Is John McCain a war hero?

[Lord Raven]

Oh yeah, since no one's answered my question "why did John McCain volunteer?" it's pretty clear that I've won this debate.

Is your only purpose to win or to actually discuss things? If your only purpose is to win then it's clear that you don't give two shits about this debate. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense too, because your debate tact is dishonest because you're only ever seeing two sides to an issue.

At any rate, I doubt you're so much dense as you are arrogant. It was a mistake thinking I could have honest discussion with you.

If you really want to know why he joined the military, then consult wikipedia or google. That's not what this debate is about. This debate is about whether or not John McCain is a war hero or a war criminal; the general consensus from anyone except you and Dwalin2010 is that he is neither a war hero nor a war criminal. He's just a soldier following orders, who later became governor of Arizona and killed his entire presidential campaign by hiring an Alaskan bimbo to be his vice presidential candidate and being like 70 years old.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Lord Raven

[Blaze The Great]

Why? They are adult intelligent people, they understand they may have to kill innocents if they fight for their country. Why making this choice at all if your country isn't the one on the defense? And even then, if your country WAS initially on the defensive, and then passed on the offensive, why pillage, kill and rape foreign citizens who haven't done anything? Like for example the Russian/Soviet army that was initially defending from nazi Germans, but when it passed through Germany on its way to Berlin, it committed many horrible things.

Err, because they respect that their country has done good things for them and they want to fight for it? Also, even if something is morally wrong doesn't mean you can always tell at the time. Hindsight is 20/20, friend.

As for the Soviet example, if you think it is morally wrong (and in my mind, it is), don't so it. No one is forcing you to rape or pillage women and children.

You may still try to avoid it: feign illness, move to the other country (I know this sounds extreme, but so is killing even ONE innocent). I really don't want to get personal, but it seems like we are discussing Fire Emblem here, not a real-life war with real dead innocent people.

Feigning illness? If it's not a severe illness, it won't get you out. And if you did feign a severe one, you would probably need medical documentation to prove your illness. Otherwise you might be charged for evading duty, etc. And moving to another country to escape a war where you MIGHT have to do something immoral is just plain silly. That is seriously a ridiculous proposition. (Sorry if that's a bit harsh,just my opinion)

I have no idea what you mean by Fire Emblem here. I take this seriously. But there is definitely a line between obeying orders and needless killing.

[Chiki]

Is your only purpose to win or to actually discuss things? If your only purpose is to win then it's clear that you don't give two shits about this debate. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense too, because your debate tact is dishonest because you're only ever seeing two sides to an issue.

At any rate, I doubt you're so much dense as you are arrogant. It was a mistake thinking I could have honest discussion with you.

If you really want to know why he joined the military, then consult wikipedia or google. That's not what this debate is about. This debate is about whether or not John McCain is a war hero or a war criminal; the general consensus from anyone except you and Dwalin2010 is that he is neither a war hero nor a war criminal. He's just a soldier following orders, who later became governor of Arizona and killed his entire presidential campaign by hiring an Alaskan bimbo to be his vice presidential candidate and being like 70 years old.

...You still haven't answered my question. There's a difference between joining the military and volunteering for combat duty in Vietnam.

[Lord Raven]

I'm telling you to look up the goddamn answer yourself because you're clearly the only one interested. You're asking a question about some fact that none of us even care about because it's not even relevant to the argument, and you can't take a few minutes to look it up and read about it yourself?

Anyway, some last points:

Only a deluded person would think that McCain didn't know that he was potentially killing civilians. Most Americans were against the Vietnam War in 1967, which is when McCain volunteered. There was an awareness of what was going on in Vietnam. Second, he was familiar with the strategic bombing tactics of WW2 since he went to a military school; it would be insane for him to think that America wouldn't do those tactics again in Vietnam.

Well except strategic bombing was used as a tactic in World War 2 to end the war sooner rather than later, so for all we know if he was aware of this then he had somewhat of a righteous mindset (as righteous as one can get given extreme measures).

As far as "knowingly" or unknowingly, I wasn't really arguing about John McCain on page 1, I was arguing about the concepts that Dwalin2010 brought up. It's still pretty high pressure to be inside a fighter plane and bomb anything let alone innocent people, and again he was mainly just following orders.

People also have a sense of patriotism. As much as you may or may not despise patriotism it exists and those with an enlarged sense of it will sign onto any military thing they desire. Again, lord knows what McCain's reasoning is, but I'm not really just arguing about McCain in this thread. I'm arguing about you automatically equating killing innocent people in war and giving into torture as war crimes if the soldier performs it.

Besides, what kind of ass backwards system is that? "We'll let him volunteer, hehehehe, and if he does our bombings then we'll punish him as a war criminal but if he disobeys we'll punish him anyway. What a moron!"

Yes, Raven "covered" it by ignoring my question if that's what you want to call "covering."

I didnt ignore anything that was addressed towards me.

I'm out. Deuces.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Lord Raven

[Phoenix Wright]

Yes, Raven "covered" it by ignoring my question if that's what you want to call "covering."

Bolded part: Any soldier who knowingly participated in the killing of innocents without being pressured is a criminal. I'm happily willing to bite the bullet on that. John McCain volunteered, therefore he is a criminal.

I also don't think all soldiers are war criminals. Some wars can be justified: ex, fighting Nazis in WW2, we could have intervened in South Africa during the 1980s, intervening in the Islamic State is justified, etc. this is just a straw man argument by dondon, because it's actually not true that I think all soldiers are criminals, that I don't care for honestly.

@bold: okay, so you actually understand and accept what some of us are saying, but it's dependent upon the war?

for mccain specifically, i think he felt the war was justified. whether most other americans thought different doesn't actually matter. he knowingly went into combat in a war he felt was justified, despite knowing that in order to win, some civilian casualties would result.

[Chiki]

So I'm gonna ignore Lord Raven's post because I'm tired of his whiny attitude in debates and I feel he makes no points worth considering regardless.

@bold: okay, so you actually understand and accept what some of us are saying, but it's dependent upon the war?

for mccain specifically, i think he felt the war was justified. whether most other americans thought different doesn't actually matter. he knowingly went into combat in a war he felt was justified, despite knowing that in order to win, some civilian casualties would result.

It does depend on the war, yep, and the Vietnam War might be the least justified war in history apart from stuff like the Mongol conquests.

If he thought the Vietnam War was justified, then that just proves he's a shit person honestly.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Chiki

[BBM]

I am not saying the Cold War was a good situation, since it could lead to a real war anyway. I am just saying that any kind of situation where there are no actual wars/violence taking place are better (or a "lesser evil") than military actions actually taking place.

In my opinion, war IS evil (one of the many evils possible in the world). That we have no power to stop them is another discussion

I'm not sure you have a very good grasp of the Cold War. Just because the Soviet Union and USA didn't directly attack each other doesn't mean it didn't result in an awful lot of deaths through proxy wars (of which the Vietnam War was just one), both during the time of the Cold War and after. A great deal, if not all, of USA's military efforts since WW2 have been either part of the Cold War or a direct consequence of actions either they or the Soviet Union took during the Cold War.

Edited July 21, 2015 by BBM

[dondon151]

I also don't think all soldiers are war criminals. Some wars can be justified: ex, fighting Nazis in WW2, we could have intervened in South Africa during the 1980s, intervening in the Islamic State is justified, etc. this is just a straw man argument by dondon, because it's actually not true that I think all soldiers are criminals, that I don't care for honestly.

whether a war is or isn't justified has nothing to do with the criminality of killing innocent people.

If he thought the Vietnam War was justified, then that just proves he's a shit person honestly.

how does this follow lol

i mean if you sampled a rural US town where every person is a conservative who thinks that the 2001 iraq invasion was justified, then the conclusion isn't that they're all shit people.

Edited July 21, 2015 by dondon151

[Dwalin2010]

I'm not sure you have a very good grasp of the Cold War. Just because the Soviet Union and USA didn't directly attack each other doesn't mean it didn't result in an awful lot of deaths through proxy wars (of which the Vietnam War was just one), both during the time of the Cold War and after. A great deal, if not all, of USA's military efforts since WW2 have been either part of the Cold War or a direct consequence of actions they took during the Cold War.

Those proxy wars were horrible too, what I meant is that it would be even worse if there had been an open war between the USA and Soviet Union. It would have likely led to the destruction of the planet. Rather than defining it "better situation", it would be more correct to say a "lesser evil" maybe.

[BBM]

So do you think every soldier who took part in an unjust war is a war criminal Chiki?

And at the least you have to admit that even if a war is just, not every action taken in it by the leadership is just (eg atomic bomb in WW2). Is every leader a war criminal?

@Dwalin- But none of those proxy wars would have happened if it weren't for the Cold War. You can't treat the Vietnam War as distinct from the Cold War; if USA and the Soviets had been best buddies after WW2 ended, then the Vietnam War would never have happened.

Edited July 21, 2015 by BBM

[Phoenix Wright]

It does depend on the war, yep, and the Vietnam War might be the least justified war in history apart from stuff like the Mongol conquests.

If he thought the Vietnam War was justified, then that just proves he's a shit person honestly.

ah, okay. i thought you were just weren't grasping the concept altogether.

well...of course we can see that now (that the vietnam war wasn't justified). but what if you were lowly olwen in the mid 1960s, with military heritage, having gone to 20 different schools cause your admiral pop was stationed in so many places? i don't think mccain knew anything else, unfortunately for him.

i don't think any worse of mccain because he picked a dumb war to be in. it's clear to me, having listened to him and such, that he didn't join the war to kill innocent people. he joined it cause it's all he knew and he thought (probably still thinks, i'm not sure actually) he was doing the right thing. this doesn't make him a shit person.

mind you, i'm actually not a fan of mccain at all.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[algae]

So I'm gonna ignore Lord Raven's post because I'm tired of his whiny attitude in debates and I feel he makes no points worth considering regardless.

Okay, but do you realize how childish this is? If you're going to throw around shit like this during any kind of discussion, then people have every right to ignore you, refuse to take you seriously, or just leave outright.

[Dwalin2010]

@Dwalin- But none of those proxy wars would have happened if it weren't for the Cold War. You can't treat the Vietnam War as distinct from the Cold War; if USA and the Soviets had been best buddies after WW2 ended, then the Vietnam War would never have happened.

I know. That's why I agree with people who state that no matter whether we consider wars a "right" or "wrong" thing, given the current state of things on the planet, it's impossible that the wars don't happen. Maybe not as often as in the Middle Ages for example, but still. However, since the quantity of wars and their scale tend to diminish with time (except for WWI and WWII), maybe (just maybe) there is hope that one days they will end, even though I don't think it will happen any soon.

[blah the Prussian]

So I'm gonna ignore Lord Raven's post because I'm tired of his whiny attitude in debates and I feel he makes no points worth considering regardless.

It does depend on the war, yep, and the Vietnam War might be the least justified war in history apart from stuff like the Mongol conquests.

If he thought the Vietnam War was justified, then that just proves he's a shit person honestly.

Actually, the Mongol conquests were some of the more justified wars of the time, certainly more so than Vietnam. Genghis invaded China because it was demanding a tribute in exchange for not killing Mongolia, and he attacked Persia for killing his ambassadors. Not saying that Mongol atrocities before those invasions were justified, but the invasions themselves were.

@Dwalin: I don't need personal experience. I'm actually of the opinion that war in General is bad, but it isn't anyone's problem if civilians are in the way, except in the case of Hamas in Gaza for example. I'm sorry if you think that's cruel, but war itself is cruel.

[Blaze The Great]

I know. That's why I agree with people who state that no matter whether we consider wars a "right" or "wrong" thing, given the current state of things on the planet, it's impossible that the wars don't happen. Maybe not as often as in the Middle Ages for example, but still. However, since the quantity of wars and their scale tend to diminish with time (except for WWI and WWII), maybe (just maybe) there is hope that one days they will end, even though I don't think it will happen any soon.

Lol how are wars diminishing in scale? It follows that as more people populate the planet (and you don't have to be an expert in demographics to know that our current population growth is exponential), the wars will be larger in scale. In addition, with our new technologies (high-powered tanks and aircraft, drones, nuclear weapons), the entire world is basically a powder keg waiting to be set off. I don't follow how wars are going to be diminishing anytime soon, even if we are having a time of "relative" peace now.

[Phoenix Wright]

Lol how are wars diminishing in scale? It follows that as more people populate the planet (and you don't have to be an expert in demographics to know that our current population growth is exponential), the wars will be larger in scale. In addition, with our new technologies (high-powered tanks and aircraft, drones, nuclear weapons), the entire world is basically a powder keg waiting to be set off. I don't follow how wars are going to be diminishing anytime soon, even if we are having a time of "relative" peace now.

http://www.fallen.io/ww2/

i recommend watching to the end, but i think the point is introduced around the 12 minute mark, and by the end i think you might change your opinion

Edited July 21, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Dwalin2010]

Lol how are wars diminishing in scale? It follows that as more people populate the planet (and you don't have to be an expert in demographics to know that our current population growth is exponential), the wars will be larger in scale. In addition, with our new technologies (high-powered tanks and aircraft, drones, nuclear weapons), the entire world is basically a powder keg waiting to be set off. I don't follow how wars are going to be diminishing anytime soon, even if we are having a time of "relative" peace now.

I mean, that comparing to the ancient times and middle ages, the last century has been RELATIVELY peaceful. Earlier, there was barely a time when a country wasn't engaged in a war. Just a random example, the Roman empire: apart from the reign of Antoninus Pius and the very beginning of Marcus Aurelius there was barely a long enough peaceful time, and even in this specific period there were revolts and pressures on the borderlines here and there. Romans were constantly either attacking or being attacked.

What will happen in the future I have no idea. Surely, now we have the weapons with the potential to destroy the entire planet if used. I can only hope the politicians will be intelligent enough not to use them.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Blaze The Great]

http://www.fallen.io/ww2/

i recommend watching to the end, but i think the point is introduced around the 12 minute mark, and by the end i think you might change your opinion

That was really interesting, actually, and it's good food for thought. But can't this be attributed to the fact that these wars have taken place between smaller warring parties/smaller countries?

I mean, that comparing to the ancient times and middle ages, the last century has been RELATIVELY peaceful. Earlier, there was barely a time when a country wasn't engaged in a war. Just a random example, the Roman empire: apart from the reign of Antoninus Pius and the very beginning of Marcus Aurelius there was barely a long enough peaceful time, and even in this specific period there were revolts and pressures on the borderlines here and there. Romans were constantly either attacking or being attacked.

What will happen in the future I have no idea. Surely, now we have the weapons with the potential to destroy the entire planet if used. I can only hope the politicians will be intelligent enough not to use them.

That's more addressing the issue that wars are happening less often. The advancement of civilization as a whole has made wars less of a necessity to our survival. But if we faced a war with the powers involved in one of the world wars, you can be assured that it's scale would be much grander in pretty much everything but length.

[dondon151]

That was really interesting, actually, and it's good food for thought. But can't this be attributed to the fact that these wars have taken place between smaller warring parties/smaller countries?

well, yes, that's precisely the point. after world war ii, developed nations have, for the most part, avoided fighting each other.

[Blaze The Great]

well, yes, that's precisely the point. after world war ii, developed nations have, for the most part, avoided fighting each other.

And my point for the most part is that if developed nations fought, the scale would more likely than not be catastrophic. So, in that case, it more served to display the peace that we have had rather than the smaller scale of wars.

[dondon151]

And my point for the most part is that if developed nations fought, the scale would more likely than not be catastrophic. So, in that case, it more served to display the peace that we have had rather than the smaller scale of wars.

you said:

"Lol how are wars diminishing in scale?"

and all of the evidence points to wars diminishing in scale, hypotheticals be damned.

[Blaze The Great]

you said:

"Lol how are wars diminishing in scale?"

and all of the evidence points to wars diminishing in scale, hypotheticals be damned.

No, the evidence is pointing to wars diminishing in frequency. There have always been minor conflicts, and obviously major ones are less frequently occurring. The only difference now is that the period with no major wars is somewhat extended when compared to most of recent history.

[Phoenix Wright]

i think you missed a major point from the video, then. it's not just that big nations haven't fought, it's also that they all actively avoid it. war is diminishing in scale because if we follow your hypothetical we'll all die. nuclear arms are deterrents of war, not necessarily weapons of war. mutually assured destruction is not something any nation desires, since people like being alive above all else.

it's fair to think that major wars can happen in the future, but the point of that video (and by extension my view) was to challenge that view. because of the fact that the world has the capability to engulf itself in war on scales destructive enough to wipe out life on earth for the rest of time, we've begun to move away from that sort of thing almost entirely. thus, factually speaking, war has diminished in scale.

[Blaze The Great]

i think you missed a major point from the video, then. it's not just that big nations haven't fought, it's also that they all actively avoid it. war is diminishing in scale because if we follow your hypothetical we'll all die. nuclear arms are deterrents of war, not necessarily weapons of war. mutually assured destruction is not something any nation desires, since people like being alive above all else.

it's fair to think that major wars can happen in the future, but the point of that video (and by extension my view) was to challenge that view. because of the fact that the world has the capability to engulf itself in war on scales destructive enough to wipe out life on earth for the rest of time, we've begun to move away from that sort of thing almost entirely. thus, factually speaking, war has diminished in scale.

Yeah I'll concede that. I realize that I was kinda running off a hypothetical. I guess my thought process was more "our wartime capabilities are not diminishing in scale" and "hypothetical major wars are not diminishing in scale" as opposed to the conflicts that actually happen.

Also, yeah MAD is pretty much the greatest deterrence strategy ever.

[Phoenix Wright]

in that case...what's different from what i said compared to dondon??