Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can Anyone Explain this so that it makes sense?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-08 10:33 PM
Original message
Can Anyone Explain this so that it makes sense?

If a person is taken as a Prisoner of War, and the country that has possession of that prisoner decides they want to let the prisoner go- for whatever reason: 'good faith', 'positive propaganda'- etc. How in the world can the "Prisoner"- who is being held 'against their will'... REFUSE?

I've heard McCain's tale over and over and over, and it just makes NO sense.

Who is really "in control" if a "prisoner" can dictate whether they remain a "prisoner" or not?


:shrug:

Thanks for any help you may have.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-08 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Stop it. We don't use logic in the US until after the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-08 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. I keep trying to imagine
the guys from Gitmo 'refusing' release.

:shrug:

McCain's 'spin' shouldn't be accepted at 'face value'. Not given the way he's twisting present day facts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-08 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. They love it there. We're making progress. Victory is around the corner
They will be greeted as liberators...er, wait, that's our guys...but, um, are they the ones who have the WMD's? God this is so confusing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-08 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'd just like to know if anyone can verify this story
Any ways, if that was a Dem they'd accuse him of giving info to the enemy. They accused Kerry of appeasing in 04.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-08 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. that's because JK had the guts
to come home and try and stop the madness that he'd seen first hand.

Have you seen "Going Upriver?"- pretty excellent.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-08 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. I second the recommendation of watching "going up-river"
I actually think that the part on the anti-war environment and what Kerry did would be the best way to get anyone not around in the 1960s to understand it. For me, it was interesting as an adult with college age kids to see it - it makes me proud my parents understood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-08 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. MichiganVote is right. These days logic will just make you confused or mad. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-08 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Stop making so much sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-08 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. A TRAITOR can refuse, and probably WOULD so he won't be court-marshalled and SHOT
Think about it. What does a) his ability TO refuse, b) his admitted singing like a canary (read his book), and c) his privileged medical treatment, and d) his acknowledged better treatment than any other prisoner tell you? Think about it.

There's really only one reasonable conclusion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-08 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. it doesn't sound very
credible to me. But he's built a kind of sacred wall around himself, and people don't dare question it.

If he's telling the unvarnished truth, he should not only have no problem with people questioning it, he should be happy to lay out the facts to settle the issue in everyones mind.

We don't do anyone any favors when we put military service in the position of 'god-like sovereignty'. I don't have a problem giving respect where it is due, and a person deserving of that respect shouldn't mind explaining the truth.

John Kerry had the facts to support his account of his time in Vietnam. Those who 'swift boated' him did so with nothing but their own 'opinions'. And they cannot support their claims today-

McCain's answer to everything seems to be "the Hanoi Hilton". I'm not willing to accept his word on this, given the way he's twisting the truth in front of us all right now.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-08 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
10. was the argument that it would be a special embarrassment for the U.S.
because his dad was an admiral? or was it something about the other POWs he would leave behind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-08 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. McCain says it's because he wouldn't leave his men behind,
but someone here on DU informed me a few months ago that if he'd accepted "early release" he would have been violating the Military rules, getting out before those who'd been there longer, or because he was an Officer- (I've read so many accounts I can't keep them straight). I had never heard that, but it seems to really be against the Code of Conduct and would have been "Court-Marshal-able"

:silly:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-08 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. Well, I'm not sure why they couldn't have just SENT him home--
that said, it would have been awful, and against military rules, for him to accept release ahead of other POW's. His career, his honor, his father's and grandfather's naval careers would have all been tarnished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC