Cindy Sheehan > Jane Fonda

Lord Bitememan · 10-26-2005, 07:54 PM

Seeing as how she is about to make a new move in her campaign to end Us involvement in Iraq, I have been doing some thinking lately about her methods and have reached an important conclusion: Cindy Sheehan's dissent has been carried out in the way wartime dissent ought to be carried out and she is leaps and bounds above Jane Fonda in one importat regard, Cindy Sheehan is not attacking our troops and Jane Fonda did.

In 1972 Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam, propagandized on behalf of an enemy at war, lied about the treatment of POWs, and called our own troops "war criminals." She even applauded anti-aircraft gunners, people who had been shooting down our own pilots. Now, it's one thing to criticize the government, it's one thing to demand action on their part, but it is another thing altogether to attack the grunts in the field, many of whom were conscripted, for doing a job they had no choice but to do. It is further morally reprehensible to applaud the people responsible for killing your own troops. It has long been said that having a right to speak does not make it right what you speak, and clearly Fonda's speech, while protected, was not right.

Cindy Sheehan, today, is totally different. Now, let me stipulate, I agree with her position in no way, shape, or form. I think she is a pest, wrong, and a tool created by Michael Moore. Despite this all, she is going about what she does the right way. Her criticisms are directed at the appropriate levels, the decisionmakers who have the power to influence policy, not at the helpless grunt on the field carry out his orders. Sheehan does not oppose the war by siding with the enemy. Indeed, in interviews she even acknowledges that the insurgency we are fighting are terrorists who kill innocent Iraqis and US troops alike. Her method is direct, she blames the government (Bush in particular) for the misfortunes of war, and she places her demands upon them to rectify the situation (disengagement).

Whether you agree with her or not, you have to admit, there is a right way and a wrong way to oppose military policy, and Sheehan's is the right way, and Fonda's was the wrong way.

Wetflame · 10-26-2005, 08:11 PM

Why do you disagree with her though?

Lord Bitememan · 10-26-2005, 08:18 PM

Stay on topic please.

Karrrrrrrrrrrresche · 10-26-2005, 08:26 PM

im pretty sure that wetflames post was within the boundries of the topic.
but i do agree that the way that cindy is handling her anti war campaign alot better the insant you attack the troops directly you lose the support of those that think that the troops are in danger for no reason the families of the troops and the troops themselves.

Lord Bitememan · 10-26-2005, 08:30 PM

grth: The topic is about how to go about one's dissent of a war, not whether that dissent is right or wrong. In every war there will be dissent, whether right or wrong. So, no, whether the dissent in this case is right or wrong is not within the bounds of the topic, especially since this is a comparison of two examples of dissent focussing on how they dissented, not why.

bredofchaos · 10-26-2005, 09:18 PM

my opinion is that in no way does making a liberal art, anti-war film get your point across in a professional matter. sure it may appeal to the emotions, but that's not logical grounds for a strong argument.
additionally, she's has the wrong idea to end the war all together; look at what happened in India when the British left, or even Vietnam. It is a shame that there even is a war going on, but the 'pull out' method would be more murderous than it already is.
I do agree with you that she is going about it in a better way than Fonda; however, a lesser extent of 'evil' is still evil.
besides, you think she's a tool created by Michael Moore lol

Fifthfiend · 10-26-2005, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bredofchaos

my opinion is that in no way does making a liberal art, anti-war film get your point across in a professional matter. sure it may appeal to the emotions, but that's not logical grounds for a strong argument.
additionally, she's has the wrong idea to end the war all together; look at what happened in India when the British left, or even Vietnam. It is a shame that there even is a war going on, but the 'pull out' method would be more murderous than it already is.
I do agree with you that she is going about it in a better way than Fonda; however, a lesser extent of 'evil' is still evil.
besides, you think she's a tool created by Michael Moore lol

The whole thing about India and Vietnam was that everything that happened after the relevant imperialists left was by that time inevitable, and, to the extent that it wasn't inevitable, was largely a consequence of the evacuating power going out of its way to fuck the locals.

On topically, yeah, Jane Fonda is pretty much utterly awful. What more can you say about that? Nobody likes Jane Fonda.

Wetflame · 10-27-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Bitememan

Stay on topic please.

Sorry, but it's going to come up. You really can't limit discussion to a sub topic of a topic.

Raerlynn · 10-27-2005, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wetflame

Sorry, but it's going to come up. You really can't limit discussion to a sub topic of a topic.

You can. And it's not hard to stay on this particular topic. The topic isn't "Why I don't like Cindy Sheehan" its "Why I think Cindy Sheehan is better than Jane Fonda." It doesn't take much in the reading department to grasp that one.

ON TOPIC: The plus side is that unlike Ms. Fonda, she is not raving and ranting at troops and encouraging hateful behaviour at military funerals, like some people are known to do, and is instead aiming the blame at Bush, (although I maintain that Congress is the one to yell at over this).

Meister · 10-27-2005, 06:28 PM

I don't think we absolutely have to have a go on people's supposedly poor reading skills in here. Right?

10-26-2005, 07:54 PM	#1
Lord Bitememan Mega Newbie Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Shelby Twp., MI USA Posts: 95	Cindy Sheehan > Jane Fonda Seeing as how she is about to make a new move in her campaign to end Us involvement in Iraq, I have been doing some thinking lately about her methods and have reached an important conclusion: Cindy Sheehan's dissent has been carried out in the way wartime dissent ought to be carried out and she is leaps and bounds above Jane Fonda in one importat regard, Cindy Sheehan is not attacking our troops and Jane Fonda did. In 1972 Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam, propagandized on behalf of an enemy at war, lied about the treatment of POWs, and called our own troops "war criminals." She even applauded anti-aircraft gunners, people who had been shooting down our own pilots. Now, it's one thing to criticize the government, it's one thing to demand action on their part, but it is another thing altogether to attack the grunts in the field, many of whom were conscripted, for doing a job they had no choice but to do. It is further morally reprehensible to applaud the people responsible for killing your own troops. It has long been said that having a right to speak does not make it right what you speak, and clearly Fonda's speech, while protected, was not right. Cindy Sheehan, today, is totally different. Now, let me stipulate, I agree with her position in no way, shape, or form. I think she is a pest, wrong, and a tool created by Michael Moore. Despite this all, she is going about what she does the right way. Her criticisms are directed at the appropriate levels, the decisionmakers who have the power to influence policy, not at the helpless grunt on the field carry out his orders. Sheehan does not oppose the war by siding with the enemy. Indeed, in interviews she even acknowledges that the insurgency we are fighting are terrorists who kill innocent Iraqis and US troops alike. Her method is direct, she blames the government (Bush in particular) for the misfortunes of war, and she places her demands upon them to rectify the situation (disengagement). Whether you agree with her or not, you have to admit, there is a right way and a wrong way to oppose military policy, and Sheehan's is the right way, and Fonda's was the wrong way. __________________ Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Last edited by Lord Bitememan; 10-26-2005 at 08:19 PM.

10-26-2005, 08:18 PM	#3
Lord Bitememan Mega Newbie Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Shelby Twp., MI USA Posts: 95	Stay on topic please. __________________ Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

10-26-2005, 08:30 PM	#5
Lord Bitememan Mega Newbie Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Shelby Twp., MI USA Posts: 95	grth: The topic is about how to go about one's dissent of a war, not whether that dissent is right or wrong. In every war there will be dissent, whether right or wrong. So, no, whether the dissent in this case is right or wrong is not within the bounds of the topic, especially since this is a comparison of two examples of dissent focussing on how they dissented, not why. __________________ Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

10-26-2005, 09:18 PM	#6
bredofchaos Goomba Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 7	my opinion is that in no way does making a liberal art, anti-war film get your point across in a professional matter. sure it may appeal to the emotions, but that's not logical grounds for a strong argument. additionally, she's has the wrong idea to end the war all together; look at what happened in India when the British left, or even Vietnam. It is a shame that there even is a war going on, but the 'pull out' method would be more murderous than it already is. I do agree with you that she is going about it in a better way than Fonda; however, a lesser extent of 'evil' is still evil. besides, you think she's a tool created by Michael Moore lol __________________ all life is to fear for life

10-27-2005, 06:28 PM	#10
Meister Pure joy Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Germany Posts: 10,689	I don't think we absolutely have to have a go on people's supposedly poor reading skills in here. Right?