Is John McCain a war hero?

[Dwalin2010]

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.

It's easy to judge when it's not YOU or YOUR relatives who get killed. If you would react differently in those cases, then what you just said is hypocrisy. If you wouldn't care, it would be lack of basic human feelings.

[Tetragrammaton]

Same reason why the US tried to kill Vietnamese innocents, to reduce the number of people fight back.

And that they call War Hero.

[blah the Prussian]

It's easy to judge when it's not YOU or YOUR relatives who get killed. If you would react differently in those cases, then what you just said is hypocrisy. If you wouldn't care, it would be lack of basic human feelings.

Actually, no, that's not the case. What you just did there, write this down, is called an appeal to emotion, namely trying to connect the debate to personal experience. The reason why this is flawed is that if you connect the debate to personal experience you go in with a bias. To use a more simple example, you hopefully find nothing wrong with killing soldiers who are not surrendering. You might think differently if your father was killed in this manner, but it wouldn't change the fact that killing enemy soldiers is okay. Thus, people who have no personal experience in issues are actually better suited to appraise them than people who do, because they can weigh the sides evenly without personal bias. Make sense?

Same reason why the US tried to kill Vietnamese innocents, to reduce the number of people fight back.

And that they call War Hero.

To reduce the number of people who fight back is also commonly referred to as a battle.

[Tetragrammaton]

To reduce the number of people who fight back is also commonly referred to as a battle.

That's why Japan surrendered after they got 2 big presents from the US in WWII.

[Dwalin2010]

To use a more simple example, you hopefully find nothing wrong with killing soldiers who are not surrendering.

It depends on the circumstances and which side you are on. If you voluntarily enlisted in the army of a country which is the aggressor in a war, then killing people who are defending their homes is morally extremely reprehensible, even though "legally" not a crime.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[blah the Prussian]

It depends on the circumstances and which side you are on. If you voluntarily enlisted in the army of a country which is the aggressor in a war, then killing people who are defending their homes is morally extremely reprehensible, even though "legally" not a crime.

Ah, but it depends on what you call an aggressor, doesn't it? Both sides could be called the aggressor in WWI, and in the final stages of WWII the Germans were defending their country from invasion. Who was the aggressor in Vietnam? The world is not black and white. Regardless, you dodged my main point by nitpicking a minor point.

[Tetragrammaton]

Who was the aggressor in Vietnam?

Definitely the US, not Vietnam

[Dwalin2010]

Ah, but it depends on what you call an aggressor, doesn't it? Both sides could be called the aggressor in WWI, and in the final stages of WWII the Germans were defending their country from invasion. Who was the aggressor in Vietnam? The world is not black and white. Regardless, you dodged my main point by nitpicking a minor point.

I "dodged" your main point because your main point seems to be based on the idea that wars are a thing that is not always to be condemned. I absolutely disagree with this, and haven't replied about this because it's pointless to try to change your opinion like it would be pointless for you to try to change mine.

And yes, in the final stages the Germans were defending themselves. If there was a possibility of ending the war and removing Hitler from power without invading Germany, it would surely be a better solution. It's just that, hadn't the allies entered German territory, the Germans would have re-grouped and attacked again, starting everything all over. But regardless of this, killing German civilians was a crime, it wasn't necessary at all.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[blah the Prussian]

Definitely the US, not Vietnam

Debatable. US action in Vietnam was mainly fighting the Vietcong in South Vietnam, but this ignores the very real role North Vietnam had both in assisting the Vietcong and fighting South Vietnam. One could make the case that either the US or North Vietnam, or both were the aggressors.

@Dwalin: I don't see how you got that impression from my post, although I can think of a few wars that were quite just, namely Korea, WWII, and the American Civil War. I don't debate to change opinions, anyway, I do it for the thrill.

Edited July 24, 2015 by blah2127

[Dwalin2010]

@Dwalin: I don't see how you got that impression from my post, although I can think of a few wars that were quite just, namely Korea, WWII, and the American Civil War. I don't debate to change opinions, anyway, I do it for the thrill.

The wars are just for those who are defending themselves. For example, WWII it's not like it was just for the nazis, it was just for the countries on the defensive. And avoiding killing civilians is theoretically always possible (or at least, GREATLY diminishing civilian deaths is always possible) it's just only the minority cares at all (surely not the commanders and politicians who sent them). And civilians may be killed in different circumstances. One thing is striking one accidentally in a shootout with an enemy soldier on a street of the conquered city, it's another willingly enter somebody's house, kill the owner and rape his wife just because they are German (for example), to take "revenge" for what the Germans did in the conquered country. In this case, it's not even revenge imo, because "revenge" means repaying somebody who wronged you in the same way and with the same methods. If you kill not the very person who wronged you or was involved in this, but an innocent bystander, then it doesn't even qualify as "eye for eye" revenge. It's just senseless lust for blood.

[blah the Prussian]

The wars are just for those who are defending themselves. For example, WWII it's not like it was just for the nazis, it was just for the countries on the defensive.

Good point. Let me give you examples of wars where both sides were right: the Napoleonic Wars, the Arab-Israeli conflicts, the Franco Prussian War, the Russo Turkish War, and the Crimean War. There you go.

And avoiding killing civilians is theoretically always possible (or at least, GREATLY diminishing civilian deaths is always possible) it's just only the minority cares at all (surely not the commanders and politicians who sent them).

The problem is you can't make anything theoretical here, because war tends to produce such different circumstances. Why should a general risk his war effort to save some civilians on the opposing side? As long as they don't go out of their way to kill civilians they are not doing anything wrong. Provide proof, or any evidence at all, for this claim.

And civilians may be killed in different circumstances. One thing is striking one accidentally in a shootout with an enemy soldier on a street of the conquered city, it's another willingly enter somebody's house, kill the owner and rape his wife just because they are German (for example), to take "revenge" for what the Germans did in the conquered country. In this case, it's not even revenge imo, because "revenge" means repaying somebody who wronged you in the same way and with the same methods. If you kill not the very person who wronged you or was involved in this, but an innocent bystander, then it doesn't even qualify as "eye for eye" revenge. It's just senseless lust for blood.

I don't believe I ever said that killing civilians deliberately, personally, and for its own sake was okay. I recall specifically condemning the actions of the Red army against the people. Of Germany in 1945.

[Dwalin2010]

Good point. Let me give you examples of wars where both sides were right: the Napoleonic Wars, the Arab-Israeli conflicts, the Franco Prussian War, the Russo Turkish War, and the Crimean War. There you go.

Let's take the Napoleonic wars, for example. How were they just for both sides? Didn't Napoleon definitely go out of limits with unnecessary conquest just to bulid an empire, whether it was to satisfy personal lust for power or was it because of patriotism and desire to see his country stronger?

The problem is you can't make anything theoretical here, because war tends to produce such different circumstances. Why should a general risk his war effort to save some civilians on the opposing side? As long as they don't go out of their way to kill civilians they are not doing anything wrong. Provide proof, or any evidence at all, for this claim.

I don't have "physical evidence" like in a crime proceeding, for me all necessary evidence is simple common sense and human consience. If a general doesn't care about diminishing civilians' deaths while being in power to do so, there is definitely something wrong with the man. It may be only my personal opinion, but I think such people are dangerous even in times of peace in a civil society. People who disregard ethics only bring trouble. How can you imagine such an individual behaving in times of peace, if he simply doesn't understand why should human life be regarded with respect?

[blah the Prussian]

Let's take the Napoleonic wars, for example. How were they just for both sides? Didn't Napoleon definitely go out of limits with unnecessary conquest just to bulid an empire, whether it was to satisfy personal lust for power or was it because of patriotism and desire to see his country stronger?

Actually, the Coalition was the one who started the vast majority of the wars. Napoleon's invasion of Russia happened because Russia refused to embargo the UK despite signing a treaty promising to do so. The only unjustifiable war Napoleon launched was the invasion of Spain, but Spain wasn't exactly in the right there either, being a borderline Catholic theocracy and all.

I don't have "physical evidence" like in a crime proceeding, for me all necessary evidence is simple common sense and human consience. If a general doesn't care about diminishing civilians' deaths while being in power to do so, there is definitely something wrong with the man. It may be only my personal opinion, but I think such people are dangerous even in times of peace in a civil society. People who disregard ethics only bring trouble. How can you imagine such an individual behaving in times of peace, if he simply doesn't understand why should human life be regarded with respect?

You seem to miss the fact that generals usually weigh the lives of enemy civilians against the lives of their own men. Just because they value their own men, whose lives it is their job to protect, over enemy civilians does not mean that they do not aloe the lives of these civilians. Also, you answer that question. How do generals generally behave in times of peace?

[Dwalin2010]

Actually, the Coalition was the one who started the vast majority of the wars. Napoleon's invasion of Russia happened because Russia refused to embargo the UK despite signing a treaty promising to do so. The only unjustifiable war Napoleon launched was the invasion of Spain, but Spain wasn't exactly in the right there either, being a borderline Catholic theocracy and all.

Invading a country because they refused to maintain an embargo? And this would be ethically justified? It's like killing a person for having lied to you. It's not like Russia attacked France to force Napoleon to defend himself.

Also, you answer that question. How do generals generally behave in times of peace?

They are not all the same, and I can't say about all countries, I haven't even been to the USA. I am Russian (though live in Italy now) and I can say Russian generals are pretty often involved in crimes, including violent ones. I mean, of course they don't go aroung shooting people personally, but ordering a hit or two on somebody who bothers them or smuggling drugs from Asia, why not (according to them)? As for Italian generals, I can't say, Italy isn't really that much involved in wars today, even though send several troops occasionaly in Iraq or Afghanistan to stand guard.

By the way, MANY crime groups in Russia are made of former soldiers. The "mafias" made of veterans of the Afghanistan war (the one that was under Soviet Union) have become almost legendary (in the negative sense of the word). I am very much convinced that war has a very negative effect on human psychology. Can you point me even one soldier who has been on the battleground and didn't radically change as a person after returning home? I am not saying they all become violent, but the ones who have conscience suffer greatly because of such experiences.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[blah the Prussian]

Invading a country because they refused to maintain an embargo? And this would be ethically justified? It's like killing a person for having lied to you. It's not like Russia attacked France to force Napoleon to defend himself.

Except Napoleon did not aim to destroy Russia as a nation state. What he intended to do was to force the Tsar to keep his promise, nothing more, nothing less. How would you intend for Napoleon to fix this? If let Russia break it's promise, the other European nations would follow, threatening the territorial integrity of France. War is not about ethics, it's about cause and effect, and to let Russia get away with breaking its treaty would have a negative effect for Napoleon.

They are not all the same, and I can't say about all countries, I haven't even been to the USA. I am Russian (though live in Italy now) and I can say Russian generals are pretty often involved in crimes, including violent ones. I mean, of course they don't go aroung shooting people personally, but ordering a hit or two on somebody who bothers them or smuggling drugs from Asia, why not (according to them)? As for Italian generals, I can't say, Italy isn't really that much involved in wars today, even though send several troops occasionaly in Iraq or Afghanistan to stand guard.

By the way, MANY crime groups in Russia are made of former soldiers. The "mafias" made of veterans of the Afghanistan war (the one that was under Soviet Union) have become almost legendary (in the negative sense of the word). I am very much convinced that war has a very negative effect on human psychology. Can you point me even one soldier who has been on the battleground and didn't radically change as a person after returning home? I am not saying they all become violent, but the ones who have conscience suffer greatly because of such experiences.

That is an interesting point, and I will take your word for it. To provide a counter example, however, in the US, generals are well respected, and lead respectable lives after the war. Many US Presidents, including our first, had military careers prior to political careers. Regardless, generals and soldiers are required to fight a war, and war doesn't seem to be going away any time soon, unfortunately.

[Blaze The Great]

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.

I acknowledged that war crimes were oftentimes a way for the victor to get back against their enemy. However, my main point is that when war crimes are brought up, they are often justified simply because of the nature of war. Most militaries have committed war crimes, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[blah the Prussian]

I acknowledged that war crimes were oftentimes a way for the victor to get back against their enemy. However, my main point is that when war crimes are brought up, they are often justified simply because of the nature of war. Most militaries have committed war crimes, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I'm inclined to agree with this.

[Dwalin2010]

Except Napoleon did not aim to destroy Russia as a nation state. What he intended to do was to force the Tsar to keep his promise, nothing more, nothing less. How would you intend for Napoleon to fix this? If let Russia break it's promise, the other European nations would follow, threatening the territorial integrity of France. War is not about ethics, it's about cause and effect, and to let Russia get away with breaking its treaty would have a negative effect for Napoleon.

Reasoning like a politician or like a "player", I can understand (but not agree or justify). However, I am a simple/normal person. If I was there in their way, my house would have probably been burned by French soldiers and I and my family would have been killed. In such a situation, it would be absurd on my part to care about the politicians' games of power. Here goes my life and the life of my friends and relatives. Any Russian peasant victim of Napoleonic destruction would agree with me. Politicians always act superior, high and mighty, but they are human too, they don't want to die. Yet, it's so easy for them to sacrifice countless lives of "lower" people. Isn't this hypocritical on their part?

And I doubt France would have lost their territories except for the conquered ones. It wouldn't have been a big empire, but their original land would still be in their possess, I don't think the French would be inept at defending it.

[eclipse]

The morality of war belongs in its own topic. Feel free to make one.

[blah the Prussian]

Reasoning like a politician or like a "player", I can understand (but not agree or justify). However, I am a simple/normal person. If I was there in their way, my house would have probably been burned by French soldiers and I and my family would have been killed. In such a situation, it would be absurd on my part to care about the politicians' games of power. Here goes my life and the life of my friends and relatives. Any Russian peasant victim of Napoleonic destruction would agree with me. Politicians always act superior, high and mighty, but they are human too, they don't want to die. Yet, it's so easy for them to sacrifice countless lives of "lower" people. Isn't this hypocritical on their part?

And I doubt France would have lost their territories except for the conquered ones. It wouldn't have been a big empire, but their original land would still be in their possess, I don't think the French would be inept at defending it.

As a disclosure on my beliefs, a peasant is less important to me an the Emperor of France. That is because everything an emperor does matters, while a peasant affects relatively little. A successful war can do a nation a lot of good, so by that measure it would be pragmatically justifiable for a leader to win a war at the cost of so,e of their people. I can see pretty well that our two moral compasses are pretty much incompatible, so what do you say we bury the hatchet now?

Edit: sorry, Eclipse is right.

Edited July 24, 2015 by blah2127

[Tetragrammaton]

Debatable. US action in Vietnam was mainly fighting the Vietcong in South Vietnam, but this ignores the very real role North Vietnam had both in assisting the Vietcong and fighting South Vietnam. One could make the case that either the US or North Vietnam, or both were the aggressors.

@Dwalin: I don't see how you got that impression from my post, although I can think of a few wars that were quite just, namely Korea, WWII, and the American Civil War. I don't debate to change opinions, anyway, I do it for the thrill.

There was no North Vietnam or South Vietnam until the US came and tried to kill all the Communist.

It's the same as "Leave Communist or die by US bullet."

[blah the Prussian]

There was no North Vietnam or South Vietnam until the US came and tried to kill all the Communist.

It's the same as "Leave Communist or die by US bullet."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

As much as I love history, it's not my job to educate you. Learn your history here. I'm done trying to teach history to you.

[Tetragrammaton]

Does that still make McCain a war hero?

No.

[blah the Prussian]

Does that still make McCain a war hero?

No.

That's okay.

[Tetragrammaton]

The domino theory, which argued that if one country fell to communism, then all of the surrounding countries would follow, was first proposed as policy by the Eisenhower administration.^[131]John F. Kennedy, then a U.S. Senator, said in a speech to the American Friends of Vietnam: "Burma, Thailand, India, Japan, the Philippines and obviously Laos and Cambodia are among those whose security would be threatened if the Red Tide of Communism overflowed into Vietnam."^[132]

Anyway, this is what the US believed at the time and told their people to grab weapons and kill all the communist.

And that was a big lie.