Michael Moore Dares to Ask: What's So Heroic About Being Shot Down While Bombing Innocent Civilians?

[The Sushi Bandit]

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/95906/michael_moore_dares_to_ask%3A_what%27s_so_heroic_about_being_shot_down_while_bombing_innocent_civilians/

Like Iraq, Vietnam was not a noble cause. It's time we stopped letting politicians and the press perpetuate the McCain War Hero myth.

[no limit]

1. Maybe because he didn't have a choice? As far as I know McCain didn't start Vietnam

This is on the same level as blaming our soldiers for Iraq. It is an idiotic point and people around here shouldn't be spreading it.

[VAliberal]

3. Isn't targeting civilian populations

in war a violation of just war norms and international law?

I think this is an absolutely appropriate point to consider.

McCain didn't start the Viet Nam War - he was simply obeying immoral orders?

[no limit]

4. No, he was obeying orders

you have no proof of what he knew or didn't know at the time. There were tens of thousands of unfortuante kids back then that were sent in to that stupid war. None of them were responsible for the orders that they were given. I expected better from Moore, and I expected better from DU who seem to agree with this bullshit.

[VAliberal]

6. Proof? Just wondering aloud . . .

Didn't McCain voluntarily enter military service?

He and others in Viet Nam were not responsible for the orders they received. They do bear culpability for the orders they executed and the civilians they killed. Isn't that the point of international law, Nuremberg, etc.?

[no limit]

10. The standard you are trying to set would make every member of the military a war criminal

it is stupid; do us all a favor and drop it.

[Forrest Greene]

14. Something Wrong With That?

Maybe, when they participate in illegal, unilateral, unprovoked, invasions-for-profit, they are.

[no limit]

15. Yes, there is something wrong with that

apparently you are too shallow to understand it. I'm not going to sit here and try to explain it to you.

[Forrest Greene]

18. The Ad Hominem Attack

...is the tactic of the loser of a debate, & demonstrates the emptiness of his position.

If you have anything of substance or of relevance to contribute to the discussion, you might want to try that, instead.

[jrockford]

26. hahaha

That's the same response Hannity gives when he defends McCain's infidelity and adultery as "he was a POW". When asked why that matters, he sputters the exact same defense! "great" minds think alike?

Just obeying orders is *not* an excuse. It didn't work for the nazis and it shouldn't work now. Period. If our soldiers are obeying orders like that, then YES they are war criminals. They don't become infallible just because a commanding officer told them to do so.

Be a good person and refuse, regardless of the consequences. Obeying such orders shows how completely shallow you are and that you weigh goodness only in terms of how much it will cause you trouble. If he had refused to do the bombings and wound up in jail - THAT would make him a hero. Not carrying them out because he was ordered.

The fact that this is even being debated is sickening. Every single "lesser" war criminal at Nuremberg gave the exact defense. It didn't work..but I guess it is because you weren't on the jury, so to speak, right?

And asking someone "how many wars have you fought in" is just goofy. Who cares? I've fought in three. How many have you fought in? If I was ordered to massacre a village of civilians, I would of refused. I'm still laughing at this.

[no limit]

30. Great straw man

I am asking you a simple question. The standard you are trying to set would make every soldier in our armed forces a war criminal. Do you agree with that?

[jrockford]

34. You ignored most everything I said

It isn't about making EVERY soldier a war criminal. Only the ones who "obey" orders which would make them a war criminal.

Can't you comprehend that? And it is hardly a "straw man" it's a simplified example. But you keep spinning the words into making "ALL" service men and women, which is not what this is about. It's about being ordered to do something that is wrong and doing it anyway, because you are under the shield of "being ordered".

Nazis made that defense. No sympathy was given. Why? This isn't a strawman, just answer that. Why? From top to bottom, it didn't matter.

How many wars have you fought in? Would you obey an order like this? have you? Is that why you have such a passionate issue against something like this?

How would you respond in the converse? How do you think those people who lost their families to men like McCain feel about McCain? Think they find him a hero or a soldier just doing his job? Or is he a war criminal? Would you find him to be a war criminal if he did that to your kin?

It's telling how you respond to this, so you don't really need to. Maybe you can get a job replacing Colmes, it seems that you have the same defense style as Hannity.

[no limit]

36. No, you have absolutely no evidance the order McCain got were illegal

the orders he got were go bomb these military targets. So the standard you are trying to set would make every solider of any army a war criminal if they ever killed anyone innocent as part of collateral damage.

[jrockford]

40. You're in some odd case of denial

and again, you ignore most of what is said.

That isn't the standard. Again, a war criminal is someone who commits war crimes. Ok? Are you with me this far? Because we've been through this bit already and you seem to read every fifth word or so.

This is regardless of so-called orders.

War crimes don't include legitimate collateral damage. But they do include intentional civilian targeting. That is the standard to be set. Whether or not we can agree on my evidence or belief that McCain knew what he was bombing. Doesn't matter. The standard I'm defending is just that, a war crime is a war crime - from top to bottom. No one put a gun to his head and said do it or we'll pull the trigger, and even then - that didn't work in Nuremberg.

[no limit]

43. if we aren't talking about McCain then what the hell are we talking about? Are you still with me?

Yes, I know what war crimes are.

If McCain went up in the air and dropped bombs that he knew were targetting civillians he would be commiting a war crime. But that's not the argument you people are making. The argument you are making is if someone drops a bomb on what they think is a military target and some innocent people die then they are a war criminal.

Again, you know nothing of the orders McCain got. All you know is he dropped some bombs on orders he received. So you have no evidance that he is a war criminal. Yet you are pissing all over his military service for your own personal political benefit. What you are doing is sick.

[jrockford]

50. You got it wrong AGAIN

"If McCain went up in the air and dropped bombs that he knew were targetting civillians he would be commiting a war crime. But that's not the argument you people are making. The argument you are making is if someone drops a bomb on what they think is a military target and some innocent people die then they are a war criminal."

That's what you just posted. I HAVE NOT SAID "if they think is a military target". That wasn't said. Well, it was, by you - you are the only one hammering that point, even though it wasn't made by anyone but you. The issue is if he bombed civilians knowingly, with that intent, it's a war crime. You previously seemed unaware of that aspect, though now you say you know what they are. So maybe this forum bickering has some educational value.

"Again, you know nothing of the orders McCain got. All you know is he dropped some bombs on orders he received. So you have no evidance that he is a war criminal. Yet you are pissing all over his military service for your own personal political benefit. What you are doing is sick."

I'm not just "pissing" on his service, which is hardly as sick as giving 30+ videos of anti-US propaganda just for better treatment. You have no evidence that he didn't receive those orders. None of us have specific evidence, because HE HAD THEM PERMANENTLY SEALED. Which should raise an eyebrow. But there is evidence of other testimony, circumstantial - but intelligent enough to raise some doubt on the accuracy of what he says. Since anything that is "common knowledge" about his great service came from the mouth of McCain and McCain only.

As I said, you can find a lot of information on that aspect if you care to look. But try finding some concrete info on what the orders were and what he thought and what he did...info that defends your American Hero. You won't find anything that comes from an unbiased source - you'd be hard pressed not to find something out of McCain's own mouth. He sealed his records so he can tell the story himself with nothing at all to verify it.

But really, the contention I had was with your pathetic rebuke on how "orders" are an excuse.

[no limit]

52. You keep misrepresenting my position

I was not saying "obeying orders" is an excuse. I made it very clear what I was talking about. I said he was obeying orders that were given to him, and you have no evidance that he knew the orders he got were illegal.

My point still stands, you have done nothing to refute that. Instead you have constantly misrepresented my position on this.

[jrockford]

57. Uhm, "No Limit"...yes you did

everything you just said was incorrect. You are the one that misrepresents and refuses answer, I've only used quotes from your posts.

Let's see, your first post:

"Maybe because he didn't have a choice? As far as I know McCain didn't start Vietnam"

Post #4:
"None of them were responsible for the orders that they were given."

None are responsible for the orders they were given??????? That seems to say obeying orders removes responsibility.

Post #10
"The standard you are trying to set would make every member of the military a war criminal"

To which someone responded:
"Maybe, when they participate in illegal, unilateral, unprovoked, invasions-for-profit, they are. "

To which you responded:
"Yes, there is something wrong with that apparently you are too shallow to understand it. I'm not going to sit here and try to explain it to you."

Now, in looking at that, FG clearly stated that if they p articipated in something illegal, etc - they are. Didn't say collateral damage. Didn't say lied to and thought it was a military target. No, FG was specific. You, in turn, went in for the Hannity response.

Then in post #30, even though I had reiterated that if a soldier is ordered to do something that be a war crime and does it anyway, you respond with this:

"The standard you are trying to set would make every soldier in our armed forces a war criminal. Do you agree with that?"

Which is NOT AT ALL what anyone was saying, unless you firmly believe that all soldiers are ordered to do illegal, etc things.

Post #16 says something equally as incorrect:
" So you would agree, every service member past or present in this country is a war criminal?"

Again, misrepresenting the discussion and points at hand.

Your Post #23 insists that those were the statements made, even though they were not.
"Yes, someone by the name of Forrest Greene did in post 14"

Then in post #32 you try to change what is being said. War crimes aren't simply of civilians dying in collateral damage, but rather intentional targeting etc. But you try twisting the discussion into saying that the standard defended way above includes collateral damage...apparently. (Yet later, claim to know what a war crime is)

"Civilians die in war that's why war should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. The argument you people are making is any soldier that has ever killed a civillian as part of collateral damage when following orders is a war criminal. How many bombs did we drop on Germany in world war 2? Your argument is that the pilots of those planes were war criminals even if they assumed what they were bombing were legitimate military targets."

Post #38 you go on like this: "You are trying to pin what our country did on a soldier that was in his 20s at the time."

Which really has no point. When called out on it, you then admit it has no point - but do so in a manner as if it was *I* trying to make it a point. What the hell?? hahah

Again in Post #11 you continue to essentially say obeying orders is an excuse, or a shield, or something:

"McCain was not responsible for the orders he was given."

Another Hannity comment in Post #17:
"He still put his life in danger, then as a POW he didn't disgrace himself. I would call that a hero"
He did disgrace himself, as was posted later. At least in some opinion, participating in 30+ propaganda films is a bit disgraceful.

In the same post, you do another Hannity bit:
"so how many wars have you served in?"

-- I'm sure by the time this posts, you've made other gaffes.

[no limit]

66. Wow. you have too much time on your hands. And you are skillfully misrepresenting what I said

for someone that has accused me of being Hannity I see you learned well from that guy. I am not going to waste much of my time, because the fact is that by doing this you are being a total waste of my time, it's clear you don't want to have a real discussion on this. You have made some really big factual mistakes in the post above, let me correct them for you.

You are the one that misrepresents and refuses answer, I've only used quotes from your posts.

Let's see, your first post:

"Maybe because he didn't have a choice? As far as I know McCain didn't start Vietnam"

Yes, that was my first post. McCain didn't start Vietnam. Are you disagreeing with me?

"None of them were responsible for the orders that they were given."

None are responsible for the orders they were given??????? That seems to say obeying orders removes responsibility.

See, that's what Hannity actually does. He takes things out of context. I did say none of them were responsible for the orders they were given. I also said in that same post, which you left out, "you have no proof of what he knew or didn't know at the time." Which continues to be my point, you have no proof of what John McCain knew or didn't know at the time those orders were issued to him. I continue to ask you for this proof and you can not provide it to me. You can only provide me with excuses as to why you can't get it. So you are calling a guy that didn't have anything to do with starting Vietnam or issuing orders a war criminial based on assumptions. What you are doing is a fucking disgrace. Is that clear enough for you?

"The standard you are trying to set would make every member of the military a war criminal"

To which someone responded:
"Maybe, when they participate in illegal, unilateral, unprovoked, invasions-for-profit, they are. "

No, that's not the response I got. The response I got to the question "The standard you are trying to set would make every member of the military a war criminal":

Something Wrong With That?

Now I wasn't going to go after Forrest Greene for this because I really didn't want a confrontation. But lets just look at this statement. This is what he/she said in that post:

Maybe, when they participate in illegal, unilateral, unprovoked, invasions-for-profit, they are.

He/she is saying that since McCain participated in Vietnam, like the few hundred thousand other kids, he is a war criminal. That means he/she is clearly stating that any person in the war at the time is a war criminal, even the soldiers that cooked in the kitchen. But yes, defend him/her some more, I guess you agree.

I could do this for the rest of your quotes, but you already wasted enough of my time.

I will repeat my point to you one more time, the same point I have had since I started this discussion. You can not prove that McCain carried out orders he knew were illegal. Yet you, as well as others here, have called him a war criminal as a result. And the reason you have done that? It's the same reason the swiftboaters did what they did in 2004. And in the process you have made everyone on this web site look like a jackass, because when normal people log on they actually see this shit.

[jrockford]

73. They were your quotes, taken in context and referenced...

So if you want to re-define them, go ahead, whatever makes you feel better. There were no factual mistakes made and the rest of your retort is laughable, especially when you go on about "wasting time.". Apparently you must be real busy, because you don't actually read any responses, you seem to go every fifth word or so and draw a half-arsed conclusion.

You're wrong, you know you're wrong and you flipped and flopped about so much I'm surprised you didn't injure yourself with such awkward acrobatics.

[no limit]

87. I showed you point by point how you misrepresented my opinion

flat out saying "no I didn't" and sticking your tounge out doesn't mean you win the debate. I showed you point by point how you misrepresented what I said. You need to address each point, otherwise you are wasting my time as I already told you.

Then you continue to ignore the fact that you can't provide me with the evidance that McCain is a war criminal. You constantly ignoring this wont make me forget it, it's the entire point of this conversation and you need to address it.

[Forrest Greene]

75. In Fact, I Was Referring To Iraq

But if you feel guilty about Vietnam, you can apply that wisdom there, as well.

[no limit]

86. So every soldier in Iraq is a war criminial?

What am I misrepresenting here. You said this about McCain's participation in Vietnam:

-------
Maybe, when they participate in illegal, unilateral, unprovoked, invasions-for-profit, they are < war criminals >.
-------

You said what you said and Im not sure if you are now trying to defend it or you are trying to sleeze your way out of it.

[Forrest Greene]

76. Oh, And, No Limit?

People like you need to cheat the way you have tried to consistently, throughout this entire thread, because you lack what it takes to play it straightforward & honest.

You also lack what it takes to "go after" me.

[Jim Sagle]

68. Hit the road ya lousy red.

[tama]

112. Red?

As in Republican? Communist? Socialist? Native American?

BTW, what is your military background if any, praytell, and how many babies have you murdered either directly or indirectly, babykiller?

[MicaelS]

82. Intentional civilian targeting...

So does that mean every Allied bomber aircrew member who dropped bombs on German and Japanese cities were war criminals? How about the officers who gave those orders? The political leadership that approved those orders? Was each an every one from the highest to the lowest a war criminal?

[Vattel]

84. international law

prohibited the population-bombing that the allies (especially the US) perpetrated in WWII.

[MicaelS]

85. International Law is a joke

It isn't worth the paper it's written on. It's just like an unfunded mandate from the US Congress. By that I mean that International Law is simply a bunch of feel-good words on paper that high-minded "statesman", (or blowhard politicians in the case of Congress), can point to and claim they're "doing something" when in reality they're not doing a damn thing concrete. Anytime any country wants to disregard international law they do so because there is no supra-national organization or world government to compel (by force of arms) all countries to obey. The only time "International Law" is "enforced" is when some Third-World dictator is caught, and even then the Hague has a hard time prosecuting.

Finally, no country on earth is going to surrender their national sovereignty to such an organization. The UN has a terrible time just getting countries to contribute their soldiers to peace-keeping operations.

[Vattel]

93. you may not be aware

that the international law I was talking about (Hague Conventions) was established by treaty and the US Constitution says that treaties, along with the Constitution and federal law, are the supreme law of the land. So who is the blow hard here?

[tama]

113. Correct unswer

The blow hard is US Constitution, it's just a joke. When did ever those in power follow their own laws?

[King Coal]

118. Wasn't Hiroshima an intentional killing of civilians?

There is a difference between hitting a target, and hitting what you know are civilians.

[DustyJoe]

71. 3 wars

and you never followed one order to keep from being a "criminal" ?

[Joe Chi Minh]

95. No. Comparing the worldly wisdom of someone from McCain's backround

with "rank and file" service-people is disingenuous in the extreme. What excuse did he have after General Smedley Butler openly confessed, "I was a gangster, a racketeer for capitalism...".

Unfortunately, egregious status and wealth predispose its possessors to "go with the flow", and accept the Establishment's social and moral norms as genuinely virtuous, so there is no doubt that many decent souls will have been "sucked into", so to speak, the distorted morality of their class. However, there seems to be precious little in McCain's background to suggest that he is "overburdened" with empathy with his fellow-creatures. Indeed, he could scarcely have made that more clear in his pitch for the presidency. Or is there something you have found to suggest otherwise.

[tama]

111. Logic dictates:

Yes, every soldier in your armed forces is a war criminal. What argument, do you think, the conscient objectors feel compelled to use? Yup, the one that implies that all non-objectors are war criminals.

[Joe Chi Minh]

124. I think you missed the point I was making all together. I was making the

point that the ordinary Joe is NOT a war criminal, simply for being a soldier, even in an unjust war, but a scion of line of high-ranking admirals, generals and the like, or a general, such as Smedly Butler had been, is another matter. They know the real rationale war, i.e unless a defensive, an imperial war of aggression for raw materials from abroad, and profiteering at home.

[DustyJoe]

70. 3wars

And you never fired back at the enemy, right ?. Would make you a criminal based on your definition.

[jrockford]

72. Apparently your reading skills are as limited as no-limit n/t

[provis99]

122. civilians are a legitimate target in war

World War II established that fact. None of the German Generals hanged at Nuremberg were convicted of mass killings of civilians; the reason is that the Allies massively carpet-bombed German and Japanese civilians as a tactic of war. The generals were convicted of waging aggressive war ie. the same thing George Bush did in Iraq.

Soldiers aren't responsible when ordered to kill civilians; they are intenationally recognized as legitimate military targets.

[Joe Chi Minh]

94. The suggestion that McCain was just another unworldly Joe, either conscripted

or a volunteer because that's what young unemployed lads from their neighbourhood did - having been told that they were serving their country.

On the other hand, McCain's father and grandfather were admirals, so if he didn't rumble what his class were up to in Vietnam, I can't imagine who would. And as a far-right winger who, ipso facto, doesn't care a whole lot about his own less fortunate fellow-countrymen, never mind "furriners", what he would have known and didn't know is academic. The bad press "giving a dog a bad name" gets isn't always unmerited. McCain's grandfather might even have know Smedley Butler, personally, and sure would have known what he was talking about.

As Michael Moore understood clearly, when he showed viewers the picture of a pipe-sucking billionnaire on the cover of Forbes' 400, which latter he very astutely pointed out were true aliens (outer-space type. Well... human foreigners, too); with one or two more honourable exceptions, of course, such as Warren Buffet.

[roody]

101. Who would Jesus bomb?

[Joe Chi Minh]

125. Who indeed?

[MicaelS]

81. Let's see you have the balls

To call them "war criminals" to their faces. :mad: :puke:

[Forrest Greene]

89. Oh, I've Done That

No problem.

What I respect in any given individual, soldier or otherwise, is the intelligence to realize they have been metaphorically sodomized every day of their lives by the people who are manufacturing "enemies" for them to fear, & the courage to turn around & do something about it. That would be "brains" & "balls," to you.

Since you want to devolve the discussion to the level of a little boy's concern with "balls," I suggest you count yours.

I also respect the ability to express one's self in writing without the use of those infantile, cornball emoticons.

[tama]

114. Are you a military man?

In that case, I have balls to call you a war criminal. Satisfied?

[tama]

110. Every member of the military

is a war criminal, since war is a crime - and a sin.

My wife puts it best: "How could any real mother send her children to army and war?".

But if you are wiser than Mahatma Gandhi, all the best for your wars.

[DustyJoe]

69. Orders

With a lot of late teens in the military in the 60's, considering them all war criminals just strengthens the perception of hatred for those who serve. Would love to know how many combat hours Mr Moore has under his belt at that age.

[AZ Criminal JD]

99. No it is not a violation to target and kill civilians.

Otherwise Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower, among others would have been indicted.

[indepat]

12. Don't know why any Germans were tried a Nuremberg: they were only following orders

:D

[no limit]

16. So you would agree, every service member past or present in this country is a war criminal?

[Forrest Greene]

19. Did Someone Say That?

Must be something wrong with my glasses today. I don't recall reading that here.

[no limit]

23. Yes, someone by the name of Forrest Greene did in post 14

or at least you defended it. So please, try to keep up.

[Forrest Greene]

37. The Qualifier "When" In Response #14 Makes The Salient Point

And again, if you want to try to be taken seriously in your posts, you might consider abandoning juvenality, if you're able to.

[no limit]

41. There is no qualifier and nothing about what Im saying is juvenile.

There is nothing juvenile about this topic. I said, and I quote:

The standard you are trying to set would make every member of the military a war criminal

you responded:

Something Wrong With That?

There is no qualifier, you said what you said. Now if you don't really mean that then fine, I'm glad you are willing to admit that was a stupid thing to say. But don't try to say I'm making shit up, because Im not.

[Forrest Greene]

51. I "Admitted" No Such Thing

The juvenality is inherent in your approach.

Again, you attempt to cheat by the cowardly & infantile tactic of misstating your debate partner's words &, in fact, making them up out of whole cloth.

You ought to try to get better, less obvious & clumsy, at that sort of thing before you try to pull it off among intelligent people.

[no limit]

54. I gave you specifics of what you said

I'm not misrepresenting anything.

[Forrest Greene]

59. That Is Not So

You, sir, are a liar.

[jrockford]

61. Refer to Post #57 n/t

[jrockford]

28. No...

I would agree that any that actually committed WAR CRIMES - is indeed a war criminal. "Obeying orders" doesn't give you a free pass. You are painting the stroke way too broadly, the defense isn't against all service members, just the ones who do wrong.

If soldiers came in and shot your family to death, upon orders, would you be satisfied with that pathetic excuse "I was ordered"?

Please

[no limit]

32. Civillians die in war

that's why war should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. The argument you people are making is any soldier that has ever killed a civillian as part of collateral damage when following orders is a war criminal.

How many bombs did we drop on Germany in world war 2? Your argument is that the pilots of those planes were war criminals even if they assumed what they were bombing were legitimate military targets.

[jrockford]

35. Yes Civilians die in war

And that is bad.

It's one thing for them to die because of the scenario you mentioned and quite another to purposely and systematically intent on exterminating civilians.

You are making a lot of assumptions that McCain thought he was bombing military targets. That he was lied to. Perhaps, but unlikely. Of course, if they are being lied to, that presents a more dubious problem.

[no limit]

38. No, you are the one making assumptions

you know absolutely nothing of the orders McCain got. You are trying to pin what our country did on a soldier that was in his 20s at the time.

[jrockford]

42. What does his age have to do with it?

I'm not trying to pin anything. You are blathering about the standard and twisting it so it seems silly.

You are being just like Hannity, it is amazing. Now you are saying that he was in his 20s so that should make some sort of difference on right or wrong regarding war crimes?

So, if he knew it was a civilian target and he did it anyway, let's absolve because he was in his 20s? What????????

That makes no difference. You honestly can't believe this.. can you?

[no limit]

46. You don't seem to be understanding simple points, I'll repeat this again

if he dropped bombs that he knew were targetting innocent civillians then yes, he would be a war criminal and the fact he was in his 20s would make no difference. What I am saying is you have no evidance of this. All you know is he got orders from his superiors to drop some bombs. You know absolutely nothing about what he knew in regards to those orders, what targets he actually bombed, and who died as a result. You are doing what the swift boaters did in 04. But yes, please do continue calling me Hannity, makes your argument that much stronger.

[jrockford]

53. You are being like Hannity and it is funny

...perhaps you remember that video of Colmes making the comparison of McCain and Edwards. The one that upset Hannity, so he starts blathering around and flailing on how he was a POW so we have to understand the context of his affair. Sort of like you bringing up the irrelevant point of him being a 20 year old soldier...

Or more to the point when someone stated that about how doing such actions would be a war crime, you go on to say if they are too shallow, you can't explain it. Haha, that's just what Hannity said "If you don't understand, then you never will." an easy out for someone who has no real point to make.

Your points are simple in that they are unintelligible. They twist and distort everything people said above you and it is like watching Fox and Friends.

[no limit]

55. So you have no evidance that McCain knew his orders were illegal? You'd rather call me hannity?

How mature of you.

[Forrest Greene]

58. There Were A Great Many Other People

...in their twenties during the undeclared & illegal Vietnam War who had — unlike Senator McCain — the courage, morals, and all-American integrity to refuse to participate. Some are more mature, more fully human, at that age than are others, it seems.

JRockford, I hope it won't upset your Files too much if I mention here that there are, unfortunately, certainly appropriate times & places for armed conflict, & for legitimate, legal, self-defense.

That's why we give to certain occupations like soldiering — police forces also come to mind — the authority to carry weapons & use deadly force. A proper respect for life, for decency, & especially respect for one's self & one's country, demands from soldiers & police the very highest skill & discretion in the application of that force. Any good cop or decent grunt despises & distrusts the "cowboy," which type seems usually to be the author of police abuses or war crimes.

There are also the psychopaths, of course, but that's a different kettle of body parts.

[Forrest Greene]

44. You Also Reveal The Weakness Of Your Stance

...when you repeatedly misstate & distort the statements of your debate partners, as you do here.

I'm afraid you just don't seem to be able to play by the rules.

Which might explain the opinions you're espousing, come to think of it!

[no limit]

47. See post 41.

Im not misrepresenting anything.

[Forrest Greene]

63. Again, Sir, You Are A Liar

And I'll bet you pick your toes in Poughkeepsie, too.

[tama]

115. Those bombers

who don't feel that crime as heavy weight on their conscience hardly deserve to be called humans. Most do have severe doubts and regrets and are trying to cope with those feelings as humans do. We all sin and the trick is to condemn actions, not thy neighbours.

[frylock]

39. black

white

[indepat]

64. I'm only trying to convey a military person is not required to follow an illegal

order such as to commit a war crime as enunciated by Justice Jackson at Nuremberg, the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Charter et al, but we all know in the real world if one refuses to obey any order, that person will likely be taught a hard lesson, even like being suicided or even something worse. Of course who has the gumption to prosecute war crimes committed by the victor, particularly if the victor is a superpower? So, have there not been an untold number of war crimes committed in Iraq and, should it be so, who would have the gumption to bring the alleged war criminal(s) to justice? :D

addedd for spelling and to add a word

[Forrest Greene]

79. Who Would Have The Gumption?

That is where Tom Paine's "Winter Patriots" come in, if we're lucky.

[indepat]

107. Maybe we'll get lucky, but had just a few good men have come forward, junior's neocon PNAC

wet dream could have been stopped dead in its tracks to wit: the number of complicit enablers/traitors aiding and abetting junior all the way has been staggering/mind-boggling in relation to the paltry number of patriots who stood to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. The number of Americans who have sold their souls for greed, total power, and to implement a new order is inexplicable imo and will forevermore be a dark stain on the character of this Republic should it, in fact finally survive the siege it has been under for almost eight years. :P

[rcsl1998]

56. .

[tama]

109. Bullcrap

We are given conscience for the very reason that we cannot deny our responsibility on the basis of "I was just obeying orders", just like Nazi Concentration Camp guards and other babykillers like McCain and their apologists did or try to do.

Best, a Conscient Objector (yup, there is Right and Wrong, however relative)

[movonne]

7. What is your problem....it is true...we bomb innocent civilians and

make them war hero's...Our soldiers are not to blame for Iraq the bush administration is...but we do kill innocent people...

[no limit]

11. that's my point, "we" as in this country

McCain was not responsible for the orders he was given.

[Forrest Greene]

27. All American Soldiers Are Expected To Refuse Illegal Orders

The following, from <http://en.allexperts.com/q/Military-Law-927/illegal-military-order.htm>, although it refers to our current undeclared war rather than to the undeclared war in which Senator McCain took part, may help round out your education regarding the United States of America.

Bold & italic passage were marked so by me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Topic: Military Law

Expert: Douglas Dribben
Date: 6/17/2004
Subject: illegal military order

Question
i would like to know how does the american (sic) law system refers to the subject of illegal military orders as a reason of doing crimes. if possible in the espects (sic) of rules and major cases that has (sic) been discussed under criminal procedures. with great thanks
shahar shavit

Answer
Not sure I fully understand your question. If this response is not sufficient, please refine your question.

A military order must have a military connection and must not contravene existing law, such as the Constitution, treaties, and statutes. An illegal order is just that - illegal, and does not require that it be obeyed. As the law either has no valid military purpose or contravenes existing law, obeying the order may expose the person to prosecution.

A current example is the Abu Ghraib situation in Iraq. There, the soldiers who are being court-martialed for abusing prisoners are attempting to defend themselves by saying they were ordered to commit abuse. Since abuse is illegal and has no valid military purpose, any such order given ... would be illegal and would be no defense.

Historically, this is known as the "Nuremburg defense" because Nazi officials tried to defend their conduct during WWII as simply following orders. The Military Tribunal at Nuremburg rejected this defense, as have all other legal systems confronted with it. The American military legal system does not recognize the "following orders" as a defense to criminal charges.

I hope this answers your questions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And I hope you will let America be America again.

[no limit]

33. Ok, so I need to see your evidance that the orders McCain got were illegal

I'll be waiting, I'm sure you'll have that evidance in my hands in no time.

[jrockford]

45. ...

You seem to be wriggling about. You weren't originally arguing about "no evidence" - you were whining that "obeying orders" is enough of a defense. Then you decided to expand it to such a standard would indict all service men and women (which it wouldn't) then after that failed, now you are demanding evidence as if you were speculating on simply whether or not McCain *knew* he was doing wrong.

If you were seriously on the fence, I'd go and take the time to gather forth. But since it seems you'll do anything to defend your American Hero, it really is pointless.

They did a whole bit on this in the 90s. There are many videos to be found on youtube, one which interviews other POWs and talks about how McCain has went to great lengths to seal his military record, etc.

[no limit]

48. I didn't shift on anything.

Lets recap. This is what I originally said:

------------------------------------

you have no proof of what he knew or didn't know at the time. There were tens of thousands of unfortuante kids back then that were sent in to that stupid war. None of them were responsible for the orders that they were given. I expected better from Moore, and I expected better from DU who seem to agree with this bullshit.

------------------------------------

That continues to be my point, you have no proof of what he knew or didn't know at the time he got those orders. I don't appreciate you misrepresenting my position. But please, but all means keep up the straw man. I'm a hannity loving american who's personal hero is John McCain. And I've been around Du for 4 years with that mindset. Do me a favor and grow up.

[jrockford]

29. Nope

McCain is only responsible for the orders he cravenly carried out.

[tama]

116. Where does the buck stop?

Who voted for the politicians who sent the boys to war, who formed the society that felt need to expand and defend its imperial reach?

Those unable to face their guilt and responsibility, those driven by their fears, manipulated and inherent.

[LiberalFighter]

13. Regardless... bombing targets doesn't make one a military hero either even if justified.

[no limit]

17. He still put his life in danger, then as a POW he didn't disgrace himself. I would call that a hero

so how many wars have you served in?

[LiberalFighter]

20. There is no evidence that he didn't disgrace himself

And he didn't do POW's and MIA's any favor when he determined that there weren't any remaining from Vietnam. And had records sealed.

Being a POW doesn't make one a hero. Too many people are watering down the definition of a hero.

[no limit]

24. There is plenty of evidance

There is evidance that he could have disgraced himself and be sent home.

I don't know what I would have done in that position. He didn't crack. In my book that's a hero, I'm sorry that you disagree.

[jrockford]

31. Again, you're wrong

That evidence seems to come from the source of McCain.

If you read what other POWs who were in the same camp say about "The Prince", it seems he started making deals after 5 days. Was treated better. Oh and made films that other POWs didn't make. Upper 30 of them I believe. I think that's disgraceful and if I remember right, is against the code of what to do when captured.

As far as refusing early release - it has been debated numerously that this may not of been an option he was actually given. Kissinger may of made that choice for him. And even if not, really, if he did take that option - what would he have to come back to? His career be over. Punishments possibly abound. And given that he has proven himself to be an opportunist, it is unlikely he would take such a bargain. It doesn't make him a hero. The heroes are the ones who didn't make the films, accepted their punishment, and didn't sell-out for better treatment.

[no limit]

49. McCain is not the only one that said he could have gotten early release

there was another OP posted here from an actual POW that served with McCain. He was very critical of McCain, but even he confirmed this information.

You are absolutely right. If he had taken that offer his career would have been over. But he would have been out of a prison camp where he didn't know what would happen to him. I'm sorry you don't see the bravery in that, the same bravery thousands of others demonstrated in those days.

[jrockford]

60. You didn't read it carefully

If you had read that OP of an actual POW - you'd of noticed that he was careful and strict to say that McCain served with HIM not the other way around. He was sensitive to that because he was there longer and never exploited his position. Further, he said that because of McCains dealings, he was treated better from the 5th day on, while other POWs continued to be tortured, etc. He made it very clear his reasoning on why he said McCain served with him. It's a shame you missed that important part, but it isn't surprising.

I read that, as far as he knew the offer was given - and it may of been. But what I'm saying is, behind the channels, there seems to be a bit of growing evidence which indicates Kissinger wouldn't allow this to happen. Even so, there have been other POWs that were there at the same time who stated that McCain wasn't doing anything brave by refusing early release, as an opportunist he knew that it would do him no good in the long run.

[no limit]

65. I did read that part, but why does that part matter? It has nothing to do with what I just said

the guy confirmed that McCain was offered early release and refused. It has nothing to do with the fact that McCain got there later than others, it has nothing to do with Kissinger. If you want to call that OP a liar (I wish I could remember his name, dont have time to look it up) you can, I am simply telling you that this story is not only coming from the McCain camp. Many other people, some of them against McCain's presidency, have confirmed it.

[LiberalFighter]

67. None of the other POW's cracked either. What about them?

[no limit]

88. What about them? They are war heros.

Was that a serious question?

[LiberalFighter]

90. By your definition you would consider every person that is or was in the military to be a hero.

[no limit]

97. Nope, that's not what I said. I said every POW that didn't crack is a war hero

although I would probably argue that most of our service men and women that serve honorably are in fact heros.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

104. It would have annoyed my Dad had someone said he was a 'hero'

During WW II my father -- a B-24 bomber pilot -- was shot down and confined as a POW at Stalag Luft 1. Does that make him a hero? What I think is heroic is how he chose to spend his last year of life after being diagnosed with brain cancer. He sang in the church choir, was an active Scout leader, and continued to work and provide for his family every day up until a week before he died at the age of 51. And not once did he complain about how unfair it was. It's easy to tell others how to live; my Dad showed us how to die. That's why he's my hero, not because he was a POW.

The word "hero" gets thrown around pretty casually these days. What Michael Phelps did was an unprecedented accomplishment, not an act of heroism, yet he is being called an "Olympic hero". If John McCain had risked his life rescuing a fellow serviceman, I would consider that to be a heroic act. But to say that being held as a POW -- no matter how harsh the circumstances -- automatically makes one a "hero" diminishes those who willfully put their own lives at risk to save others.

If McCain were truly a hero, he'd be embarrassed by every time he was lauded as such. He basks in it. To paraphrase what was said about Giluiani, every sentence that the GOP utters about McCain consists of a noun, a verb, and "war hero."

[provis99]

123. McCain cracked as a POW in four days; gave the North Vietnamese aid and comfort

Made propaganda films for them, and likely gave them classified naval bombing timetables, as shootdowns of naval jets drastically increased after McCain was captured.

McCain isn't a hero; he's a traitor and collaborator.

[Sallow]

126. McCain may not be a hero..but he's no traitor or collaborator.

Rules about following orders have changed a great deal since Vietnam. In any case, McCain was part of the Military, which takes orders from the civilian government..it does not decide what country to attack. If it were reversed, we would be in big trouble.

It's easy sitting in a nice warm house to pass judgment on a man that was shot down, terribly wounded, beaten by villagers then tortured by jailers. Calling him a traitor or a collaborator is just plain wrong.

[tama]

117. How many babies

have you killed, directly or indirectly participating in a war?

[annm4peace]

74. Condemning war is not attacking the soldier.. it is attacking a Government's Policy

[Waiting For Everyman]

83. Oh, was he drafted, then? I didn't know that.

In his interview for the Communist newspaper in Havana (while a POW), he whined that if he hadn't been shot down, he would've made Admiral at a younger age than his father. That's where his head was at.

A glory-rider. You know, like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBfjU3_XOaA

I'm glad MM's saying what needs saying.

[pokercat999]

96. Damn straight, he was just following orders!

:sarcasm:

[bluestateguy]

2. I agree

If he was a Marine or a soldier fighting on the ground where it was more of a level playing field with the enemy, my opinion might be different.

[wtmusic]

5. Drop it Michael. That tack is a sure loser. nt

[movonne]

9. It might be but he does have a right to say it...

[FiveGoodMen]

21. It might be bad short-term strategy in an election, but it surely needs to be said.

We don't just have to win the White House. We need Americans to think. Otherwise, nothing good will happen in the long run.

[SoDesuKa]

91. Moral Issues Are Not Strategy Points

There's a genuine moral issue here. It's not just about winning or losing an election. Why is McCain considered a hero for actions that if done to us would be considered cowardly? Dropping bombs from 20,000 feet isn't heroic.

McCain isn't necessarily a war criminal, but how can you say he has no moral responsibility at all for his own actions? I don't think you can. This is a topic for a daylong seminar, not for a quick dismissal as a losing tactic in an election year.

[wtmusic]

100. Fine, take it up after the election

the only people he will "persuade" with this reasoning are those who are already voting for Obama.

Pointless.

[SoDesuKa]

102. Every Four Years

I don't think ethical discussions should be put on the back burner just because there's an election coming up. That would be appropriate if this were an entirely academic matter. But the bombing of densely populated civilian areas is ongoing. The appropriate time to discuss ethically offensive behavior is when it's happening. What good does it do the victims to say we'll get to it when we get to it?

You sound embarrassed that there are so many peaceniks in the Democratic party. I guess it would make it easier if we put things "off the table." Come to think of it, isn't that one of our problems? We put off important discussions until it's safe to do so, but face it - it will never become safe to discuss the ethics of bombing populated areas. Following your advice, we'd never let our behavior be impeded by considerations that may harm us at the ballot box. There are many examples where moral courage was expensive. For instance, had Lyndon Johnson not signed the Civil Rights Act, the South would not have gone Republican. No Civil Rights Act, no Ronald Reagan. That's something to think about.

[wtmusic]

103. In that case it's odd that Michael only became enamored

with this topic during election season. Where was he last year on John McCain's war hero status?

Answer: nowhere, because he is trying to use it against McCain in the election, an attempt that will backfire.

[ladjf]

8. That's not helping our cause.

[FiveGoodMen]

22. My cause is a smart, decent, thinking America that does things for good reasons

Making people think is helping my cause.

Keep you powder dry.

[Forrest Greene]

62. Well Said n/t

[Karenina]

25. America desperately needs some self-reflection.

She is a nationalistic, militaristic 800 lb gorilla, feared by TROTW. Her military strength has "made the world safe" for her self-centered, rapacious, avaricious exploitation. Those who join her military, ignorant of its true purpose are "fungible" to quote Rumsfeld.

[SoDesuKa]

92. Self-Reflection

There's a strain of American thought that says that any moral reflection on what we do to other countries raises questions about your patriotism. Thus, absence of reflection, which is usually a failing, becomes a virtue. No wonder this idea is popular. It's a lot easier to be ignorant than thoughtful.

Bush and company pander to the people who want an easy way out. And refusing even to consider moral responsibility is certainly the easy way out. You don't have to do anything! You just sit there and feel superior.

[VPStoltz]

77. He was qualified to begin with

McCain was an inept pilot. It has been reported repeatedly that he was at the bottom of his class and crashed several plains while in training. Had be been a better pilot, he might not have been shot down. He is using his status as a POW, something he claims he doesn't like to talk about, as the centerpiece of his credibility. For Christ's sake, he made propaganda films for the N. Vietnamese. He claims he made the decision to stay to be "with his men." Actually, Henry Kissinger made the decision to leave him there and McCain later thanked him for "saving his honor." The Repugs opened the box on criticizing vets, they made THAT the centerpiece of their 2004 campaign. As far as I'm concerned, anything and everything is on the table now.

[VPStoltz]

78. Oops! That's was NOT qualitified...

[Oldtimeralso]

80. From what I remember 40some years ago.

It Was
NAME
RANK
SERIAL NUMBER, Which later became your SS#
THAT IS ALL

[AZ Criminal JD]

98. Yeah, tough guy, I'm sure that's all you gave when you were a POW

[Joe Chi Minh]

106. Don't spoil their wee fantasy about it having bad repercussions for the Dems.

Even had he been the hero they like to depict him as, it only highlights the wretched absence of character in the rest of the Neocon Party's Brightest and Best.

Is it not the case that he has brazenly worked in government against the interests of his less pampered and cosseted fellow-vets? Who would sympathise with such a man, when criticised on any score?

[mwb970]

105. It's not the bombing per se that bothers me about this.

This whole thread is a giant back-and-forth about Vietnam and the conduct of the war. For me, that's not the point.

McCain failed his mission. You are not supposed to get shot down and taken prisoner. Doing so does not automatically qualify you to be president 35 years later, nor does it protect you from criticism on any and all subjects for the rest of your life.

Many others were shot down and taken prisoner over the years. Are they all qualified to be president? Are they all immune to criticism of any kind, ever? Or is it just this one little jerk who gets the special treatment? Why?

[Patchuli]

108. The soldiers were heroic

The tasks given to them (Viet Nam and Iraq) were not so heroic. One was a police action and the other was an oil grab.

I do agree that this war hero crap does not support any reasons to believe that this man would make a smart leader. His track record indicates otherwise. So pats on the back for him for his military service but I still don't see qualifications arising from it to justify McNasty getting the presidency.

[frankieT]

119. Weird times ! LOSERS are HEROES now !

Look, Mc Cain was on a bombing raid, not really the most dangerous situation during war especially bombing civilian areas with napalm ! He was shot by some kind of vietnamese peasant, and rescued by another peasant who protected him from the (rightfully) angry mob willing to lynch the downed pilot. Then he was POW and yeah we know that vietnamese camps were horrible. But Abu Ghraib was horrible too.
Well I see nothing heroic here. If anything, Mc Cain is a loser, he's even maybe some kind of dormant brainwashed communist agent :D

[frankieT]

120. I may add war criminal LOSER !!

[The Sushi Bandit]

121. He loved killing commies!!

"How many commies did you kill today?"