McCain-As-War-Hero Myth

[level1online]

McCain-As-War-Hero Myth

Nothing Honorable About the Vietnam War

By Ted Rall

17/07/08 "ICH (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/)" -- - NEW YORK — Every presidential candidacy relies on a myth. Reagan was a great communicator; Clinton felt your pain. Both storylines were ridiculous. But rarely are the constructs used to market a party nominee as transparent or as fictional as those we’re being asked to swallow in 2008.

Still more laughable than the notion of Obama as the second coming of JFK is the founding myth of the McCain campaign: (a) he is a war hero, and (b) said heroism increases his credibility on national security issues. “A Vietnam hero and national security pro,” The New York Times calls him in a typical media blandishment.

John McCain fought in Vietnam. There was nothing noble, much less heroic, about fighting in that war.

Some Americans may be suffering another of the periodic attacks of national amnesia that prevent us from honestly assessing our place in the world and its history, but others recall the truth about Vietnam: it was a disastrous, unjustifiable mess that anyone with an ounce of sense was against at the time.

Between one and two million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans were sent to their deaths by a succession of presidents and Congresses–fed to the flames of greed, hubris, and stupidity. The event used to justify starting the war–the Tonkin Gulf “incident”–never happened. The Vietnam War’s ideological foundation, the mantra cited to keep it going, was disproved after we lost. No Southeast Asian “dominos” fell to communism. To the contrary, the effect of the U.S. withdrawal was increased stability. When genocide broke out in neighboring Cambodia in the late 1970s, it was not the U.S., but a unified Vietnamese army–the evil communists–who stopped it.

Not even General Wesley Clark, shot four times in Vietnam, is allowed to question the McCain-as-war-hero narrative. “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” he argued. The Obama campaign, which sells its surrogates down the river with alarming regularity, promptly hung the former NATO commander out to dry: “Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain’s service, and of course he rejects yesterday’s statement by General Clark.”

Even in an article criticizing the media for repeatedly framing McCain as a war hero, the liberal website Media Matters concedes: “McCain is, after all, a war hero; everybody agrees about that.”

Not everyone.

I was 12 when the last U.S. occupation troops fled Saigon. I remember how I–and most Americans–felt at the time.

We were relieved.

By the end of Nixon’s first term most people had turned against the war. Gallup polls taken in 1971 found that about 70 percent of Americans thought sending troops to Vietnam had been a mistake. Some believed it was immoral; others considered it unwinnable.

Since then, the political center has shifted right. We’ve seen the Reagan Revolution, Clinton’s Democratic centrism, and Bush’s post-9/11 flirtation with neo-McCarthyite fascism. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Americans–including Republicans–still think we should never have fought the Vietnam War.

“After the war’s 1975 conclusion,” Michael Tomasky wrote in The American Prospect in 2004, “Gallup has asked the question (”Did the U.S. make a mistake in sending troops to fight in Vietnam?”) five times, in 1985, 1990, 1993, 1995, and 2000. All five times…respondents were consistent in calling the war a mistake by a margin of more than 2 to 1: by 74 percent to 22 percent in 1990, for example, and by 69 percent to 24 percent in 2000.”

Moreover, Tomasky continued, “vast majorities continue to call the war ‘unjust.’” Even in 2004, after 9/11, 62 percent considered the war unjust. Only 33 percent still thought it was morally justified.

Vietnam was an illegal, undeclared war of aggression. Can those who fought in that immoral war really be heroes? This question appeared settled after Reagan visited a cemetery for Nazi soldiers, including members of the SS, at Bitburg, West Germany in 1985. “Those young men,” claimed Reagan, “are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps.”

Americans didn’t buy it. Reagan’s poll numbers, typically between 60 and 65 percent at the time, plunged to 41 percent after the visit. Those who fight for an evil cause receive no praise.

So why is the McCain-as-war-hero myth so hard to unravel? By most accounts, John McCain demonstrated courage as a P.O.W., most notably by refusing his captors’ offer of early release. But that doesn’t make him a hero.

Hell, McCain isn’t even a victim.

At a time when more than a fourth of all combat troops in Vietnam were forcibly drafted (the actual victims), McCain volunteered to drop napalm on “$$$$s” (his term, not mine). He could have waited to see if his number came up in the draft lottery. Like Bush, he could have used family connections to weasel out of it. Finally, he could have joined the 100,000 draft-eligible males–true heroes, to a man–who went to Canada rather than kill people in a war that was plainly wrong.

When McCain was shot down during his 23rd bombing sortie, he was happily shooting up a civilian neighborhood in the middle of a major city. Vietnamese locals beat him when they pulled him out of a local lake; yeah, that must have sucked. But I can’t help think of what would have happened to Mohammed Atta had he somehow wound up alive on a lower Manhattan street on 9/11. How long would he have lasted?

Maybe he would have made it. I don’t know. But I do know this: no one would ever have considered him a war hero.

Ted Rall is the author of the book “Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?,” an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America’s next big foreign policy challenge. Visit his website www.tedrall.com (http://www.tedrall.com/)

© 2008 Ted Rall

[VanillaGorilla]

Do you honestly expect any of us to read this?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I read it yesterday on Yahoo! News.

EDIT: During the beginning of the Iraq War, I thought Rall was a nutjob. Then, he started turning out right. He is a Stalinist, but a person's political slant matters little compared to accuracy.

[Ex~]

Well John McCain seems to be the only person who doesn't respect his war record.

He refuses to make it public, unlike John Kerry who made his public immediately, and despite having served nobly and been a hero, was quickly slandered and lied about by scandalous political action groups. The lies and mistruths about John Kerry's commendable war record probably cost him the election.

It's okay to lie and slander John Kerry's military service, but if you even try to bring people down to earth on McCain's, you are immediately ostracized. I guess Kerry wasn't the spoiled general's son that McCain is.

[level1online]

Do you honestly expect any of us to read this?

well... by responding like that, it peeks curiosity.... so now YES, people will read it. Maybe twice.

THANKS TO YOU!!!! VanillaGorilla, my new best friend, mind-expander & thread bumper extraordinaire! :applause:

[mykevermin]

Let's be grownups and know that we all know the media, so we know what's going to happen here:

The media, along with right wing talking heads, will bluster and patter and sweat and burst veins through their sheer exasperation that Rall would build an analogy between McCain and Mohammed Atta. - Thereby obfuscating whether or not any of this actually is true or documented, and instead causing Rall to have to flee the United States.

Very, very, very much like what happened to Dan Rather over Bush's easy Nat. Guard experiences - we stopped talking about whether a child of privilege lived a life of privilege, and instead about typesetting.

[Ikohn4ever]

until the media stops believing that ridiculous Maverick label, they won't cover him seriously. I mean how hard is it to realize that Al Qaeda is Sunni and Iran is Shia or that there is no longer a Czechoslovakia. But they have given him a pass on that and all his flip flopping.

[Magus8472]

The Obama campaign, which sells its surrogates down the river with alarming regularity...

I find it rather amusing that he can't help but pair his only use of the word "Obama" with a slavery metaphor, but I digress.

[bmulligan]

Let's be grownups and know that we all know the media, so we know what's going to happen here:

The media, along with right wing talking heads, will bluster and patter and sweat and burst veins through their sheer exasperation that Rall would build an analogy between McCain and Mohammed Atta. - Thereby obfuscating whether or not any of this actually is true or documented, and instead causing Rall to have to flee the United States.

Very, very, very much like what happened to Dan Rather over Bush's easy Nat. Guard experiences - we stopped talking about whether a child of privilege lived a life of privilege, and instead about typesetting.


I think grownups like Rather should have known better than to tout forged documents as truth. Then to stake your career on it and be a pig-headed asshole about it apparently wasn't the right choice for Danny-boy. And I really don't see many lefties shouting from the rooftops about McCain as a fraud. It would be pretty hard to untruthify the fact that McCain was a fighter pilot, dropped napalm, or shot up villages, wouldn't it ? Hell, digging up THAT truth would probably rally republicans to the polls to vote for an otherwise non-Republican, and non-likeable John McCain.

Maybe your should have a word with the rest of the lefty press to grow some balls and start making a stink about untruths. Maybe they can start claiming he was really a clown in the Saigon traveling circus when he got kidnapped by the Vietcong - just to set the record straight. You could even produce the rubber nose and floppy shoes as evidence.

Maybe that was Kerry's problem 4 years ago - the fact that he was an inherent contradiction to democrats who wanted to tout his service in the military as as attractive quality, then rehash his disgust with the service and claim that was noble too. That he would use strong force to keep terrorists at bay, but admit that strong force was never necessary. The disparity was too much for voters to comprehend - or buy into. No one likes an apologist, especially not as a leader, no matter what kind of atrocities they may have committed. Besides, McCain killed babies becuase of the Democrat leadership that sent him to Vietnam. They can always bring up THAT truth, eh? That's the truth that hurts.

[DarkSageRK]

I stopped reading after "soldiers aren't heroes if they fight in wars I don't like."

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Besides, McCain killed babies becuase of the Democrat leadership that sent him to Vietnam.

Are you trying to say that a Democrat pushed McCain into volunteering for 'Nam or that Democrat presidents led the country into Vietnam?

[thelonepig]

I stopped reading after "soldiers aren't heroes if they fight in wars I don't like."

That's about the point I gave up as well.

Everyone jumps on the politicians that didn't serve in the military. Is the media going to start calling out those who did? I agree that being in a war doesn't automatically grant you knowledge on national security and the like, but discounting their service entirely is a bit much. The fact that they didn't skip out on the draft or even, in some cases, joined up of their own volition is a definite point of character.

[Koggit]

it peeks curiosity

I've seen people butcher pique into peak, but peek is a new one.

[camoor]

well... by responding like that, it peeks curiosity.... so now YES, people will read it. Maybe twice.

THANKS TO YOU!!!! VanillaGorilla, my new best friend, mind-expander & thread bumper extraordinaire! :applause:

LOL

[level1online]

I've seen people butcher pique into peak, but peek is a new one.

damn... well, that's the first time and the last time I try to use the phrase "it piques curiosity."

[bmulligan]

Are you trying to say that a Democrat pushed McCain into volunteering for 'Nam or that Democrat presidents led the country into Vietnam?

The latter, that Democrats, from Eisenhower to Kennedy to Johnson, were responsible for the escalation of a face-saving quagmire with no exit exit strategy (or operational strategy either, for that matter). Today, the roles are reversed, but the results are similar.

If we are to blame Bush for deaths of innocents in Iraq, then logically, the cornerstones of the modern Democrat party must take the blame for the deaths of millions of American soldiers and Vietnamese.

Of course, we could always lay the blame at the feet of the French and British for fucking up most of europe, africa, asia, and the middle east to begin with, but I digress...

[Magus8472]

The latter, that Democrats, from Eisenhower to Kennedy to Johnson, were responsible for the escalation of a face-saving quagmire with no exit exit strategy (or operational strategy either, for that matter).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D_Eisenhower

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Ike was a Republican, but ...

"In addition, Eisenhower explored the option of supporting the French colonial forces in Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam) who were fighting an independence insurrection there. However, Chief of Staff Matthew Ridgway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Ridgway) dissuaded the President from intervening by presenting a comprehensive estimate of the massive military deployment that would be necessary."

I think Ike let the French lose Vietnam first.

[JolietJake]

I know I'll catch hell for this, but i really don't give a damn. I have more respect for anyone who returned to the US and protested against the war, than any solider who returned feeling like a hero. There was nothing heroic about the Vietnam war. Some people would argue there's nothing heroic about war period, but i find that especially true about Vietnam.

[DarkSageRK]

I know I'll catch hell for this, but i really don't give a damn. I have more respect for anyone who returned to the US and protested against the war, than any solider who returned feeling like a hero. There was nothing heroic about the Vietnam war. Some people would argue there's nothing heroic about war period, but i find that especially true about Vietnam.

"I know I'm an idiot, but I just have to open my mouth anyway."

:/


Is risking your life to save others, and even sacrificing yourself to save the lives of others pointless? Non-heroic? I wouldn't say so. If you're fighting in what you believe in, then I don't think you should be so callously judged by some arrogant fuckwit such as yourself. The world is not so black and white that you can say that those who came back from the war, feeling proud of their accomplishments, weren't worthy of distinction.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Is risking your life to save others, and even sacrificing yourself to save the lives of others pointless? Non-heroic? I wouldn't say so. If you're fighting in what you believe in, then I don't think you should be so callously judged by some arrogant fuckwit such as yourself. The world is not so black and white that you can say that those who came back from the war, feeling proud of their accomplishments, weren't worthy of distinction.

Heroism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre Just kidding.

There is plenty of room to criticize a military man serving in Vietnam just like there is plenty of room to criticize a military man serving in Iraq.

The only real difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that the military in Iraq is a volunteer force.

I wouldn't vote for McCain just because he served in Vietnam. In 20 years, I hope my kids won't vote for somebody just because that person served in Iraq.

[DarkSageRK]

I wasn't talking about voting for someone solely based on their military history. My point was about prejudice and ignorance.

[elprincipe]

I wasn't talking about voting for someone solely based on their military history. My point was about prejudice and ignorance.

You'll find those common on this board, sadly.

[usickenme]

You'll find those common on this board, sadly.

Thank God the great elprincipe is here to counter that

[Msut77]

You'll find those common on this board, sadly.

Just so everyone knows elprincipe was caught lying his ass off in the not too distant past.

Oddly enough concerning the same thing as in his most recent post.

[RAMSTORIA]

I wouldn't vote for McCain just because he served in Vietnam. In 20 years, I hope my kids won't vote for somebody just because that person served in Iraq.

and hopefully you wouldnt vote against him for serving in vietnam either.


service record shouldnt even be an issue, hes been a politician long enough to judge him on his voting record rather than his military record.

[jlarlee]

I don't care for him as a politician but damn it is a low blow to marginalize his service like that. As a POW his life was sheer hell that very few people can only begin to understand.

IMO America disgraced themselves with how they treated the military after vietnam. Elected officials sent them there and they just followed orders. Sure some jacked up things happened but dealing with that climate and a slippery foe would probably drive me a little nuts too. I can't help but look down at my Father's generation with the way they handled some of those things.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

and hopefully you wouldnt vote against him for serving in vietnam either.


service record shouldnt even be an issue, hes been a politician long enough to judge him on his voting record rather than his military record.

I'm sure I can find other reasons...

'Asked by Diane Sawyer whether the "the situation in Afghanistan in precarious and urgent," McCain responded: "I think it's serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border." '

[RAMSTORIA]

I'm sure I can find other reasons...

'Asked by Diane Sawyer whether the "the situation in Afghanistan in precarious and urgent," McCain responded: "I think it's serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border." '


im sure that was a slip of the tongue... but its a better reason than him serving in vietnam

[mykevermin]

I think grownups like Rather should have known better than to tout forged documents as truth. Then to stake your career on it and be a pig-headed asshole about it apparently wasn't the right choice for Danny-boy. And I really don't see many lefties shouting from the rooftops about McCain as a fraud. It would be pretty hard to untruthify the fact that McCain was a fighter pilot, dropped napalm, or shot up villages, wouldn't it ? Hell, digging up THAT truth would probably rally republicans to the polls to vote for an otherwise non-Republican, and non-likeable John McCain.

Maybe your should have a word with the rest of the lefty press to grow some balls and start making a stink about untruths. Maybe they can start claiming he was really a clown in the Saigon traveling circus when he got kidnapped by the Vietcong - just to set the record straight. You could even produce the rubber nose and floppy shoes as evidence.

Maybe that was Kerry's problem 4 years ago - the fact that he was an inherent contradiction to democrats who wanted to tout his service in the military as as attractive quality, then rehash his disgust with the service and claim that was noble too. That he would use strong force to keep terrorists at bay, but admit that strong force was never necessary. The disparity was too much for voters to comprehend - or buy into. No one likes an apologist, especially not as a leader, no matter what kind of atrocities they may have committed. Besides, McCain killed babies becuase of the Democrat leadership that sent him to Vietnam. They can always bring up THAT truth, eh? That's the truth that hurts.

Zounds. Well, this kinda proves the point I was making, doesn't it? Forget about the substance and go after the messenger.

[elprincipe]

Thank God the great elprincipe is here to counter that

And right on schedule, case in point. :roll:

[Cheese]

I stopped reading after "Ted Rall."

Rall is the left's answer to Ann Coulter, both are as trust worthy and accurate as a common housefly. It's their job (self appointed I might add) to lie through their fvcking teeth and never answer up to it for the sole purpose of mudslinging. THe real difference Ann and Ted is Rall is only a fraction manly as Coulter.

(note: I know Ted Rall personally, and he's as big of an asshole in person as he is publicly.)

That said, there is room to talk about McCain's service record. He was, almost unquestionably, a terrible pilot. Before he was shot down (on only his 23rd mission) he had already crashed three planes. One during his Pensecola days, once in Italy and once coming home from the Army/Navy game. He also lost a fourth jet (by no fault of his own) during the USS Forrestal disaster (look it up).

So, you add that together with him coming home, seeing his former model wife disfigured from a car accident, and going on a national poon tour until he met a younger, wealthier chick (his current wife), and maybe he's not the righteous man of unflappable honor he has been made out to be.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I know Ted Rall personally, and he's as big of an asshole in person as he is publicly.

This requires stories. Come on. Let's have them.

Whatever happened to "Rall's Balls"?

[homeland]

I stopped reading after "Ted Rall."

Rall is the left's answer to Ann Coulter, both are as trust worthy and accurate as a doorknob. It's their job (self appointed I might add) to lie through their fvcking teeth and never answer up to it for the sole purpose of mudslinging. THe real difference Ann and Ted is Rall is only a fraction manly as Coulter.

(note: I know Ted Rall personally, and he's as big of an asshole in person as he is publicly.)

That said, there is room to talk about McCain's service record. He was, almost unquestionably, a terrible pilot. Before he was shot down (on only his 23rd mission) he had already crashed three planes. One during his Pensecola days, once in Italy and once coming home from the Army/Navy game. He also lost a fourth jet (by no fault of his own) during the USS Forrestal disaster (look it up).

So, you add that together with him coming home, seeing his former model wife disfigured from a car accident, and going on a national poon tour until he met a younger, wealthier chick (his current wife), and maybe he's not the righteous man of unflappable honor he has been made out to be.

I've always found it curious how no one questioned his military recored. How does a guy who finishes in the bottom 10? (I believe it was that low) in his graduation class become a fighter pilot? I'm begging the question here, because we all know it was who his father was... For someone that is so proud of their military record, why won't he release his to the public?

I guess its just a benefit of as fox news calls it the media bias towards Obama. No one is covering Mccains campaign and catching all of his screw ups and asking him about his past.


sidenote: The USS Forrestal is here at my base, last I heard either Gillette was buying it to make razor blades or they were going to sink it to make a Artificial reef somewhere. There's people that still work on the ship every so often and I give them credit, it must be spooky as hell in there. For anyone that hasn't seen the video of the fire on the Forrestal look it up its abit disturbing.

[Cheese]

This requires stories. Come on. Let's have them.

Whatever happened to "Rall's Balls"?

Dude, that's my favorite Ted story. I know Hellman 100x's better then Rall.

So, Ted writes a completely unfounded, libelous article about famed cartoonist and then New Yorker arts guru Art Speigelman (you may have heard of his graphic novel Maus). So ted writes this article for the Village Voice slandering Art for being a petty dictator of the illustration world, claiming, among other things, that you can't make it in New York without Art's blessing, which Ted was too punk rock to bow down for. (Ted's problem is he can't draw for shit.)

So another local artist, Danny Hellman, well known for being an all around prankster and general dick, starts sending around emails supposedly from "Ted Rall's Balls" saying that since Ted obviously had the world's biggest balls, he was taking over the illustration lord-ship. On the email list were a bunch of fake addresses for publishing world bigwigs, then he also faked a bunch of responses from said bigwigs saying they'd never hire Ted again. The real people on the list were about 25 other cartoonists and local New York friends of Hellman. I got some of them, but not all. I think there was one actual magazine guy on the list, who worked at a mag that had never hired Rall and didn't run either cartoons or illustrations, like FLYING or some such.

Now, Ted was also on the email list, so he's getting all these emails supposedly from these big publishers saying they're never going to hire him again. Ted loses his shit. Ted finds out who is sending the emails and sues the guy for, get this, $1.5 million dollars. He then proceeds to be the dick he is and goes all over the internet slagging the guy any way he can, threatening anyone who stand up for Hellman with naming them in the lawsuit, going so far as to tell MAAKIES author Tony Millionaire that he'd have his arrested for inciting violence when Millie requests someone throw up on Rall's car. Hellman follows him around and collects all the posts and files a counter-suit for $3 million for defamation of character, which after a year in between the two filings, he has mountains of.

It goes through the New York courts for a few years until, suddenly, Rall's lawyer dies. And that was pretty much the last anyone heard of it. I spoke to Hellman last month about it and he told me that if anything were to start up on it again, he had the upper hand with the counter suit, but was just as happy to not risk losing and let it all go.

Charles Dicken's actually wrote about the whole Rall's Balls thing in his book, A Tale of Two Assholes. Both the guys were wrong in that one, Hellman for original gag, Rall for going apeshit over it.

[paddlefoot]

I'm sure I can find other reasons...

'Asked by Diane Sawyer whether the "the situation in Afghanistan in precarious and urgent," McCain responded: "I think it's serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border." '

@ fatherofcaitlyn And Obama has been to 57 states :roll:

Seriously, these guys are under a constant microscope. CNN to Drudge Report, Yahoo to Youtube. All of them have had a slip of the tongue. Some of them have had several.

@ everyone

There are many ways to cast doubt on John McCain as president. But his war record? Really?!?!?!? That's where you're hedging your bets? ........ Really?!?!?!?

[camoor]

Thank God the great elprincipe is here to counter that

Has he again deigned to come back down from Mount Sinai and lecture to us fallible mortals? Oh goody.

[camoor]

McCain deserves respect for his service.

Kerry deserves respect for his service and following his convictions. Kerry just screwed the pooch by overestimating the ability of the American public to understand nuance.

[paz9x]

I just do not understand chastising everyone who served in vietnam.
I also cant understand how someone of standard intelligence could not see fault with that article's dismissal of McCain's time as a POW.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

@ fatherofcaitlyn And Obama has been to 57 states :roll:

Seriously, these guys are under a constant microscope. CNN to Drudge Report, Yahoo to Youtube. All of them have had a slip of the tongue. Some of them have had several.

@ everyone

There are many ways to cast doubt on John McCain as president. But his war record? Really?!?!?!? That's where you're hedging your bets? ........ Really?!?!?!?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

That is funny.

I would cast doubt on John McCain for his apparent senility.

Much like I wouldn't have voted for Reagan in 1984 if his senility was as bad as it was in 1986.

[homeland]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

That is funny.

I would cast doubt on John McCain for his apparent senility.

Much like I wouldn't have voted for Reagan in 1984 if his senility was as bad as it was in 1986.


I like how Obama in the snopes article corrects himself and admits he was wrong. Mccain has been taking the other approach, denying what he has said in the past as if it had never happened and just magically dissappeared. Unfortunatetly in this youtube era that is impossible.

[M-PG71C]

"John McCain fought in Vietnam. There was nothing noble, much less heroic, about fighting in that war"

As soon as I read that, I wanted to discredit the article altogether. What a load of crap. The war itself is wrong, but the indiviudals did what their country and her people asked of them and did it to the best of their abilities, volunteer or draftee. I still find it a shame that we won't at least respect their service and acknowledge them.

People fight in wars for different reasons, it is not always the reasons sold to the media, public, or otherwise. In two years, I'll more than likely be in Iraq or Afganistan. I'm in the ROTC program right now, contracted and fully admitted. I didn't join because of "terrorists" or some other reasons advocated by politicans.

I joined because there are men and women who are serving there that I want to see come home, and they need officers right now more than ever. If somebody wants to call my soon to be service unhonorable, fine. Ignorance is bliss at its finest. All I will ask is for those to pray for those that are about to come home and those who are stuck there for the next while.

If idiots like them want to direct hate, let them direct it towards people like me. That is what I am here for.

(ends off topic rant)

[fatherofcaitlyn]

What will you be doing in Iraq, Afghanistan or Iraq II?

[homeland]

ehh.. Most officers are assholes. Elitist marathon runners that get a hard-on for thinking they are better than you. At least thats my experience.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

ehh.. Most officers are assholes. Elitist marathon runners that get a hard-on for thinking they are better than you. At least thats my experience.

Shh. We can needle him later if he is in black <Hoo-Rah!> ops.

If he is a doctor, in supply or construction, I don't see much of a problem.

[HowStern]

Hmm. I think I get what the author is getting at. Because, even though the war was "illegal" and "unjust", the soldiers that were drafted and the others that were already enlisted that were all forced to go are heroes for serving their country like they were told to. But McCain voluntarily went to an "illegal" and "unjust" war to "drop napalm" on people and got shot down instead of fighting to end the war. Sort of a weird way to look at it.
Because in my eyes the enlisted and the draftees are the true heroes, since they were forced into it. So, I think the author is saying that people who volunteered for a "criminal" war are sort of criminals themselves. I guess....tl:dr..

[M-PG71C]

What will you be doing in Iraq, Afghanistan or Iraq II?

Don't know, officers don't get to pick their jobs. We can elect what we want but that doesn't mean much in the end. :lol:

Personally, I would like to be in intelligence or air defense artillery. But where I go in the end is not my decision and I'm alright with that, where ever I go, I'll do my job well. And that benefits everybody. :P

@ homeland

Some are like that, I can attest to it. My family consists of generations of males who have joined the Army, all enlisted and retired as high-end Sergeants. There are a number of officers who think they are better because they get paid more and have rank.

But then again, there are a number of NCOs who think they are better because they have more field experience and they are more "soldier".

I think it varies more on the indiviudal than the actual job. A prick is a prick, regardless of where he goes. As for me, I rather focus on my job and education and pray that things will come together through work and humility.

[JolietJake]

Let me pose a question to you all, i'm sure we'll all have different responses.

If a soldier was ordered to do something which they felt was wrong, say an instance of burning down homes like i understand was done in Vietnam, thus killing plenty of innocent people. If that person refused to do as they were ordered because they morally objected to it, would you think them in the wrong or right?

Now personally, i'd think they were in the right, i could never be so well "trained" that i could do something that i felt was wrong. A lot of the soldiers who did as they were ordered in Vietnam, were later haunted by their actions, i just don't think i could live with that.

It's questions like that which really determine your definition of "hero." Is a hero someone who does what they're told without question, or someone who does what they feel is morally right?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

But then again, there are a number of NCOs who think they are better because they have more field experience and they are more "soldier".


They do and they are.

Respecting their experiences until you're O3 will keep you from being shot in the back. Then again, being ROTC means you aren't a 90 day wonder.

[KingBroly]

Cheese, that is an awesome story.

Here's the thing though, a lot of soldiers who served in Vietnam, either by volunteering or through the draft were not looked as heroes. They were looked at as criminals and treated as such by a large number of Americans. Saying McCain was a "bad guy" during Vietnam isn't something new to a number of Vietnam vets.

The idea of McCain being a "war hero" is that he was a POW, and no matter what you do, if you were a POW, no matter what you do, you are treated as a victim, and you are held up for all to see so the American people can look and feel sorry for them. That's all you know about their service, nothing else.

I'm honestly surprised the Democrats haven't launched a Swift Boat type campaign against McCain yet. You'd think if it was a real issue during this campaign, they'd dig up something the Republicans wouldn't stand up to.

[Heavy Hitter]

Here's the thing though, a lot of soldiers who served in Vietnam, either by volunteering or through the draft were not looked as heroes. They were looked at as criminals and treated as such by a large number of Americans.

And why was that? Because the press duly reported the talking points from groups like the SDS and the V.V.A.W. that painted the U.S. Vietnam soldier as a wild-eyed, drug-fueled maniac butcher. "Useful idiots" like John Kerry and Jane Fonda that were in bed with the Communists lied their asses off and helped to create a lie that persists to this day.

[thrustbucket]

I'm honestly surprised the Democrats haven't launched a Swift Boat type campaign against McCain yet. You'd think if it was a real issue during this campaign, they'd dig up something the Republicans wouldn't stand up to.

Simple answer to that. The Democrats are going to have trouble winning if they can't convert some of the ultra-patriotic American flag bumper sticker types, and scrutinizing any soldier in a war for any reason will piss those people off.

They generally wait till it's not election season to go after Soldiers for war crimes, undermine the military, and try to appease the worlds ultra left anti-war people in any way possible. And lucky for them, come election season, people have short memories.

[HowStern]

I wouldn't lay all the veteran-bashing on the Democrats. Look at Max Cleland and what Chambliss/Rove did to him.

[M-PG71C]

They do and they are.

Respecting their experiences until you're O3 will keep you from being shot in the back. Then again, being ROTC means you aren't a 90 day wonder.

I was thinking more along the lines of a Captain and a Sergeant who both have about ten years underneath them and similiar enough experiences, both being the usual pricks.

There is a difference. Usually, a Lieutinent knows little or nothing and that's fine. They're as "green" as a Private.

I didn't ask to be patronized. You might have had some bad experiences with junior officers but don't put us all in the same basket. There are some of us who are trying and wanting to do our very best and learn from those that have demonstrated just that.