Is John McCain a war hero?

[eclipse]

Strategic bombing has been a thing since WW2. Any rational agent at the time would've considered the probability of strategic bombing and refused to participate.

Let's take a survey. Who is capable of more sympathy and who has a better conscience?

1. The person worried about innocent people being killed

2. The person worried about soldiers being pressured to obey commands

I vote for person 1. I think person 1 is more capable of sympathy for thinking about the lives of innocent people rather than a soldier experiencing stress while taking orders.

What about you guys?

2, for considering things like reality and the price of war. I have yet to hear a major war that occurred with absolutely no innocent people dying, and I don't think that'll happen, ever. Thus, trying to condemn people for killing innocents IN THAT CONTEXT serves no practical purpose.

On-topic: At least John McCain survived.

[Lord Raven]

Are you saying nobody should volunteer for military service because it might lead to immoral things? The only people who go are the ones deployed or drafted?

EDIT: I just saw eclipse's post and I would like to add to that. Things like that are inevitable in war simply because it's a means of forcing an end (though it doesn't always work, it did work in World War 2 very effectively). To a certain extent, he could even be seeing this as a means to help end the Vietnam War. You're thinking of this far too simplistically, as a rather black-and-white moral-and-immoral good-and-evil "omg will anyone PLEASE think of the children???" when in reality everything about this situation is much more complex than it seems.

Furthermore, if it worked to end the Vietnam War, then we'd be looking at this thing differently... but it failed to do so, so you're looking at McCain as a war criminal.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Lord Raven

[Chiki]

Are you saying nobody should volunteer for military service because it might lead to immoral things? The only people who go are the ones deployed or drafted?

Depends. I can see the argument for WW2, but not the Vietnam War or Iraq War at all.

Also I think people should refuse to be drafted for something like the Vietnam War.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Chiki

[Dwalin2010]

2, for considering things like reality and the price of war. I have yet to hear a major war that occurred with absolutely no innocent people dying, and I don't think that'll happen, ever. Thus, trying to condemn people for killing innocents IN THAT CONTEXT serves no practical purpose.

But this is only if we consider war a normal and natural thing by default. Real life war is always horrible, it's not like a computer game. By the way, I often ask people who justify war a question, that never receives a direct and explicit answer:

What would you say if you some close relatives of yours were killed in a war?

[eclipse]

But this is only if we consider war a normal and natural thing by default. Real life war is always horrible, it's not like a computer game. By the way, I often ask people who justify war a question, that never receives a direct and explicit answer:

What would you say if you some close relatives of yours were killed in a war?

It's already happened (as in, said relative was collateral damage). And my response was "that sucks". But I don't hate the people who were behind that death, either. Hatred won't bring back the dead.

[Lord Raven]

(I edited my post btw)

But this is only if we consider war a normal and natural thing by default. Real life war is always horrible, it's not like a computer game.

Yes, but we're arguing about what is done in war once it is started, not the philosophy behind why war starts. War is horrid, but there are things that are natural in the context of war.

By the way, I often ask people who justify war a question, that never receives a direct and explicit answer:

What would you say if you some close relatives of yours were killed in a war?

Truth be told, no clue. I might be bawling my eyes out. I might accept it. Wait for it to happen then I'll answer, and most likely it'll be the former.

Are you trying to expose me as some kind of hypocrite? Because I hate the idea of war but I can understand the means to an end, both in ending the war and in what the war is trying to accomplish, although ultimately its purpose is far less noble than people romanticize it as.

Furthermore, it's not like I'm gonna go all Kill Bill and find the person that killed said relative/friend. I would hopefully just mourn their death and leave it at that, but who knows.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Lord Raven

[Dwalin2010]

But I don't hate the people who were behind that death, either. Hatred won't bring back the dead.

I personally find it strange. But if hatred won't bring back the dead, then what's the purpose of any kind of law enforcement and legal punishment existing on Earth then? Because a conviction of a felon never brings back the victim, in plenty of cases it can't be even explained with the reason of "him not harming other innocents in the future", because for example if it happened decades ago like with the nazi criminals, they aren't dangerous anymore, yet the law still is after criminals even in cold cases.

[Blaze The Great]

Every single army has committed "war crimes". Are the soldiers in those armies considered war criminals? It's terrible that innocents die, but it is a fact of war. And unless a soldier goes out of his way to kill innocents or the like, he's not a "war criminal", he's following orders. Now, it's different if an officer gives orders to kill innocents. THAT person should be charged. But the grunts doing the dirty work are not any worse than the next one, for the most part.

[eclipse]

I personally find it strange. But if hatred won't bring back the dead, then what's the purpose of any kind of law enforcement and legal punishment existing on Earth then? Because a conviction of a felon never brings back the victim, in plenty of cases it can't be even explained with the reason of "him not harming other innocents in the future", because for example if it happened decades ago like with the nazi criminals, they aren't dangerous anymore, yet the law still is after criminals even in cold cases.

I see it as separating those that are a danger to society as a whole, as well as a deterrent to those who would commit such acts. Thus, punishment after the crime, as long as it's fitting, isn't something that I object to. However, crime/punishment is another topic entirely.

[Chiki]

Are you saying nobody should volunteer for military service because it might lead to immoral things? The only people who go are the ones deployed or drafted?

EDIT: I just saw eclipse's post and I would like to add to that. Things like that are inevitable in war simply because it's a means of forcing an end (though it doesn't always work, it did work in World War 2 very effectively). To a certain extent, he could even be seeing this as a means to help end the Vietnam War. You're thinking of this far too simplistically, as a rather black-and-white moral-and-immoral good-and-evil "omg will anyone PLEASE think of the children???" when in reality everything about this situation is much more complex than it seems.

Furthermore, if it worked to end the Vietnam War, then we'd be looking at this thing differently... but it failed to do so, so you're looking at McCain as a war criminal.

They're not really that inevitable in a war. Strategic bombing wasn't that common until WW2.

The question was meant to be a rhetorical one. I'm sorry, but it's literally insane to sympathize more with a soldier stressed about following orders than innocent people dying. It's just nuts and horribly unethical. It's amazing how the propaganda machine works in the US to make sociopaths like McCain seem like good guys.

Also, eclipse and Lord Raven, please answer this question: if McCain is such a good guy then why did he volunteer in the Vietnam War to inevitably kill innocents?

[Lord Raven]

They're not really that inevitable in a war. Strategic bombing wasn't that common until WW2.

Bad wording, but it probably wasn't highly likely during Vietnam either given the 15 or so year gap.

The question was meant to be a rhetorical one. I'm sorry, but it's literally insane to sympathize more with a soldier stressed about following orders than innocent people dying. It's just nuts and horribly unethical. It's amazing how the propaganda machine works in the US to make sociopaths like McCain seem like good guys.

Perhaps you don't understand what we mean by stress. This isn't like exam stress we're talking about.

Also, eclipse and Lord Raven, please answer this question: if McCain is such a good guy then why did he volunteer in the Vietnam War to inevitably kill innocents?

Nobody's arguing he's a good or a bad guy. We're just arguing he's a soldier and following orders after volunteering. This does not make him a criminal.

I personally find it strange. But if hatred won't bring back the dead, then what's the purpose of any kind of law enforcement and legal punishment existing on Earth then? Because a conviction of a felon never brings back the victim, in plenty of cases it can't be even explained with the reason of "him not harming other innocents in the future", because for example if it happened decades ago like with the nazi criminals, they aren't dangerous anymore, yet the law still is after criminals even in cold cases.

I don't want to go too hard into law philosophy, but I'd say to prevent further threats rather than punishment. Ideally prison time should be rehabilitation and not punishment.

As for why they do it in a case where someone may not be a threat again - with so many people, you need to have some sort of rigidity in the decisions, because you can't just say something like "this dudes clearly troubled and needs help, but this person may not do it again." Both gotta do the time because the former is more likely than the latter.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Lord Raven

[Topazd]

Also I think people should refuse to be drafted for something like the Vietnam War.

Pardon me if this is incorrect (I'm no expert on U.S. history), but to my knowledge public opinion was overwhelmingly in support of the war, at first.

All that changed before long, Vietnam being the first largely televised war and all. But at first, people didn't exactly have the same outlook on war as we might have now.

[Jedi]

I personally find it strange. But if hatred won't bring back the dead, then what's the purpose of any kind of law enforcement and legal punishment existing on Earth then? Because a conviction of a felon never brings back the victim, in plenty of cases it can't be even explained with the reason of "him not harming other innocents in the future", because for example if it happened decades ago like with the nazi criminals, they aren't dangerous anymore, yet the law still is after criminals even in cold cases.

Justice for a criminal is a different matter.

Pardon me if this is incorrect (I'm no expert on U.S. history), but to my knowledge public opinion was overwhelmingly in support of the war, at first.

All that changed before long, Vietnam being the first largely televised war and all. But at first, people didn't exactly have the same outlook on war as we might have now.

There is also the fact that refusing to sign up for the draft (if you're a male anyways) or refusing being called on when your name comes up, is considered a crime.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Jedi

[eclipse]

I don't answer loaded questions.

[Chiki]

Pardon me if this is incorrect (I'm no expert on U.S. history), but to my knowledge public opinion was overwhelmingly in support of the war, at first.

All that changed before long, Vietnam being the first largely televised war and all. But at first, people didn't exactly have the same outlook on war as we might have now.

Let's see. McCain volunteered in 1967, which is when:

By 1967, according to Gallup Polls, an increasing majority of Americans considered US military involvement in Vietnam to be a mistake

[Dwalin2010]

I agree with Chiki completely. While I am never good at providing "proof" by pure logic and incontrovertible facts, I don't understand why defending the rights of innocent people to live and condemning the ones who deprived them of life should even need that. Whatever "logical" explanation for the soldiers' actions there may be, scattered pieces of a child's body torn apart by a bomb imo are the best argument agaist any justification of violence, whether this violence is due to soldiers being "stressed by circumstances" or not.

Justice for a criminal is a different matter.

Why? A dead body (especially that of an innocent) is always a dead body.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Chiki]

Nobody's arguing he's a good or a bad guy. We're just arguing he's a soldier and following orders after volunteering. This does not make him a criminal.

The question was why did he volunteer, knowing that wars inevitably kill innocents like you said? Not what he did after volunteering.

I don't answer loaded questions.

You answered an even more loaded question like 15 minutes ago.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Chiki

[Blaze The Great]

I agree with Chiki completely. While I am never good at providing "proof" by pure logic and incontrovertible facts, I don't understand why defending the rights of innocent people to live and condemning the ones who deprived them of life should even need that. Whatever "logical" explanation for the soldiers' actions there may be, scattered pieces of a child's body torn apart by a bomb imo are the best argument agaist any justification of violence, whether this violence is due to soldiers being "stressed by circumstances" or not.

Then blame the government for getting involved in the war. Or the officers for giving the orders. Soldiers just follow orders. Unless they are sociopathic, it's highly unlikely that they will go out of their way to kill innocents. They're just following orders, as messed up as they may be.

[Dwalin2010]

Then blame the government for getting involved in the war. Or the officers for giving the orders. Soldiers just follow orders. Unless they are sociopathic, it's highly unlikely that they will go out of their way to kill innocents. They're just following orders, as messed up as they may be.

Of course I blame the government and the officers too. But their responsibility doesn't absolve the ones who pulled the trigger, for whatever reason. I see no difference between this and a contract killing scheme, like:

Government politician (the one who gives the killing order) -> Military commander (middleman) -> soldier (hitman who pulls the trigger).

What's the difference? There is the same result, a murdered innocent (or plenty of them, in case it's a war and not just a contract killing in a "peaceful" zone)

Edited July 21, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Blaze The Great]

In war, a soldier does it out of necessity to follow orders.

In a contract killing scheme, a hitman does it likely out of personal motivation or debt.

The difference is that in war, a soldier is duty bound to do his job. Failure to follow orders will resort in charges of insubordination, military court, and the like. In a killing scheme, the person follows their desires or they made a conscious choice that got them into debt. Big difference there.

Yes, an innocent would be killed, but would YOU be making that thought process in the middle of war? Especially as war becomes more and more modernized, the difference between innocent and enemy becomes a thinner and thinner line.

[Dwalin2010]

In war, a soldier does it out of necessity to follow orders.

In a contract killing scheme, a hitman does it likely out of personal motivation or debt.

The difference is that in war, a soldier is duty bound to do his job. Failure to follow orders will resort in charges of insubordination, military court, and the like. In a killing scheme, the person follows their desires or they made a conscious choice that got them into debt. Big difference there.

Yes, an innocent would be killed, but would YOU be making that thought process in the middle of war? Especially as war becomes more and more modernized, the difference between innocent and enemy becomes a thinner and thinner line.

How does the soldier justification differentiate from a hitman justification? A hitman (many professional ones are former soldiers by the way, and it's not just a coincidence) can also say he was "stressed" and "forced" to do the job; for a debt, or whatever else. He can say that, hadn't he done the "job", he would have been killed, or his family would have been killed, or he would have been framed by the police, or whatever. It may legally be considered as "extenuating circumstances" maybe, so he will be given less than a life sentence or given an elegibility for parole, but still, killing is still killing (if we talk from a "moral" point of view, not just "legal"), and the action is still a horrible thing, even if there is an explanation (but not justification) for it.

And I wouldn't be there in the first place, responding to your last question. I am not American, but as far as I know in the USA military service isn't mandatory for every person? There is always the possibility to refuse, even if it will create you problems.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Phoenix Wright]

Depends. I can see the argument for WW2, but not the Vietnam War or Iraq War at all.

Also I think people should refuse to be drafted for something like the Vietnam War.

retrospect gives 20/20 vision and all that

Government politician (the one who gives the killing order) -> Military commander (middleman) -> soldier (hitman who pulls the trigger).

What's the difference?

the difference is soldiers are pretty much owned by the government. this is not so for hired killers. hired killers don't owe anything to anyone, and don't belong to anyone.

They're not really that inevitable in a war. Strategic bombing wasn't that common until WW2.

The question was meant to be a rhetorical one. I'm sorry, but it's literally insane to sympathize more with a soldier stressed about following orders than innocent people dying. It's just nuts and horribly unethical. It's amazing how the propaganda machine works in the US to make sociopaths like McCain seem like good guys.

Also, eclipse and Lord Raven, please answer this question: if McCain is such a good guy then why did he volunteer in the Vietnam War to inevitably kill innocents?

the question is loaded. it's quite silly to make it seem like those who sympathize with soldiers don't also worry about the lives of innocents. killing civilians is a deplorable act, but i don't think those forced to obey commands should be the ones to blame. it should be the body that gave the disgusting commands in the first place. soldiers should absolutely be tried for crimes that were done outside of original orders.

although, motivations for volunteering are fairly important. i can concede that if mccain's motivations were that he just wanted to kill some vietnamese people, then yeah, i'd agree he's a sociopath. but what if his intentions were not so immoral?

like, what about the situation in israel/palestine? how do you properly engage in firefights with hamas when their strategies include going to civilian heavy areas and using them as shields? perhaps it's right that israel just lets hamas do as it pleases?

Edited July 21, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Blaze The Great]

How does the soldier justification differentiate from a hitman justification? A hitman (many professional ones are former soldiers by the way, and it's not just a coincidence) can also say he was "stressed" and "forced" to do the job; for a debt, or whatever else. He can say that, hadn't he done the "job", he would have been killed, or his family would have been killed, or he would have been framed by the police, or whatever. It may legally be considered as "extenuating circumstances" maybe, so he will be given less than a life sentence or given an elegibility for parole, but still, killing is still killing (if we talk from a "moral" point of view, not just "legal"), and the action is still a horrible thing, even if there is an explanation (but not justification) for it.

And I wouldn't be there in the first place, responding to your last question. I am not American, but as far as I know in the USA military service isn't mandatory for every person? There is always the possibility to refuse, even if it will create you problems.

Because a soldier is fighting for what the country has deemed as its interests? Even if there is a failure on part of the country, that doesn't mean the soldier himself failed. If we don't like killing, then we need to tell our governments not to go to war. Of course, that's never gonna happen, but still. It's immoral, but in war, YOU ARE FORCED TO KILL. That's the number one fact of war. If you sign up or are picked for that, that's part of what happens.

You personally might not be there, but some people feel like they are obliged to fight for their country after what it has done for them. Kinda like the social contract. Military service is not mandatory, but it is mandatory for a male to sign up for the draft when he is 18. So in a way, yes it is.

[Dwalin2010]

the difference is soldiers are pretty much owned by the government. this is not so for hired killers. hired killers don't owe anything to anyone, and don't belong to anyone.

Independent professional hitmen who offer their "services" to anybody for money, don't belong to anyone, I agree. But mafia/Cosa Nostra "soldiers" or the Colombian or Mexican cartel hitmen or other members of organizations like that, they often kill for free, and it's not necessarily for pleasure, it may well be because they are extremely afraid of the boss, for their own life or the life of their family members. They too may see themselves as "soldiers" of a sort, the only difference is that their actions aren't legalized by the government.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Ansem]

even john mccain does not think john mccain is a hero

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-donald-trump-war-hero-2015-7

i agree that he isnt a war hero, and i thought it to be an unpopular opinion all this time, so its elating to see that others agree. but i do concede to phoenix's point, that people refer to all vets as war heroes out of respect. though i dont personally agree, i wouldnt go up to a vietnam vet and tell him he's not a hero