Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thus I reject your assertion that I have no right to comment and will continue to exercise the freedom of speech our brave soldiers have fought to preserve in the many legitmate wars we have fought.
You have every right, as you say, to smear and display your disdain and hatred for a celebrated war hero.
As a citizen in a democracy I don't? As a taxpayer who must pay for the adventure I don't? As a parent I don't? As a future target I don't? Wow I guess we live under different rocks. I will stay in my garden and hope not to visit yours.
I understand that what the Commander in Chief authorizes as being within the scope of legitimacy will allow the enemy to justify what they do to us both in the theater and here at home (assuming that the war doesn't come here full blown} and remains isolated attacks on our homes, places of work, schools and transportation. Thus I reject your assertion that I have no right to comment and will continue to exercise the freedom of speech our brave soldiers have fought to preserve in the many legitmate wars we have fought.
I dont care if you talk about it at all. but unless you know what combat is like, then please leave your insinuations at the door. As someone who has been in combat before, the last thing I ever wanted to hear about was some jerk telling me what combat was about when they have never been in combat.
look, napalm was legal to use at that time, and war is hell and sometimes civilians do get killed in war. that does not mean it is illegal.
Go on back to WWII - how many civilians were killed by both sides? At that time, they were an intended target.
War has changed much since vietnam and Korea. Every possible precaution is taken to spare civilian lives and mostly it is the US who is the only side abiding by that doctrine.
There's a perfect show for you watch Tuborg; coming up on PBS - the evils the US has perpetrated on the world via our military. Perfect for you.
Who is blaming our soldiers? The simple question is did he and would he again as commander in chief use weapons of a controversial nature. What are the boundaries of what he would ask others to do in the course of their duty as soldiers in our army? Were we not the ones using cluster bombs much to the chagrin of nations friendly to us. Do not let others manipulate and change the question asked so it becomes something it isn't. Will McCain as Commander in Chief ask our soldiers to win with all means necessary and are you willing to accept our foes doing the same. Remember the 9/11 Terrorist compared their use of airplanes to our us of cruise missles. That may be warped thinking but it was part of their mentality.
Much of the debate in America centers around re-establishing our core values and how we wish to be perceived in the World. Lest we forget, it was the re-adoption of outlawed interrogation techniques as well as our treatment of prisoners that have been a great detriment when the World views America as the "shining example".
War has changed much since vietnam and Korea. Every possible precaution is taken to spare civilian lives and mostly it is the US who is the only side abiding by that doctrine.
"MORE than 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 US invasion, a study by American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated."
"The vast majority of deaths documented were substantiated by death certificates. The researchers asked for certificates 87 per cent of the time; when they did, more than 90 per cent of households produced them.
Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at New York's Columbia University who worked for the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true". "This is the best estimate of mortality we have," Professor Waldman said.
His view was echoed by Sarah Leah Whitson, an official of Human Rights Watch in New York. "We have no reason to question the findings or the accuracy" of the survey, Ms Whitson said."
YAWN, who cares. war is hell.
if you have never been in combat before, then you truly do not have the right to comment on someone elses activities during combat.
Surely you don't believe that. Every citizen has the right.
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I dont care if you talk about it at all. but unless you know what combat is like, then please leave your insinuations at the door. As someone who has been in combat before, the last thing I ever wanted to hear about was some jerk telling me what combat was about when they have never been in combat.
look, napalm was legal to use at that time, and war is hell and sometimes civilians do get killed in war. that does not mean it is illegal.
You are looking at it from the legal/illegal perspective and the soldier, I am looking at it from the ethical/unethical side and the collateral damage and how in the modern theater that creates anger and willing terrorist to sacrifice their lives to return the pain. The core question will Senator McCain based on his experiences in Vietnam see warfare from a more ethical perspective and try to balance the loss of American lives with the loss of innocent civilians. We are now in the age where revenge is just a plane ticket away. Will we learn about wars justified and unjustified? John McCain was a valiant soldier and followed orders. However he now wants to be Commander in Chief and touts his Vietnam experience as a credential. Thus he has put his military history on the table to be judged for temperment, ethics and learned mistakes. Yes you could retort we don't have that profile on Obama and that would be very accurate and something that is being pointed out by others. Thus the need to weigh each candidates war experience or lack of. I included in my OP that he admited he dropped napalm and the explosion on the carrier gave him the opportunity to witness the horrific effect. Thus giving a possible clue to the question. I find it amazing how so many posters missed that in the article they read didn't they? However I do then highlight the question about his bombing Iran but that is not McCain the soldier but McCain the candidate who did the never to be forgotten rendition of Bomb, Bomb Iran. Thus perhaps McCain the soldier has a different understanding then McCain the politician.
Go on back to WWII - how many civilians were killed by both sides? At that time, they were an intended target.
War has changed much since vietnam and Korea. Every possible precaution is taken to spare civilian lives and mostly it is the US who is the only side abiding by that doctrine.
There's a perfect show for you watch Tuborg; coming up on PBS - the evils the US has perpetrated on the world via our military. Perfect for you.
My fear is the sequel.
The revenge being taken on territorial US by those who feel the supposed evils perpetrated on them by our military. It is my humble belief that at some point we need to ponder why so many people in the world want to cause us such pain at the pump and everyway they can. Billions don't want to hurt us and we need to keep them feeling good about us because aren't very good if they turn also.
Let us remember it is the politicians that get us into war
whether Vietnam & Iraq.
In both cases fear was used by our presidents to get the drive public support.
War is hell things will go wrong, you never enter a war unless it is last resort.
The military has but one option that is to follow orders and that is as it should be.
I thank God everyday for the brave honorable soldiers we have.
I pray to God everyday to give us a brave honorable president, I believe either of the two candidates will serve this need well.
I don't think "Swift Boating" John McCain is the right thing to do. I also happen to think George Bush would have used it if it was true.
Let us remember it is the politicians that get us into war
whether Vietnam & Iraq.
In both cases fear was used by our presidents to get the drive public support.
War is hell things will go wrong, you never enter a war unless it is last resort.
The military has but one option that is to follow orders and that is as it should be.
I thank God everyday for the brave honorable soldiers we have.
I pray to God everyday to give us a brave honorable president, I believe either of the two candidates will serve this need well.
I don't think "Swift Boating" John McCain is the right thing to do. I also happen to think George Bush would have used it if it was true.
Read the first link he admitted it. How was Bush a conservative going to use it against him and get torched by conservatives.
With regards to swiftboating Kerry and Gore didn't think they should either and look what happened. I wish I wasn't driven to it but oh well if I must I must.
This all started in another thread with someone told me to be quiet and I had no right to comment on his military experience and qualifications etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
