Is John McCain a war hero?

[eclipse]

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

No means no.

[Dwalin2010]

some people feel like they are obliged to fight for their country after what it has done for them. Kinda like the social contract.

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.

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.

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.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Phoenix Wright]

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 seem themselves as "soldiers" of a sort, the only difference is that their actions aren't legalized by the government.

it's not any different even in this circumstance. if someone is a hitman in the drug cartel of their own volition, they aren't covered by the arguments i'm making. if someone is being forced to be a killer, are they really at fault? the principle human instinct is survival, and if the 'choice' is given between life and not life, can you blame those that choose life?

thankfully, i'm not in a position where i'm forced to kill or be killed by my captors; but, if i were, i don't think i'd sacrifice myself. knowing this about me, am i suddenly an evil person?

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.

one can be a conscientious objector.

you're operating on the assumption that it's possible to be in war and not kill innocents. i think this is impossible.

[Naughx]

The "I was just following orders" shouldn't be an actual valid defense...

[Dwalin2010]

you're operating on the assumption that it's possible to be in war and not kill innocents. i think this is impossible.

That is likely impossible. That's why I think more people refuse to participate in any kind of war except defending the borderlines of their countries, better it is.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[algae]

That is likely impossible. That's why I think more people refuse to participate in any kind of war except defending the borderlines of their countries, better it is.

Welcome to the Cold War, where the borderlines were ideological, the countries had buffers between them, and the battles themselves were largely fought by proxy.

[Phoenix Wright]

ideally, yeah. but, coming back to reality, where this isn't the case, what then?

[Chiki]

you're operating on the assumption that it's possible to be in war and not kill innocents. i think this is impossible.

The Vietnam War was completely unnecessary in the first place. But in any case, I'm pretty sure there didn't need to be 3 million civilian casualties.

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

[Dwalin2010]

Welcome to the Cold War, where the borderlines were ideological, the countries had buffers between them, and the battles themselves were largely fought by proxy.

Still better than an actual war with dead people?

ideally, yeah. but, coming back to reality, where this isn't the case, what then?

In real life, I personally think a person should behave following their conscience, just how they would behave if it was in their power to change things, even if it will bring no global results. I mean, even when the struggle for something is hopeless (like for example it's hopeless to completely eliminate violent crime from the planet), it still makes sense and is worthy of respect that some people still try to achieve this objective. Same thing with eliminating wars: you can't change humanity, but you can do your best at least in what is in your power.

[Chiki]

http://edition.cnn.com

Billionaire presidential candidate under fire after attacking U.S. war hero

Jesus. The presupposition that McCain is a war hero is disgusting.

I have half a mind to start a petition and send it to CNN...

[Zerosabers]

He definitely isn't a war hero, I wouldn't go so far as to call him a war criminal though.

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

Or maybe that's because nobody knows since none of can just call him up and ask "Hey did you join the Vietnam war to slaughter civilians?"

[MacLovin]

Why do some folks in this thread keep on saying things along the lines of "he should have known better and not followed orders" and "He could have fled the country if he was to be labeled a traitor"

-John McCain's family was a military family. This means he was expected to go into service.

-"He volunteered to kill innocents"-

Churchil and Air Marshall Arthur Harris ordered ww2's night bombing on the likes of Dresden. A NON-MILITARY TARGET!

Also, I'm pretty sure the USA had NO business in Vietnam, but the military have to follow orders. It's pretty much a given that it's going to happen. Especially in a culture as patriotic as America.

also, we can't really apply cheery idealism in retrospect. It's a bit of like having 20/20 hindsight. No matter how much one might want to strut around acting superior, one can't talk about an era of time unless either one was there in the front lines, or if one is an expert in that period of history.

this thread isn't going to end well.

[dondon151]

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

pffft

let's be fair, just about every soldier who has participated in combat is a war criminal. it wouldn't do us any good to go around labeling them as such.

[Topazd]

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.

There's no justifying such acts, I agree, but the question why is very easy to answer, in that particular case at least. Considering what the Wehrmacht did to the Russians and what the general Soviet attitude towards Germans was, it's hard to imagine any Russian soldier giving a damn about what part a German civilian may or may not have had in the atrocities. Konstantin Simonov's poem 'Kill him' is very indicative of the attitude of the time.

[spoiler=A rather lengthy poem]If your house means a thing to you

Where you first dreamed your Russian dreams

In your swinging cradle, afloat

Beneath the log ceiling beams.

If your house means a thing to you

With its stove, corners, walls and floors

Worn smooth by the footsteps of three

Generations of ancestors.

If your small garden means a thing:

With its May blooms and bees humming low,

With its table your grandfather built

Neath the linden - a century ago.

If you don't want a German to tread

The floor in your house and chance

To sit in your ancestors' place

And destroy your yard's trees and plants

If your mother is dear to you

And the breast that gave you suck

Which hasn't had milk for years

But is now where you put your cheek;

If you cannot stand the thought

Of a German's doing her harm.

Beating her furrowed face

With her braids wound round his arm.

And those hands which carried you

To your cradle washing instead

A German's dirty clothes

Or making him his bed .

[if you haven't forgotten your father

Who tossed you and teased your toes,

Who was a good soldier, who vanished

In the high Carpathian snows,

Who died for your motherland's fate,

For each Don and each Volga wave,

If you don't want him in his sleeping

To turn over in his grave,

When a German tears his soldier picture

With crosses from its place

And before your own mother's eyes

Stamps hobnailed boots on his face.]

If you don't want to give away

Her you walked with and didn't touch,

Her you didn't dare even to kiss

For a long time - you loved her so much,

And the Germans cornering her

And taking her alive by force,

Crucifying her - three of them

Naked, on the floor; with coarse

Moans, hate, and blood, -

Those dogs taking advantage of

All you sacredly preserved

With your strong, male love.

If you don't want to give away

To a German with his black gun

Your house, your mother, your wife

All that's yours as a native son

No: No one will save your land

If you don't save it from the worst.

No: No one will kill this foe,

If you don't kill him first.

And until you have killed him, don't

Talk about your love - and

Call the house where you lived your home

Or the land where you grew up your land.

If your brother killed a German,

If your neighbor killed one too,

It's your brother's and neighbor's vengeance,

And it's no revenge for you.

You can't sit behind another

Letting him fire your shot.

If your brother kills a German,

Hes a soldier; you are not.

So kill that German so he

Will lie on the ground's backbone,

So the funeral wailing will be

In his house, not in your own.

He wanted it so It's his guilt

Let his house burn up, and his life.

Let his woman become a widow;

Don't let it be your wife.

Don't let your mother tire from tears;

Let the one who bore him bear the pain.

Don't let it be yours, but his

Family who will wait in vain.

So kill at least one of them

And as soon as you can. Still

Each one you chance to see!

Kill him! Kill him! Kill!

Anyhow, the point is that in the circumstances of war, emotions will most likely take precedence, no matter how regrettable it may be.

[Phoenix Wright]

The Vietnam War was completely unnecessary in the first place. But in any case, I'm pretty sure there didn't need to be 3 million civilian casualties.

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

i agree. but i don't see how that's relevant. killing innocents is a part of war--ww2 kinda shows that more than any other modern war. and it seems you've shown support for that one.

can you answer why he joined? it's pretty clear that i've opened this debate up again. :)

In real life, I personally think a person should behave following their conscience, just how they would behave if it was in their power to change things, even if it will bring no global results. I mean, even when the struggle for something is hopeless (like for example it's hopeless to completely eliminate violent crime from the planet), it still makes sense and is worthy of respect that some people still try to achieve this objective. Same thing with eliminating wars: you can't change humanity, but you can do your best at least in what is in your power.

i've got ideals that i think if everyone followed would make the world an overall better place too. but those things are irrelevant...

Edited July 21, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Dwalin2010]

Churchil and Air Marshall Arthur Harris ordered ww2's night bombing on the likes of Dresden. A NON-MILITARY TARGET!

And this is a war crime too, if not legally, then morally and according to common sense.

No matter how much one might want to strut around acting superior, one can't talk about an era of time unless either one was there in the front lines, or if one is an expert in that period of history.

I think the ones acting superior are the ones who decide about sacrificing so many human lives, meaning politicians who start wars. They are the ones who act superior while being just normal human beings who are made of flesh and bones like everybody else.

this thread isn't going to end well.

I hope this won't be the case, as long it doesn't go to personal attacks and insults. There is always a way to discuss peacefully I think.

i've got ideals that i think if everyone followed would make the world an overall better place too. but those things are irrelevant...

ONE person is always irrelevant, but big numbers that can make change are made of single persons like you and me.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[eclipse]

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

In my case, I don't think your question is worth my time to give any sort of answer that took me more than five seconds to think of.

Edited July 21, 2015 by eclipse

[algae]

Still better than an actual war with dead people?

If you ignore what actually happened during that enormous block of time, then yeah it is.

[Chiki]

pffft

let's be fair, just about every soldier who has participated in combat is a war criminal. it wouldn't do us any good to go around labeling them as such.

I don't know if some soldiers in WW2 who didn't participate in the strategic bombing and such were war criminals.

i agree. but i don't see how that's relevant. killing innocents is a part of war--ww2 kinda shows that more than any other modern war. and it seems you've shown support for that one.

can you answer why he joined? it's pretty clear that i've opened this debate up again. :)

i've got ideals that i think if everyone followed would make the world an overall better place too. but those things are irrelevant...

Does it matter why? The fact is that he knowingly wanted to potentially kill innocents.

The why is kinda obvious though. Because he's a patriot and he wanted to make a name for himself since he was a soldier blah blah blah.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Chiki

[MacLovin]

And this is a war crime too, if not legally, then morally and according to common sense.

I think the ones acting superior are the ones who decide about sacrificing so many human lives, meaning politicians who start wars. They are the ones who act superior while being just normal human beings who are made of flesh and bones like everybody else.

I hope this won't be the case, as long it doesn't go to personal attacks and insults. There is always a way to discuss peacefully I think.

ONE person is always irrelevant, but big numbers that can make change are made of single persons like you and me.

take a political science course and one of the first things you'll learn is that there's no simple good vs. evil in politics and war.

also going to have to agree with dondon's statement as per usual.

[Dwalin2010]

If you ignore what actually happened during that enormous block of time, then yeah it is.

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.

take a political science course and one of the first things you'll learn is that there's no simple good vs. evil in politics and war.

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

Edited July 21, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[blah the Prussian]

The idea that it is always wrong to kill innocents is an idea that needs to die in a fire. Admittedly, it was wrong in the case of Vietnam, but it was not wrong in cases such as Hiroshima or the Lusitania. In war, people die, and, get this, it's no ones fault. The soldiers who killed innocents would be evil if and only if they enjoyed it, rather than seeing it as a dirty job that someone has to do. The vast majority of soldiers had PTSD about their actions, proving that wasn't the case. That is my opinion on the matter, as a student of military history.

[Phoenix Wright]

ONE person is always irrelevant, but big numbers that can make change are made of single persons like you and me.

the original statement this is based off of is that there exist motivations for why one may choose join the military. in this scenario, we accept that war exists, correct?

so, your personal response was that because a civilian could be killed, no one should participate in war. i hope i am following the debate correctly so far. anyway, i chimed in and said that operates on the assumption that nations can war without killing civilians, which was never refuted. this is where your personal ideologies came in. but they don't matter in this at all. what you or i want to be isn't what is. if we accept that civilian casualties are inevitable, and that conflicts are inevitable, where do you stand now?

Does it matter why? The fact is that he knowingly wanted to potentially kill innocents.

how could you know that mccain, "knowingly wanted to potentially kill innocents"? lord raven already covered this. seeing as civilian casualties are inevitable, all (combat) soldiers in history "knowingly wanted to potentially kill innocents." if this is your case, dondon already covered that.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Dwalin2010]

so, your personal response was that because a civilian could be killed, no one should participate in war. i hope i am following the debate correctly so far. anyway, i chimed in and said that operates on the assumption that nations can war without killing civilians, which was never refuted. this is where your personal ideologies came in. but they don't matter in this at all. what you or i want to be isn't what is. if we accept that civilian casualties are inevitable, and that conflicts are inevitable, where do you stand now?

I can stand only by what I can personally do: not participating in wars and trying to convince others not to do so. It's not like there is much choice: you either embrace the whole war thing or not. I choose not to, even if my actions won't be relevant on a global scale. What else could a conscientious objector possibly do?

The idea that it is always wrong to kill innocents is an idea that needs to die in a fire.

it was not wrong in cases such as Hiroshima or the Lusitania

No comment..... I can understand every opinion that so far has been expressed in this topic, including the rest of your post, but this is just... I don't know what to say, I hope you said it just because we all are talking on a theoretical level, without actually having DIRECT knowledge or being involved in killings of innocents or even seeing that happening directly in front of us.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Chiki]

how could you know that mccain, "knowingly wanted to potentially kill innocents"? lord raven already covered this. seeing as civilian casualties are inevitable, all soldiers in history "knowingly wanted to potentially kill innocents." if this is your case, dondon already covered that.

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.

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.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Chiki