To: marcos who wrote (372 ) 3/24/2002 12:54:31 PM From: marcos Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1293 Just caught a bit on Viet Nam on another thread, people talking about a foto of Jane Fonda sitting on 'a big gun' of the defense forces ... as if she had been important in that struggle - she wasn't, as i recall, nothing more than a footnote way down below the clear war crimes of those in control of 'her' nation Anyway, those were anti-aircraft guns, entirely defensive weapons, they threatened no US national who refrained from aggression ... any success enjoyed by them in the form of hits on bombers made a net reduction in the ability of the invader to murder the families and neighbours of the gunners What it is, this focus on Henry's daughter [that's pretty much all she is to canadians, btw], is a devious attempt to distract from the central fact that the US had absolutely no business making war on the indochinese, no right whatsoever to help the french re-colonise the peoples who had helped to defeat the japanese empire and who deserved recognition for their drive to independence ... Eisenhower had no right to suppress democracy in 1956 and then take over as the colonising force, his using the corrupt Diem points that up vividly .... US nationals today have every right to wake up to the fact that in suppressing the independence of peoples beyond their borders they violate the fundamental principles of all that great rhetoric of their mythic Cradle of Liberty Question for british columbians is - To what extent do these actions, and the ongoing attempt to justify them in the face of all logic to the contrary, demonstrate a basically rapacious trait in way too many US nationals in positions of control?