the "POW" card
41 - 60 of 72 Posts
Joined
·
4,773 Posts
Eeeuuuugh!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joined
·
2,603 Posts
So did you stand in line to spit on the soldiers?
Joined
·
3,590 Posts
That's very disrespectful. My pediatrician when I was a kid was a former WWII POW in Germany. He was partially blind in one eye, and he had difficulty walking from abuse he suffered from the Nazis. They had even pulled some of his teeth out.
I agree that time spent as a POW does not qualify someone to be President, however, there is no need to disrespect those that served their country.
It may be unfortunate, but I'll never understand people's blind, unconditional, respect for anyone who served in the military. I think it's a knee-jerk reaction, some survival instinct, to defend against being labeled a terrorist and sent to Guantanamo. As a liberal, I treat people as individuals instead of grouping everyone together to make assumptions about them just to make it simple. I would say most of the people in the military are good people who deserve respect. Especially if you go back through history. But there are bad people who are in the military and that's unfortunate too whether it's believed or not. My college is close to an Army base, and I'm not going to make a real long post to tell a story because it probably won't even be believed. Military good. Peace loving hippies bad. That's the simple way and makes life easier and more comfortable. As for McCain, yes it stinks he was locked up for 5 years. But qualifications for President aside, being a POW does not even make one a good person. He scares me. But that's my own personal troubles. Maybe Obama will suck, but I will bet everything I have and will have that he won't start WWIII.
Joined
·
5,988 Posts
I don't think this is the case at all. After all, Timothy McVeigh was a decorated combat veteran and I saw very little respect for him. It's more of an institutional respect than an unconditional respect for the individual person. When an individual gives reason to think less highly of him, I think people do without regard to whether he is a military veteran or not.
The difference between the serviceman or veteran and everyone else is that they begin with a certain amount of respect that is theirs to maintain or lose based on their ongoing behavior. It certainly is not unconditional as has been demonstrated by many.
And then we have veterans like John McCain. Veterans who's service rose above and beyond ordinary veterans. A few among us clearly rise above the crowd. That isn't saying that the rest of us couldn't do the same thing if called upon, but we don't know. We do know about those select few who have done it.
If a man stands up in the face of enemy machine gun fire and moves forward to save a fallen comrade while everyone else seeks cover or when a man refuses to walk away from horrible torture and abuse for no reason other than to support his fellow POWs, sensible thinking folks among us don't look down on the ones who sought the safety of cover or the ones who walked away from the torture and abuse; but instead we tend to look up to those who did what others did not do. And they did it for the benefit of others, not themselves. That deserves a certain measure of respect.
Pacifism does not guarantee peace. In fact, it usually guarantees just the opposite. Substitute Chamberlain for Obama in your sentence and then go read your history books. How many millions died because men who wanted peace at any price failed to stand up to Hitler in the 1930's before he became as powerful as he ultimately became?
Hitler laid out his vision of the world in his book. Instead of taking him at his word on that, the world negotiated with him and made concessions in an effort to appease him. The end result was WWII. Why should we have been surprised? He told us what he was going to do.
The Islamic extremists have also made their vision of the world very clear. The leaders of Iran, for example, haven't minced their words. If we fail to take them at their word like we failed to take Hitler at his word, I fear the end result will be the same. In fact, I suspect that it will be even more a sure thing than it was with the Nazis because now we are talking religious ideology and that is usually not negotiable.
Cruiser
Skysov, I agree that there is a lot of nasty negativity from the conservative talking heads on TV and it does little to help us as a nation.
I hear every bit as much spin, slanting, negativity and occasional dishonesty from the folks on the left. Both sides suffer in a "The ends justify the means" philosophy and tossing aside any pretense of civility, honesty or decency as they seek to impose their goals on the rest of us.
As far as you treating every one as an individual, perhaps you might want to do that with conservatives.
The behavior on both extremes of our political landscape is destructive and will eventually weaken and ruin our country. The sad thing is that instead of trying to come together to improve things, both the left and the right seem to hope things will get worse so they can try to "win" by blaming the problems on the other side.
I hear every bit as much spin, slanting, negativity and occasional dishonesty from the folks on the left. Both sides suffer in a "The ends justify the means" philosophy and tossing aside any pretense of civility, honesty or decency as they seek to impose their goals on the rest of us.
As far as you treating every one as an individual, perhaps you might want to do that with conservatives.
The behavior on both extremes of our political landscape is destructive and will eventually weaken and ruin our country. The sad thing is that instead of trying to come together to improve things, both the left and the right seem to hope things will get worse so they can try to "win" by blaming the problems on the other side.
Joined
·
4,773 Posts
Sock puppet! You are a sock puppet. But for whom?
Joined
·
4,176 Posts
1. Who said Obama was or is a pacifist? Nobody I know, unless anyone who opposes any proposed military adventure is a pacifist.
2. You're right, worldwide Islamic extremists, like those who carried out the attacks on September 11, 2001, pose a threat to the United States. We were exactly right to go to Afghanistan to try to wipe them out.
Unfortunately for this argument, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with them, and invading Iraq has made the United States less able to defend ourselves against these Islamic extremists. If people like Obama, and the millions of us who opposed the invasion of Iraq had been listened to, our country and our culture would be safer today, our military and our economy would be stronger, and the geopolitical situation in the Middle East would be stabler. It is not the opponents of the war who are hurting our interests, but those who started it, and who continue to support it to this day.
I agree that Saddam was an evil thug, but we probably would have been better off not to dilute our power by invading Iraq.
However, now we HAVE invaded it and we can't reverse what we did. We probably need to do what is necessary to try to make sure that Al Qaeda does not overpower the new government.
Iraq is definitely a Bush Blunder, but now we really need to try to make the best of a bad situation. It does appear that the recent "surge" has helped things.
To just withdraw now without making the best of the situation could make things worse. For better or worse, Iraq has been invaded. We should now make the situation as good as possible before we leave.
(Unfortunately, few if any on either side of the political spectrum really "know" what the best thing to do is. I suspect that both the left and right are saying whatever they think will make "their side win" as opposed to doing any real analysis of what is truly needed.)
However, now we HAVE invaded it and we can't reverse what we did. We probably need to do what is necessary to try to make sure that Al Qaeda does not overpower the new government.
Iraq is definitely a Bush Blunder, but now we really need to try to make the best of a bad situation. It does appear that the recent "surge" has helped things.
To just withdraw now without making the best of the situation could make things worse. For better or worse, Iraq has been invaded. We should now make the situation as good as possible before we leave.
(Unfortunately, few if any on either side of the political spectrum really "know" what the best thing to do is. I suspect that both the left and right are saying whatever they think will make "their side win" as opposed to doing any real analysis of what is truly needed.)
Joined
·
4,176 Posts
Forsberg: you're right, we're there and we need to do something. I don't think there is any way we can leave and guarantee the security of whatever government we leave there. It's nice, though, that both the government of Iraq and now the Bush administration have essentially agreed with Obama's plan for withdrawal.
What I thought was a crucial difference between Obama and Clinton, and definitely between Obama and McCain, is that Obama had the judgment to take the right position on Iraq before we went in. It's not just a question of what we do next in Iraq, but also of what we do in the next crisis. McCain has already shown himself to have the instincts of a hothead when it comes to Georgia, he was wrong in Iraq, and I don't think he can be trusted to deal with the next crisis.
Relayer: you're right. Biden was wrong on Iraq. He has admitted it, though, and opposed the war since then. This is probably the main reason that many of us didn't support Clinton: if you can't get a clear answer out of her on what she did wrong, and why she won't make the same mistake again, how can we trust that she won't make the same mistake again?
Of course, my initial preference was Edwards. I'm sure glad we didn't get what we wished for there.
What I thought was a crucial difference between Obama and Clinton, and definitely between Obama and McCain, is that Obama had the judgment to take the right position on Iraq before we went in. It's not just a question of what we do next in Iraq, but also of what we do in the next crisis. McCain has already shown himself to have the instincts of a hothead when it comes to Georgia, he was wrong in Iraq, and I don't think he can be trusted to deal with the next crisis.
Relayer: you're right. Biden was wrong on Iraq. He has admitted it, though, and opposed the war since then. This is probably the main reason that many of us didn't support Clinton: if you can't get a clear answer out of her on what she did wrong, and why she won't make the same mistake again, how can we trust that she won't make the same mistake again?
Of course, my initial preference was Edwards. I'm sure glad we didn't get what we wished for there.
Joined
·
1,193 Posts
No doubt this concerns you with regards to the VP choice, as well, given Biden's vote for the war. Hindsight regrets are nice, but the time to get a vote right is when you cast the vote, not a few years later.
Obama's VP choice also surprises me when considering similar concerns from Obama himself,
"who got the single most important foreign policy decision since the end of the Cold War right, and who got it wrong. This is not just a matter of debating the past. It's about who has the best judgment to make the critical decisions of the future."
Yet he picks Biden for his VP, who, according to Obama got the momentous decision wrong, and whose future decision-making ability must now be considered questionable.
Joined
·
5,988 Posts
So confronting Hitler in the 30's would have been a "military adventure." Then I'm for more military adventures because that would have saved millions of lives in the long run.
I'm not specifically saying that Obama is a pacifist, but I am saying that his plans to try to negotiate with folks who have already clearly stated their intentions and their vision for the world will do nothing but give them more time to prepare for THEIR "military adventure". Hitler is the best historical lesson we have here.
With regard to Iraq, we can debate Iraq til the cows come home but that isn't the key issue the next President will have to address. Iran and Russia will be.
Russia is already entering into agreements with and supplying Iran with technology. I think this alliance will turn out to be the single biggest threat to world peace, and world war, in this century. Russia we can negotiate with because those guys want to live too and they don't have all those virgins waiting for them in heaven. Iran is a different story and I don't think I want to entrust my security to Sen. Obama when it comes to those guys.
Cruiser
Joined
·
1,992 Posts
<<...Obama had the judgment to take the right position on Iraq before we went in.>>
He also had the safety of being in the Illinois House, not the US Senate at the time so we dont really know how he would have actually voted.
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
Its not that he's a pacifist; he's confused! Even pacifists have well founded and grounded ideals upon which they base their decisions. Decisions of war and peace are completely foreign to any previous life experience Obama has had. How else would you explain relative passivity against Iran and wanting to go into Pakistan militarily to get OBL.
He's never had to think things like this through so he really doesn't have anything substantial upon which to fall back on. He's got a mean jump shot though!
41 - 60 of 72 Posts
