 4/21/05 9:57:31 AM”

“CIA operatives were indeed outside the Geneva Convention.

The Viet Cong were organized along military and political lines. It was a tightly controlled, cohesive organization. The military organizations fought as soldiers. Political leaders concurrently held military rank.

What you have to understand about Vietnam is that American political and military leaders had very little understanding of the situation that existed, despite a wealth of intelligence and collateral information about how the Viet Cong military was structured.

The invasion of Cambodia was a case in point. Any intelligence analyst who had worked the problem for a few years predicted the result before the first American stepped off. It was a waste of time, money, blood, and effort. For that operation to have succeeded would have required airborne assault in Cambodia with a viable blocking operation to contain the Viet Cong. As it was, the VC retreated a few clicks ahead of the point. For all the claims of captured documents and arms, we got nothing. The operation was an abyssmal failure judged against the stated purpose of capturing their headquarters. It was not a gaggle of loose insurgents we fought, but a strong military organization willing to fight to the death to achieve its goals.

It was not a bunch of guys who suddenly decided on the spur of the moment, "Hey, hold my beer, I'm gonna overthrow Diem!"

So the construction that we were assassinating people outside the realm of a structured military force is at the very least subject to question. That question was never submitted to a tribunal for litigation.”

“The guy did something wrong so I'm not going to defend him. But I can understand his feelings somewhat. After WWII, people like Tokyo Rose and the American poet Ezra Pound went to jail for the kind of stuff Jane Fonda did. She just got rich off of movies and exercise videos. Now she's writing her life story and will make money off of that. The Viet Nam vet just got shafted over there and over here when he came home. Not to belittle Hanoi Jane but she's lucky that one of those embittered vets hasn't popped a cap in her a$$ at one of those book signings.
>
And since were talking about it during the time she was married to Ted Turner his son graduated from the Citadel in Charleston. She came to the graduation ceremony. The Cadets were specifically ordered to make no derogatory statements or take no actions regarding Jane. They were southern gentlemen and accorded Jane all the respect that a lady should receive.
last edited: 4/21/05 10:07:19 AM”

“And as far as poverty in Viet Nam. I've nothing against the Vietnamese but they fought for their worker's paradise now let them live in it. I wish the Chinese would go back to communism too so we wouldn't have to compete with them in the trade arena.”

“The compassionate conservatives seem to love this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387390/posts#comment?q=1

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387358/posts”

“MarkO and Geobeet,

here is a reference on the Geneva Convention(s)
http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Specifically

"In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them."

and

"Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention."

and MarkO, as you asked about civilians there is a whole section on their protections, but once the civilians do participate in military activity, .. see that preceding paragraph.

I have never argued that what occurred in Vietnam was right or wrong, what my argument has been is that the widespread use of combatants not in uniform means the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

Violations of human rights do apply, did apply, but not Geneva convention.

So stop talking about violations of the geneva convention, they do not apply except to uniformed soldiers.

The prosecution in My Lai had to show that the soldiers concerned, knew the villagers were not combatants and that they knew they were killing civilians.
If the villagers of My Lai were combatants they would NOT have prisoner of war status because they were not in uniform, ergo execution would not be a violation of the geneva convention. Pretty difficult to prove that they thought the children were combatants. What happened in My Lai was murder by soldiers in a gang rampage.”

“Manuka, how do you know they weren't insurgents or were sympathetic to the Vietcong. Like I said earlier Men, women and children tried and did kill US soliders.

If given a choice as to who dies, it would be them over me”

“Ewker, I am agreeing with your point of view.

Once 'some' non-identifiable people prove to be combatants, - the geneva convention no longer applies.

In Viet Nam, as in Iraq today, there are no civilians, and anyone found with any combat material is an enemy with no prisoner-of-war rights under the geneva convention.”

“Both wars mentioned were undeclared wars.

Neither of the countries invaded were a threat to the U.S. but a threat to business.

How can the civilians fighting to rid their country of foreign invaders be legitimate targets for killing?

I'm thinking of Norway, '40-'45.”

“Economy - overview:
Vietnam is a poor, densely-populated country that has had to recover from the ravages of war, the loss of financial support from the old Soviet Bloc, and the rigidities of a centrally-planned economy. Substantial progress was achieved from 1986 to 1996 in moving forward from an extremely low starting point - growth averaged around 9% per year from 1993 to 1997. The 1997 Asian financial crisis highlighted the problems in the Vietnamese economy, but rather than prompting reform, reaffirmed the government's belief that shifting to a market-oriented economy would lead to disaster. GDP growth of 8.5% in 1997 fell to 6% in 1998 and 5% in 1999. Growth then rose to 6% to 7% in 2000-02 even against the background of global recession. These numbers mask some major difficulties in economic performance. Many domestic industries, including coal, cement, steel, and paper, have reported large stockpiles of inventory and tough competition from more efficient foreign producers.
-------------------------

I will give you Iraq for business MarkO, but Viet Nam C'mon.

Viet Nam was viewed as dangerous because of the 'domino theory' where each communist country could de-stabilize the next country.
This also was only important in the USA vs USSR view of global politic. It all followed the Cuban missile crisis where the USSR was setting up ICBM sites 90 miles off the US coast giving the possibility of a pre-emptive first strike. Nuclear paranoia fueled the VietNam war, not big business.

Your lumping the two together shows that you think in sound bites MarkO.”

“Looks like Sassafrass, SquirellBait, and Manuka have handily won this debate. MarkO, you've just proven you're astoundingly ignorant (particularly when contrasted with Geobeet). Really, the '60's are over - grow up, you stupid smelly hippy.”

“"I will give you Iraq for business MarkO, but Viet Nam C'mon."

Come on, yourself.

If you think Vietnam was fought over for political reasons you are thinking in sound bites, my friend.

Vietnam was a cash cow.

The French were lickin' their chops over it for many years and finally moved in in 1862.

Why did they bother with it?
Was it to Christianize the people and save their souls?
Jesuit missionaries were the first to "soften up the beach head" as a matter of fact.

It was a colony of France.

You do know what colonies were for, don't you?

It was one huge labor camp for foreign investors to exploit.

Domino Theory my eye!”

“Vietnam: A History
Stanley Karnow

It's about 1,000 pages long and very dry.”

“God you're dumb.”

“Jane Fonda and Ann Coulter -

Mudwrestling headliner bout

followed by:

Oryx and USA -

Slapfighting and whining bout”

“I'm hip!”

“Geopolitics were a major reason for the Vietnam War. People really did believe the domino theory. Of course money and investments played a role, but you can't overlook the Cold War Stratergy (esp. the Truman doctrine).

Jane Fonda crossed a few important lines, but Sass is wrong on the act of turning over POW's notes to the North Vietnamese. That's a myth. She did enough that was reprehensible, however - like calling US POW's liars and posing and smiling while on an anti-aircraft gun that was being used to shoot at US pilots - posing as if she was manning the gun.

A lot of people did pretty weird stuff during the Vietnam war. Johnson and Nixon and people in their administrations lied and lied about the war. Atrocities were covered up. Many lives were ruined. While most pro and anti-war people behaved reasonably there were exceptions. Cops used to beat on anti-war people without just cause, construction workers were encouraged to attack them. The Weather underground and some anti-war people did extreme and reprehensible things. Some soldiers committed atrocities some served with incredible distinction and bravery. People in my family served, one cousin was captured and held as a POW for years.

On the other hand there were anti-war military groups who embraced those who served in the war, like GI's United against the War, and Vietnam Veteran's Against the War.

Crazy times doesn't absolve us of our actions, but perhaps understanding how crazy and strained those times were can help the healing.”

“About all there was in Vietnam worth exploiting were the two R's - rice and rubber. The French had invested heavily in rubber plantations north of Saigon. After Dien Bien Phu, they pulled out, so there was little incentive at that point for anybody commercially. Rubber could be produced more cheaply synthetically, so the rubber plantations were pretty much dinosaurs at that point.

The US involvement began immediately after Dien Bien Phu under Eisenhower and continued through Kennedy with provision of "advisors." Theoretically, the advisors were not supposed to fight, but to advise. As time wore on, advisors began to become engaged in firefights.

What Kennedy might have done had he lived has been debated more vociferously than anything on this site. It's a moot point though, because he died and Johnson took over.

Had it been just over economics or rubber, I have no doubt Johnson would have backed off. But he was a Texas cold warrior, and a Democrat of the Roosevelt-Truman stripe. I've never doubted that Johnson was trapped by cold war rhetoric. I doubt we'll ever understand fully how the Gulf of Tonkin incidents were used to justify sending combat troops in, but the fact was that it happened.

If you took all of Indochina together - Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia - there would have been no economic incentive for war. Remember that Korea and Vietnam were both partitioned states with communist/socialist regimes in the north and essentially dictatorships in the south. South Korea evolved into a free society - South Vietnam never had the chance.

Yes, I'm afraid what we're left with is the old "trapped in his own rhetoric" gambit for Vietnam.

The buzz words make my skin crawl even today: domino theory, oil spot strategy, fortified hamlets, pacification, search and destroy.

What a crock.

I remember at one point going over a year's worth of NVA casualty figures and wondering where all these mother's sons had come from. It seemed like one could predict the exact moment when all the males of North Vietnam would be dead. Ahh yes, another buzz term - inflated body count. It seemed to double as it moved up each echelon of command.

There were all the rosy estimates from MACV, showcase hamlets that purportedly showed how much progress we were making, successful operations ... we're winning this thing, dontcha know.

About the only economic factor involved would have been Vietnam as a market. As it turns out, even after the reunification, it's not much of a market.

Incidentally, one other parallel worth pointing out is that the Vietnamese historically have risen up against invaders, or people perceived to be invaders. Sound at all familiar?”

“Some man spits in Jane's face and everyone in TT is re-fighting the Viet Nam War. The oligarchs love you guys. Keep the sheeple fighting about anything and everything. Meanwhile steal them and their children and their grandchildren blind.”

“Really. This one nearly slipped by me: http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/21/people.paris.hilton.ap/index.html”

“Mmmmm ...Nicole......sweeet, sweeeet candiiieee... drooling as I pop another Cheeto in my mouth. Could someone pass me the remote?”

“Now what were we discussing?”

“you were drooling, SH!”

““The compassionate conservatives seem to love this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387390/posts#comment?q=1

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387358/posts”
VioLiN
10:17:53 AM
4/21/05


Best Quotes:

I appreciate this guy's initiative, but didn't he get the memo? The item to throw these days is salad dressing.


Surely, they will release him as they did the pie-throwers.


I understand why he did it, but I really don't want our side doing that kind of stuff. I want to be able to criticize the other side. Let's not be like them.


It was just an accident. He had been waiting in line for about 90 minutes, no spittoons around, and he didn’t want to make a mess on the floor.
last edited: 4/21/05 3:46:27 PM”

“good gawd, now it's Jane's fault for looking like a cuspidor to a disoriented old veteran?”

“LOL
Just for the record, and for the one's that lack reading skills, I no more support this guy's actions than I do the pie and salad dressing throwers of the left.”

“I support both.

I think more pie throwing and spitting is what we really need in the national dialogue these days.”

“I fault Richard Nixon for not charging Fonda with treason. What Fonda did should not be forgotten or forgiven.”