Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
JoyinMudville

Anyone Else Watching Ken Burns' Vietnam?

118 posts in this topic

I wonder if Jane Fonda will be viewed any differently as a result of this program?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WKDWZD said:

I wonder if Jane Fonda will be viewed any differently as a result of this program?

Maybe. I still believe she was terribly wrong to visit a nation we were at war with at the time to show support while our soldiers were being killed. I think she feels the same now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, WKDWZD said:

I wonder if Jane Fonda will be viewed any differently as a result of this program?

My view of that traitor will never change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Engrossing, yet hard to watch given all of the lives wasted over such seneselessness.

It was heartbteaking to hear Jean-Marie Crocker recall the loss of her son, Denton. I can't imagine having to bear that kind of pain. Exerpts from his letters back home were haunting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mlatoman said:

Maybe. I still believe she was terribly wrong to visit a nation we were at war with at the time to show support while our soldiers were being killed. I think she feels the same now. 

In a 60 Minutes interview on March 31, 2005, Fonda reiterated that she had no regrets about her trip to North Vietnam in 1972, with the exception of the anti-aircraft-gun photo. She stated that the incident was a "betrayal" of American forces and of the "country that gave me privilege". Fonda said, "The image of Jane Fonda, Barbarella, Henry Fonda's daughter ... sitting on an enemy aircraft gun was a betrayal ... the largest lapse of judgment that I can even imagine." She later distinguished between regret over the use of her image as propagandaand pride for her anti-war activism: "There are hundreds of American delegations that had met with the POWs. Both sides were using the POWs for propaganda ... It's not something that I will apologize for." Fonda said she had no regrets about the broadcasts she made on Radio Hanoi, something she asked the North Vietnamese to do: "Our government was lying to us and men were dying because of it, and I felt I had to do anything that I could to expose the lies and help end the war."[61]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mlatoman said:

Maybe. I still believe she was terribly wrong to visit a nation we were at war with at the time to show support while our soldiers were being killed. I think she feels the same now. 

I think that her motivation was right but her actions were wrong. I'm sure that with the wisdom of hindsight, that is how she feels now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WKDWZD said:

I wonder if Jane Fonda will be viewed any differently as a result of this program?

Did her visit to North Vietnam appear in last night's show?

Did they show her and Donald Sutherland's traveling anti-war show "FTA" that entertained tens of thousands troops, many of whom opposed the war?

That, in turn, calls to mind another documentary, "Sire, No Sir."

""Sir! No Sir!" is a documentary that about an almost-forgotten fact of the Vietnam era: Anti-war sentiment among U.S. troops grew into a problem for the Pentagon. The film claims bombing was used toward the end of the war because the military leadership wondered, frankly, if some of their ground troops would obey orders to attack. It's also said there were a few Air Force B-52 crews that refused to bomb North Vietnam. And in San Diego, sailors on an aircraft carrier tried to promote a local vote on whether their ship should be allowed to sail for Vietnam. One of the disenchanted veterans, although he is never mentioned in the film, was John Kerry, who was first decorated for valor, and later became a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testified before Congress."

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PinkFlamingo said:

Have you ever been to the Wall in DC? There are just no words to describe it...so many lost.

and now to see and hear the descriptions of those futile battles and how all those boys died...

All of us here at home protesting the war were right after all. You would think things would be different now, that lessons would've been learned. Smh

 

Remember the fight over that memorial?

If we go to war against Iran or Korea, I will again be surprised by the number of Americans who get behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bowie-Bruce said:

Engrossing, yet hard to watch given all of the lives wasted over such senselessness.

It was heartbteaking to hear Jean-Marie Crocker recall the loss of her son, Denton. I can't imagine having to bear that kind of pain. Exerpts from his letters back home were haunting.

Agreed BB. I was just a kid when it was happening. But just watching the first episode, I have to wonder what kind of nonsense was being fed to Truman by his advisors. And I'm still convinced it was the reason Kennedy was killed.

Edited by bmore_ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

My view of that traitor will never change.

 

12 hours ago, songfourone said:

In a 60 Minutes interview on March 31, 2005, Fonda reiterated that she had no regrets about her trip to North Vietnam in 1972, with the exception of the anti-aircraft-gun photo. She stated that the incident was a "betrayal" of American forces and of the "country that gave me privilege". Fonda said, "The image of Jane Fonda, Barbarella, Henry Fonda's daughter ... sitting on an enemy aircraft gun was a betrayal ... the largest lapse of judgment that I can even imagine." She later distinguished between regret over the use of her image as propagandaand pride for her anti-war activism: "There are hundreds of American delegations that had met with the POWs. Both sides were using the POWs for propaganda ... It's not something that I will apologize for." Fonda said she had no regrets about the broadcasts she made on Radio Hanoi, something she asked the North Vietnamese to do: "Our government was lying to us and men were dying because of it, and I felt I had to do anything that I could to expose the lies and help end the war."[61]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda

And in the spirit of many veterans "forgiveness", Jane Fonda's likeness is portrayed in many VFW's, American Legions and VVA chapters throughout the nation...to this very day.

On the urinals in their men's rooms. 

:P:D:lol:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jane Fonda thing is so bizarre to me. I can't imagine that happening today. Celebrities still do incredibly stupid things but they tend to get destroyed for it. Meanwhile, Jane went on to make classics like 9 to 5!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jimmy Jazz said:

The Jane Fonda thing is so bizarre to me. I can't imagine that happening today. Celebrities still do incredibly stupid things but they tend to get destroyed for it. Meanwhile, Jane went on to make classics like 9 to 5!

Could you give an example of a celebrity who was destroyed? The Blacklist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jimmy Jazz said:

The Jane Fonda thing is so bizarre to me. I can't imagine that happening today. Celebrities still do incredibly stupid things but they tend to get destroyed for it. Meanwhile, Jane went on to make classics like 9 to 5!

Sarcasm can be incredibly amusing. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2017 at 10:16 PM, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

Lippmann was wrong about containment. The Soviets wanted security at the expense of other nations; Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, the ME.  Where we went wrong is that in implementing containment in Vietnam, we forgot the first rule of war; know what kind of war you are getting into.

Bingo. It was hard for us to grasp, and yes I'm over simplifying, but the fact was to the Vietnamese, we were just round two of the French.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ms maggie said:

Bingo. It was hard for us to grasp, and yes I'm over simplifying, but the fact was to the Vietnamese, we were just round two of the French.

Can't disagree, the average Vietnamese  citizen wanted his family, his water buffalo, his rice paddy to be safe and secure, and little else mattered.

A few scattered tribes such as the Hmong and the Montagnards were fighting for independence in their own way, but figured that ths the NVA, the VC, the French and the Americans were just different sides of a four sided coin. 

The indigenous people of the region had been fighting against various foreign invaders, primarily the Chinese, since about 111 BC

And some of us wonder why we got our arses kicked over there.  It took 58,193  Americans before 4 Presidents came up with a clue that we didn't belong there. 

I think that the saddest thing for me is that the military didn't lose the battles, the Supreme commander of the NVA, General Vo Nguyen Giap realised that if he sent the war home (to America) he would win the conflict, and he did.

It was an absolutely perfect strategy of  political and  tactical asymmetrical warfare.  They won the war in America, not in Vietnam.  Giap was a genius.

Edited by blowboatbethesda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, blowboatbethesda said:

Can't disagree, the average Vietnamese  citizen wanted his family, his water buffalo, his rice paddy to be safe and secure, and little else mattered.

A few scattered tribes such as the Hmong and the Montagnards were fighting for independence in their own way, but figured that ths the NVA, the VC, the French and the Americans were just different sides of a four sided coin. 

The indigenous people of the region had been fighting against various foreign invaders, primarily the Chinese, since about 111 BC

And some of us wonder why we got our arses kicked over there.  It took 58,193  Americans before 4 Presidents came up with a clue that we didn't belong there. 

I think that the saddest thing for me is that the military didn't lose the battles, the Supreme commander of the NVA, General Vo Nguyen Giap realised that if he sent the war home (to America) he would win the conflict, and he did.

It was an absolutely perfect strategy of  political and  tactical asymmetrical warfare.  They won the war in America, not in Vietnam.  Giap was a genius.

It seems you're assuming the military could have won. Gets down to the core misconception. What would "winning" look like?  Establish ourselves as triumphant colonialists?

America turned against the war because they saw what the military didn't.  Which of course wasn't the fault of the military, they were doing what they were trained to do. We simply didn't belong there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ms maggie said:

It seems you're assuming the military could have won. Gets down to the core misconception. What would "winning" look like?  Establish ourselves as triumphant colonialists?

America turned against the war because they saw what the military didn't.  Which of course wasn't the fault of the military, they were doing what they were trained to do. We simply didn't belong there.

"Winning" would have been what Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson wanted to be; "preventing the proliferation of Communism into Southeast Asia. That was the belief at the time. "Triumphant colonialists?"   Wasn't it "Imperialist American dogs, "comrade?"  And did i not mention that the vietnamese have fought for independence since  maybe your 15th birthday?

Give it a break "Mags" and read what I typed.  First off, the military didn't make the decisions, they implemented the decisions of American foreign policy, as is the purpose of a military force. Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson made those decisions, Not Westmoreland, Wheeler or Abrams. If anything, the military realized the futility of a so-called "limited war;"

America turned against the war because the voters had had enough of the carnage,  not because they saw what the military didn't.. as it wasn't the military's fault. Period. LBJ did not run for reelection because America had enough of his poor decisions regarding the administration of his war, and fault cannot be placed elsewhere.

Sometimes i think you want to gripe for the sake of gripping although there's another word i could use for your incessant misconceptions of facts that others lived through.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blowboatbethesda said:

"Winning" would have been what Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson wanted to be; "preventing the proliferation of Communism into Southeast Asia. That was the belief at the time. "Triumphant colonialists?"   Wasn't it "Imperialist American dogs, "comrade?"  And did i not mention that the vietnamese have fought for independence since  maybe your 15th birthday?

Give it a break "Mags" and read what I typed.  First off, the military didn't make the decisions, they implemented the decisions of American foreign policy, as is the purpose of a military force. Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson made those decisions, Not Westmoreland, Wheeler or Abrams. If anything, the military realized the futility of a so-called "limited war;"

America turned against the war because the voters had had enough of the carnage,  not because they saw what the military didn't.. as it wasn't the military's fault. Period. LBJ did not run for reelection because America had enough of his poor decisions regarding the administration of his war, and fault cannot be placed elsewhere.

Sometimes i think you want to gripe for the sake of gripping although there's another word i could use for your incessant misconceptions of facts that others lived through.

 

 

 

Gripe?

I clearly stated this wasn't the fault of the military. In fact I pretty much agree with what you say. Except that I think the public didn't turn simply because of the carnage. They turned because it was futile carnage.

So who is it that wants to gripe for the sake of griping?

BTW I just turned 67. Don't presume I don't know the history.

Edited by ms maggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hst2 said:

Could you give an example of a celebrity who was destroyed? The Blacklist?

I mean in the court of public opinion which subsequently has a very negative impact on their career. Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, and Kathy Griffin are recent examples although I guess Mel has made a bit of a comeback of late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hst2 said:

Could you give an example of a celebrity who was destroyed? The Blacklist?

Charlie Chaplin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hst2 said:

Could you give an example of a celebrity who was destroyed? The Blacklist?

Fatty Arbuckle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2017 at 3:53 PM, JoyinMudville said:

I'm on episode 3.

I've done my share of reading on the subject, Haberstam's "best and the brightest' as well as "one bright shining lie" by Neal Sheehan but i am still learning a lot from the show.

What's really amazing is listening to tapes of LBJ expressing grave doubts about involvement in Vietnam and yet still upping the ante at every turn.

Curious if anyone else is enjoying the program

I'm only through episode 2, very well done.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, WKDWZD said:

Fatty Arbuckle.

Wasn't he involved in the death of a women under pretty risqué circumstances for the time ......

Didn't help his happy go lucky person much? ......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Eastside Terp said:

Wasn't he involved in the death of a women under pretty risqué circumstances for the time ......

Didn't help his happy go lucky person much? ......

 

That's right. It was a scandal that got him not a war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I haven't  read every posting  here,  but although I'm no big fan of John Kerry , it appears  from the show  that some of his charges at the time  of atrocities : ears cut off, civilian women and children killed , food destroyed, bodies mutilated , huts burned , prisoners killed,  etc. were true .

 We just  don't  know the scale . Any comment

Edited by Duke of Earl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0