Blaze The Great Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 in that case...what's different from what i said compared to dondon?? Umm...maybe I saw your post an hour after I saw his and had more time to consider the issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Incidentally, the whole concept of war crimes is stupid. The only thing they have ever done is to serve as a way for the victors to get back at enemy commanders that gave them trouble. In war, anything should go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical CC Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) He's not a war hero, he has done nothing to be considered as heroic. But in war, there are things you have to do, things that you simply cant refuse, he had no choice in what he had to do. He is not a war criminal in my opinion. He's just an average joe. But I hate him for the fact that he kept using his "war hero" card in the previous election. Seriously, if simply doing what you are told to, get caught or get wounded then go home safely is enough to be called "war hero", how many "war hero" do you think US has??? Edited July 23, 2015 by Magical CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I'm only going to do a single post here, because I have no intention of getting involved in a debate. Yes, John McCain is a war hero. I am not sure how to define that, but he served his country and that is what matters. Anyone who has studied war, or military strategy should know that. "Theirs not to reason why. There's but to do, or die" - Lord Alfred Tennyson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I'm only going to do a single post here, because I have no intention of getting involved in a debate. Yes, John McCain is a war hero. I am not sure how to define that, but he served his country and that is what matters. Anyone who has studied war, or military strategy should know that. "Theirs not to reason why. There's but to do, or die" - Lord Alfred Tennyson. Quoted for truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smartdumbkid Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Quoted for truth. His "truth" is merely opinion, and poorly supported at that. From I hear of Mr.McCain, he was the son of a wealthy man and got distinguishing remarks based on his father's reputation, but he did endure tortue, and denied early repartriation as he didn't want to leave his men behind. While you can question his ability as a soldier and what actions he carried out, the truth is he suffered terrible life long injuries for an ordeal he choose to prolong for his men. To me, that is heroic, and all that matters, bar nothing horrible popping up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Incidentally, the whole concept of war crimes is stupid. The only thing they have ever done is to serve as a way for the victors to get back at enemy commanders that gave them trouble. In war, anything should go. there exist certain strategies that even governments perceive to be too inhumane. it's absolutely ridiculous to assert "anything should go." insane, really. Edited July 23, 2015 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Incidentally, the whole concept of war crimes is stupid. The only thing they have ever done is to serve as a way for the victors to get back at enemy commanders that gave them trouble. In war, anything should go. Tactics specifically targeting civilians have no place in war. In a way, yes, the victors utilize them to get back at their opponents, but they are often justified in doing so. Would you have Nazi leaders run rampant, unpunished despite the fact that they murdered 11 million civilians, bombed civilian targets simply to lower morale, and even betrayed one of the major allies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topazd Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Tactics specifically targeting civilians have no place in war. In a way, yes, the victors utilize them to get back at their opponents, but they are often justified in doing so. Would you have Nazi leaders run rampant, unpunished despite the fact that they murdered 11 million civilians, bombed civilian targets simply to lower morale, and even betrayed one of the major allies? Civilian bombings for the purpose of lowering morale are cruel, but serve a clear purpose. And wasn't the bombing of Dresden simply for the purpose of lowering German morale? There's no denying how ruthless certain actions are, but they may have well been the most efficient way to end the conflict - Hiroshima is one example blah already brought up. Though concentration camps fall pretty clearly under the category of war crimes that need to be judged, in my eyes. Edited July 23, 2015 by Topazd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klokinator Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 John Mc'Cain: 1. Sucks at not getting captured 2. Sucks for relinquishing information to the enemy under torture 3. Sucks for calling his own supporters 'the crazies' So, what we can take from this is: John Mc'Cain sucks, and Trump is right. Just, let's not pretend Trump is a saint, nor is anyone else running for this election. I like Rand Paul, but even he's becoming a flip flopper. Ted Cruz voted for the FREEDOM Act and before that he wanted to extend the PATRIOT Act too. Hillary Clinton never tells the truth, she's a progressive liar, and Bernie Sanders is a socialist from socialist hell under who's presidency we'd see pretty much all remaining American jobs shipped overseas as corporations scrambled to get out of dodge and avoid that 90% tax hike. Nobody's great. Everybody sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Tactics specifically targeting civilians have no place in war. In a way, yes, the victors utilize them to get back at their opponents, but they are often justified in doing so. Would you have Nazi leaders run rampant, unpunished despite the fact that they murdered 11 million civilians, bombed civilian targets simply to lower morale, and even betrayed one of the major allies? The Nazi leaders were tried for,crimes against humanity, not war crimes. The Wehrmacht generals who were tried by the Red Army were guilty of the same things their prosecutors were. There was even an incident where the USSR framed the Nazis for the murder of Polish rebels. I'm not saying the Wehrmacht was clean of atrocities, but it's clear that war crimes are nothing more than a way for the victor to punish those who pissed them off. Don't even get me started on the Yamashita case. John Mc'Cain: 1. Sucks at not getting captured 2. Sucks for relinquishing information to the enemy under torture 3. Sucks for calling his own supporters 'the crazies' So, what we can take from this is: John Mc'Cain sucks, and Trump is right. Just, let's not pretend Trump is a saint, nor is anyone else running for this election. I like Rand Paul, but even he's becoming a flip flopper. Ted Cruz voted for the FREEDOM Act and before that he wanted to extend the PATRIOT Act too. Hillary Clinton never tells the truth, she's a progressive liar, and Bernie Sanders is a socialist from socialist hell under who's presidency we'd see pretty much all remaining American jobs shipped overseas as corporations scrambled to get out of dodge and avoid that 90% tax hike. Nobody's great. Everybody sucks. Nothing wrong with socialism, just Communism. But lets save that for the elections topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Don't even get me started on the Yamashita case.I have a book on the Yamashita case that I have never read... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klokinator Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Nothing wrong with socialism, just Communism. But lets save that for the elections topic. There's nothing wrong with any political system, in theory. All political systems are bad once you factor in the human factor though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 There's nothing wrong with any political system, in theory. All political systems are bad once you factor in the human factor though. With your typical self-serving politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klokinator Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Pretty much. I have hope for the Icarus/Daedalus computer system though. Once it takes over, definitely no more problems... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Pretty much. I have hope for the Icarus/Daedalus computer system though. Once it takes over, definitely no more problems... The bad thing is that they're prone to computer viruses. You would have to completly isolate it. Edited July 23, 2015 by Naughx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 There's nothing wrong with any political system, in theory. All political systems are bad once you factor in the human factor though. True enough. I support Socialism as an economic system, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 The good thing about computers is that they aren't prone to psychological "instability" like most humans are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 THAT'S ENOUGH THREAD DERAILMENT, thank you very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Civilian bombings for the purpose of lowering morale are cruel, but serve a clear purpose. And wasn't the bombing of Dresden simply for the purpose of lowering German morale? There's no denying how ruthless certain actions are, but they may have well been the most efficient way to end the conflict - Hiroshima is one example blah already brought up. Though concentration camps fall pretty clearly under the category of war crimes that need to be judged, in my eyes. There should be an underlying, major objective that makes the bombing of civilians acceptable. The bombing of Dresden served no real purpose besides lowering morale by bombing civilians, and therefore it was unjustified. I never said the bombing of Dresden was justified in the first place. The Nazi leaders were tried for,crimes against humanity, not war crimes. The Wehrmacht generals who were tried by the Red Army were guilty of the same things their prosecutors were. There was even an incident where the USSR framed the Nazis for the murder of Polish rebels. I'm not saying the Wehrmacht was clean of atrocities, but it's clear that war crimes are nothing more than a way for the victor to punish those who pissed them off. Don't even get me started on the Yamashita case. That's my point. Just because it's a kinda silly idea, it is justified. When crimes in war are committed, they need to be punished, just like crimes in the homeland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eail Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 War hero? Nah, you wanna hear a story about a war hero go read up about Audie Murphy, that was a real war hero and one tough son of a bitch. War Criminal isn't a correct term to use either, McCain followed the orders given to him by a superior officer as I hope any man in his situation would do. The average 'grunt' isn't expected to make his own decisions beyond 'Duck into my hole' and 'Shoot the son of a bitch' when time comes around. As a pilot, you really have even less freedoms than that. Nearly everything you do is planned out to a T due to fuel restrictions, ammunition allotment, and the orders of your superiors. To think that it's a soldiers fault for innocent lives being lost during armed conflict is an incredibly foolish statement to even consider. People die in war, soldiers and innocents, this is simply a fact of the world that we live in. Though I hesitate to actually call what we have these days real 'War'... so far as America is concerned at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 There should be an underlying, major objective that makes the bombing of civilians acceptable. The bombing of Dresden served no real purpose besides lowering morale by bombing civilians, and therefore it was unjustified. I never said the bombing of Dresden was justified in the first place. That's my point. Just because it's a kinda silly idea, it is justified. When crimes in war are committed, they need to be punished, just like crimes in the homeland. First of all, Crimes against humanity are clearly distinct from war crimes, as they deal with crimes not committed in war, like the concentration camps. I believe that crimes against humanity should still be prosecuted, as they are so large in scale that it's pretty obvious who did them. Your bringing up of Dresden actually helps my case; in many cases the Allies, particularly the Red Army, were just as guilty of war crimes as the generals they were charging. I honestly can't come up with a way to prevent war crimes from being cases where people get shot for being on the wrong side; The Hague is a start, but only the victor is in a position to turn people in to them. Just look at the Yugoslav Wars: there are a bunch of Croatian generals who are accused of what got their Serb counterparts a cell block, but they have never been tried since Croatia won that war. So yeah, that's my problem with the institution of war crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetragrammaton Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 He's not a war hero, he has done nothing to be considered as heroic. But in war, there are things you have to do, things that you simply cant refuse, he had no choice in what he had to do. He is not a war criminal in my opinion. He's just an average joe. But I hate him for the fact that he kept using his "war hero" card in the previous election. Seriously, if simply doing what you are told to, get caught or get wounded then go home safely is enough to be called "war hero", how many "war hero" do you think US has??? I think US has million of innocent children killers lusting for that War Hero title. Honesty, what's wrong with US when they favor evil??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eail Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I think US has million of innocent children killers lusting for that War Hero title. Honesty, what's wrong with US when they favor evil??? When the men you fight don't follow the 'rules' of war as civilized nations have presented them over the course of hundreds of years, there are going to be dirty strategies on both sides to ensure the destruction of the enemy. Do we kill innocents? Yes If you think that makes us worse than terrorists who say 'Convert or Die' and let the streets run red with the blood of women and children who were brutally murdered with blades, you have some serious viewpoint issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 When the men you fight don't follow the 'rules' of war as civilized nations have presented them over the course of hundreds of years, there are going to be dirty strategies on both sides to ensure the destruction of the enemy. Do we kill innocents? Yes If you think that makes us worse than terrorists who say 'Convert or Die' and let the streets run red with the blood of women and children who were brutally murdered with blades, you have some serious viewpoint issues. I would even question the use of the term innocent in a total war. In WWII, for example, civilians worked in the factories. It only makes sense to defeat the enemy by cutting off their method of production. Simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.