Will history Repeat it self? ???? (1 Viewer)

[freedom69714]

As A child who grew up in the :hm 60'S being an ANTIWAR protester I can recall being called a COMMIE!!. ANTI-AMERICAN etc etc because I and 100,000 CRAZY hippy's went went againest the U.S Government.

We had our own underground newspapers we spoke againest the war and went yelling and scramming how Illegal and crouped however as the years went on we got more & more popular and the war got less popular

I can recall being in many demostrations!!

Two of my favorates were WASH. :hm D.C 1971

And the R.N.C convention to reelect Richard '' TRICKY DICK " Nixon and we were asking to have him In peaced In peaced before the word WATERGATE was even heard of

Do I have to remind all of you about Robert Mc.Maria did admit we were right and the war was Illegal

So let me ask you in 10 -15-30 years for today will HISTORY repeat it's self ?????????????????????????????????????????????????

:duel

 

[Schweddy]

I do not think that people will resort to throwing eggs and name calling at our vets again. At least I hope not.

 

[Pacridge]

I do not think that people will resort to throwing eggs and name calling at our vets again. At least I hope not.

I certainly hope that never happens again. The peace protester of the sixty let their focus drift to anything associated with the war. That included the soldiers, which was sad to say the least. It seems that at least this time they've managed to stay focused on those directing the war, rather than those left to do the fighting.

 

[Squawker]

Once the 60's generation is dead one would hope Viet-Nam will become just another conflict. The people instigating the protesting of the Iraq war are the same group who protested Viet-Nam. History showed them to be wrong then as they are now.

 

[Pacridge]

Once the 60's generation is dead one would hope Viet-Nam will become just another conflict. The people instigating the protesting of the Iraq war are the same group who protested Viet-Nam. History showed them to be wrong then as they are now.

So Nam was a good idea?

 

[GarzaUK]

Once the 60's generation is dead one would hope Viet-Nam will become just another conflict. The people instigating the protesting of the Iraq war are the same group who protested Viet-Nam. History showed them to be wrong then as they are now.

Are you serious? Is he serious?

Vietnam was an unjust war, a war that the Vietnamese people did not ask for. The US purpose of the war was to contain communism, not free the Vietnamese people (since the US did install a puppet dictator). I was taught the cold war as well as the Vietnam war and history has shown that it was wrong. The South Vietnamese wanted communism and the US ignored the right of the people to vote to it, just to contain the evil evil communists.

The ones who say that the Vietnam war was just are the same ones that call the Vietnam war a draw - what bs. The Korea war was a draw.

Purpose of Vietnam War - To contain communism

Did it succeed? No - lost the war then.

Yeah, believe it or not Americans CAN be the bad guys.
Native American genecide, race discrimination, supporting some of the most evil men in history (Napolean Bonaparte, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein).

My country the UK has done some awful things in the past, but we don't brag or boast and call our country god's country.

Some of you Americans need to get your heads out of your own arses.

PS. I probably went off subject, but I just got ****ed off about people calling the anti-war demostrators of the Vietnam era wrong.

 

[Squawker]

So Nam was a good idea?

I didn't say that, I was replying to the prostesting and protestors of it. They were wrong to support the enemy then and are wrong now. The words "I support the troops but not the war" is an out and out lie. You don't have to have a protest on film to show around the world to tell our government you object to it. I hate you for what you did to our troops returning from Viet-Nam. I will never forget or forgive. I won't fight the Viet-nam war again but I will say liberals have to let it go.

 

[GarzaUK]

I'm not defending the abuse they give the soldiers (although some did some horrendous stuff in Vietnam, which accured again in a jail cell in Iraq). But the protesters didn't support the enemy, they opposed it, therefore they protested.

Now I'm not a fair citizen of the land of the free and home of the brave, but I (stop me if I'm wrong here) got the impression that Americans could speak out against the government? I'm a wrong? Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu went in the US and spoke out against the war in Iraq and the government. Americans said to him "You can't say that!" Tutu replied "Isn't that part of democracy?".

An American once said, "Love your country, don't trust its government." People on the other side of the pond scratch their heads in wonder.

 

[Pacridge]

I didn't say that, I was replying to the prostesting and protestors of it. They were wrong to support the enemy then and are wrong now. The words "I support the troops but not the war" is an out and out lie. You don't have to have a protest on film to show around the world to tell our government you object to it. I hate you for what you did to our troops returning from Viet-Nam. I will never forget or forgive. I won't fight the Viet-nam war again but I will say liberals have to let it go.

That's absolutely untrue. It's completely possible to be supportive of the Troops while not being in favor of, or supportive of, the war. Troops do as they're ordered. I think everyone understands that, or at least they should.

 

[Schweddy]

I'm not defending the abuse they give the soldiers (although some did some horrendous stuff in Vietnam, which accured again in a jail cell in Iraq). But the protesters didn't support the enemy, they opposed it, therefore they protested.

FALSE.

Lets see if this link can add some insite.

Here is a little history. About freedom of speech in WWI and what SHOULD have been illegal in Viet Nam. Jane would be in prison if that were the case.

Source: http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

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.

 

[GarzaUK]

Oh so you have proof of one person, that makes every protester support the enemy? Come on.

I personally didn't support the Iraq war, but I didn't want to see soldiers killed, for the sake of their familes. I know what its like to lose a loved one, and I wouldn't wish it on my greatest enemy.

Protesting is the most patriotic thing you can do. If people have to agree with everything the government does, even though they don't want to - that's called a dictatorship.

That's what's happening in the US, if you speak out against the war, you are unpatriotic, you are shunned by people. That is a form of intimidation, thats the most a person can do without beating the protester up. Nazi Germany was the exact same before WW2, if you spoke out against the government, you were shunned, people looked at you in disgust, they called them unpatriotic.

I respect protesters more than the people who claim the government must be right, we elected them. (I'm not having a shot at the current administration, im talking about ALL administrations).

 

[Squawker]

It's completely possible to be supportive of the Troops while not being in favor of, or supportive of, the war.

It is possible, but not for the protesters in the US who were protesters of the Viet-Nam war. The same people who spit on our troops, are still spitting on our troops. Protesters gather outside military bases to to throw insults at women and children going in. Small children are screamed at and told their parent is a murderer. They have a right to express themselves but they don't have a right to hurt others in the process. The were never held accountable for the murder and torture they caused to our men in captivity or the humilation and degradation of our troops when they got back home. Their hands are not free of blood and they should be ashamed of what they did then and what they do now.

 

[Schweddy]

Further reading... read a story of one of those POW's.

Source: http://www.pray4pows.org/controversies/100_great_women_fonda/objections_benge.html

Shame on Jane
By Michael Benge
To whom it may concern:

I was a civilian economic development advisor in Viet Nam, and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Viet Nam in 1968, and held for over 5 years. I spent 27 months in solitary confinement, one year in a cage in Cambodia, and one year in a "black box" in Hanoi.

My North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border.

At one time, I was weighing approximately 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.). We were Jane Fonda’s "war criminals." When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with Jane Fonda. I said yes, for I would like to tell her about the real treatment we POWs were receiving, which was far different from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda, as "humane and lenient."

Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees with outstretched arms with a piece of steel rebar placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane every time my arms dipped. Jane Fonda had the audacity to say that the POWs were lying about our torture and treatment. [Emphasis added]

Now ABC is allowing Barbara Walters to honor Jane Fonda in her Feature "100 Years of Great Women." Shame, shame on Jane Fonda! Shame, shame on Barbara Walters! Shame, shame on 20-20. Shame, shame on ABC. And, shame, shame on the Disney Company.

I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda for a couple of hours after I was released [in 1973]. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She did not answer me, her husband, Tom Hayden, answered for her. She was mind controlled by her husband.

This does not exemplify someone who should be honored as "100 Years of Great Women." After I was released, I was asked what I thought of Jane Fonda and the antiwar movement. I said that I held Joan Baez’s husband in very high regard, for he thought the war was wrong, burned his draft card and went to prison in protest.

If the other antiwar protesters took this same route, it would have brought our judicial system to a halt and ended the war much earlier, and there wouldn’t be as many on that somber black granite wall called the Vietnam Memorial. This is democracy. This is the American way.

Jane Fonda, on the other hand, chose to be a traitor, and went to Hanoi, wore their uniform, propagandized for the communists, and urged American soldiers to desert. As we were being tortured, and some of the POWs murdered, she called us liars.

After her heroes—the North Vietnamese communists—took over South Vietnam, they systematically murdered 80,000 South Vietnamese political prisoners. May their souls rest on her head forever. Shame! Shame!

Respectfully,
Michael D. Benge

cc: Mr. Eisner, Walt Disney Co.

 

[Squawker]

The South Vietnamese wanted communism and the US ignored the right of the people to vote to it, just to contain the evil evil communists.

Just to set the record straight, the North and South were engaged in a civil war because the South didn't want communist rule. The US became involved to prevent genocide and yes defeat the communist aggression. The interesting thing about the protesters was that they were not very vocal when we had Johnson, a Democrat for president. When Nixon was elected they really hated the war then. They haven't changed at all over the years.

 

[Schweddy]

That's what's happening in the US, if you speak out against the war, you are unpatriotic, you are shunned by people. That is a form of intimidation, thats the most a person can do without beating the protester up. Nazi Germany was the exact same before WW2, if you spoke out against the government, you were shunned, people looked at you in disgust, they called them unpatriotic.

You could not be more wrong. Everyone has the right to voice thier opinion. No one is shuned, no one is placed in jail for such statements.

I think you are confusing unpopularity with being "shunned". Everyone is allowed to voice his/her opinion. That is what makes this great nation even more great. But, everyone has to be accountable for thier statements and actions.

It's just dumb to go to a Baptist church and tell them that they are going to burn in hell. It would be equally dumb to walk down harlem in a KKK outfit. The result of these two actions - while legal - is udder stupidity.

Ask the Dixie Chicks how thier statments against the President and Texas were both very legal, but equally stupid for thier career.

 

[anomaly]

You could not be more wrong. Everyone has the right to voice thier opinion. No one is shuned, no one is placed in jail for such statements.

I think you are confusing unpopularity with being "shunned". Everyone is allowed to voice his/her opinion. That is what makes this great nation even more great. But, everyone has to be accountable for thier statements and actions.

It's just dumb to go to a Baptist church and tell them that they are going to burn in hell. It would be equally dumb to walk down harlem in a KKK outfit. The result of these two actions - while legal - is udder stupidity.

Ask the Dixie Chicks how thier statments against the President and Texas were both very legal, but equally stupid for thier career.

Uh, Vauge, perhaps you should go to pabaah.com. These people want to ban movies of hollywood people who are against Bush. They want to ban college radio stations that speak out against the war. All this in the name of patriotism of course. So while noone is jailed (yet), some people are shunned.

 

[Schweddy]

Uh, Vauge, perhaps you should go to pabaah.com. These people want to ban movies of hollywood people who are against Bush. They want to ban college radio stations that speak out against the war. All this in the name of patriotism of course. So while noone is jailed (yet), some people are shunned.

LOL, I just went to that site -they are boycotting. GEEZ... that is the ultimate form of expression. Hit them in the pocket book.

So, how is this wrong?

Another group of folks wanted to ban "Fahrenheit 911" playing at theatres across america. While another group of folks want to ban any mention of God in public. While another group of folks want to fire a professor for speaking his mind to his students.

All this in the name of patriotism as well.

Think about it.

 

[Squawker]

These people want to ban movies of hollywood people who are against Bush.

They don't want a ban because they are against Bush. They want a ban against hate speech and lies about Americans that will be used as propaganda around the world to incite violence and terrorism. You people just don't get it. Your words get people killed. The left cries that America is hated around the world. Why in hell shouldn't we be hated when our own people tells lies about us? Michael Moores piece of crap is seen as the truth and he struts around so damn proud of himself. He doesn't care if another 3,000 Americans get killed because he didn't tell the truth. He is laughing all the way to the bank at the people he dupped into buying a ticket. Holy crapola. :roll:

 

[GarzaUK]

Just to set the record straight, the North and South were engaged in a civil war because the South didn't want communist rule. The US became involved to prevent genocide and yes defeat the communist aggression.

South Vietnamese people wanted communism, the puppet dictator (and a crap one. that the people WANTED communism) than Kennedy installed didn't want to be over throwed. Funny how Democrats started this whole Vietnam mess lol. I'm neither Republican and Democrat, i'm British.
The US government doesn't care what foreigners want, they want whats best for the interests of the US (Dem and Rep). And the US wanted to defeat communism, don't tell me all this crap about freeing foreigners when you imposed a dictator on them.

While trying to defeat communism in Vietnam against the will of the people of South Vietnam, you also managed to make Laos and Cambodia turn to communism, well done. A draw if I ever saw one.

 

[GarzaUK]

You could not be more wrong. Everyone has the right to voice thier opinion. No one is shuned, no one is placed in jail for such statements.

I think you are confusing unpopularity with being "shunned". Everyone is allowed to voice his/her opinion. That is what makes this great nation even more great. But, everyone has to be accountable for thier statements and actions.

It's just dumb to go to a Baptist church and tell them that they are going to burn in hell. It would be equally dumb to walk down harlem in a KKK outfit. The result of these two actions - while legal - is udder stupidity.

Ask the Dixie Chicks how thier statments against the President and Texas were both very legal, but equally stupid for thier career.

Firstly, I never said anyone was placed in jail.

Secondly, Why is it udder stupidity to critise your government? Republicans did it all the time during the Clinton years. Critized him during the Kosovo War as well. Was that udder stupidity. Fair enough people disagree, but to call their disagreement udder stupidity? Why?

Or should they disagree by saying nothing at all, to be silent?

 

[Squawker]

I respectfully suggest you do some research to support your position GarzaUK.

 

[Schweddy]

Firstly, I never said anyone was placed in jail.

Fair enough.

Secondly, Why is it udder stupidity to critise your government?

Its not neccesarily stupidity. One must be logical and utilize the correct approach to criticism.

I stated EXAMPLES of stupidity, but you blantatly ignored them. Critizing is NOT wrong or illegal. But, one must expect and be held responsible for thier actions.

Republicans did it all the time during the Clinton years. Critized him during the Kosovo War as well.

Damn right we did. As are the Dem's and MANY republicans doing the same against President Bush. It's not wrong or illegal. BUT, (please read carefully) if it is unpopular it will not be taken easily. Do not expect an unpopular opinion to go unnoticed or unquestioned. If it's truly outlandish - expect retaliation.

If I walked up to you and called you a liar and a looser. *hypothetically*
Should I expect you to retaliate? Absolutely.

 

[GarzaUK]

I respectfully suggest you do some research to support your position GarzaUK.

http://vietnam.vassar.edu/overview.html

This is an American point of view, but I think it gets the jist of what I'm saying.

~America installed a dictator (with dodgy elections), who was crap and undemocratic.
~People supported Communism in South Veitnam (this doesn't say that MOST people did... but I'm working on it)
~North Vietnam first tried peaceful means to unify the country.

I'm just reciting what I learnt in history class. Why would the Northern Irish education system lie?

 

[GarzaUK]

My point vague is this, saying that Anti-War protesters are unpatriotic is bs. :bs

If someone called me a liar and looser, I would laugh and say whatever. Such is my outlook on life.

 

[Schweddy]

My point vague is this, saying that Anti-War protesters are unpatriotic is bs. :bs

If someone called me a liar and looser, I would laugh and say whatever. Such is my outlook on life.

You still do not get my point. Last attempt then I give.

1. Every anti-war protestor is/was possibly very patriotic.
2. Many protestors are within the confines of the correct way to protest. Excellent say what you want. True patriotism.
3. Folks like Fonda were for the ENEMY not the us. Therefore unpatriotic.
4. If a protestor is VIOLENT or threatening - they encourage stupidity and thier patriotism is questioned.
5. Be prepared to back your statements whether one is patriotic or not.