Is Heroism Defined by One Act or a Lifetime of Actions?

[LowlyPion]

Come on. He certainly exhibited heroic characteristics. He flew in combat a number of times, he was shot down and imprisoned, and subjected to difficult conditions and still managed under those travails to care for others.

No need to Swift boat the man.

War hero might carry other connotations like falling on grenades or Sgt. York type one man actions, but that shouldn't diminish how we might view his performance in the circumstances that he was presented with. I believe he still carries effects of his treatment, or failure to be treated from his imprisonment. War is not a pretty thing. And if he served honorably and behaved on principle and not personal expediency, then I think he should be given some credit, regardless of his politics.

I won't vote for him, but for other reasons. Neither will I demonize him for acting upon his own convictions in a war time situation.

 

[B. Elliott]

Right now they need people who can play video games and program computers, so I bet physics Forum members would be welcomed. I watch on the military channel people were using x box 360 controllers to control remote vehicles which could carry various weaponry like rockets machine guns, fully automatic shot guns. They have cameras on them, so that you are essentially playing a video game on the screen, but it is really happening. It reminds me of the movie "toys".

It is true. The primary goal being to minimize the loss of life... on both sides. If you look at the weapon technology which has progressed over just the past 40-50 years, we've come a long way. Minimizing collateral damage is the name of the game and the military will always be progressing in that direction.

 

[sketchtrack]

I couldn't have said it better myself. Too many people are fed propaganda about war and eat it up like a starving dog. Just because war is bad, doesn't mean it is ALWAYS unjust. The military cranking out cold-blooded killers is mass-fed propaganda at it's finest.

War isn't always unjust, but the one in Iraq probably is.

There is some truth to the cranking out cold blooded killers thing, at last in certain areas of the military. If you are to be assigned to be a nuclear engineer, then you probably skip that part, but if you are a Marine to see combat, then there is some of that going on for sure. At least that is what Marine vets tell me. When my uncle was in the service, they're saying was, "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil because I'm the most evil mother f***** in here." He also talked about how they would vote on weather to kill their officer if he was the type of guy that would get em killed. Vietnam was a different type of war though. Never the less, it is tradition that Marines get trained to kill without emotion.

 

[B. Elliott]

War isn't always unjust, but the one in Iraq probably is.

There is some truth to the cranking out cold blooded killers thing, at last in certain areas of the military. If you are to be assigned to be a nuclear engineer, then you probably skip that part, but if you are a Marine to see combat, then there is some of that going on for sure. At least that is what Marine vets tell me. When my uncle was in the service, they're saying was, "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil because I'm the most evil mother f***** in here." He also talked about how they would vote on weather to kill their officer if he was the type of guy that would get em killed. Vietnam was a different type of war though. Never the less, it is tradition that Marines get trained to kill without emotion.

But at the same time, after the war, I'm willing to bet that they value life more than someone who was not in that position. Just like everything else in life, you never know till you experience it.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you please elaborate?

The US is defended best by the fact that most of its people are madly in love with the freedoms and quality of life afforded to them by the Constitution and the citizenry (from law enforcement and emergency response personnel to teachers and doctors to construction workers and sushi chefs to bankers and lawyers). The military is charged as much with defending other countries' citizens (Koreans, Japanese, Europeans, Saudis, Afghans, Iraqis, etc.), carrying out responsibilities for the UN/NATO and now and then deposing one terrible government in some country in exchange for another terrible one than with actually defending the nation (mostly carried out by the Guard, Border Patrol, Intelligence, etc).

 

[sketchtrack]

But at the same time, after the war, I'm willing to bet that they value life more than someone who was not in that position. Just like everything else in life, you never know till you experience it.

I think being confronted like that in war can make a person become more responsible, less childish, makes people more serious minded about world issues. It also makes you make judgments in less of an emotional way. In war, you take no chances, and you eliminate threats before they actually threaten you. If you think being in combat will make you be more senative to killing to the enemy, then that is totally wrong.

 

[B. Elliott]

If you think being in combat will make you be more senative to killing to the enemy, then that is totally wrong.

I now see our differences in stance, and its understandable. At the time of war, they will kill the enemy at all costs. After the war, they ARE more sensitive to killing. If you believe that is wrong, it's obviously an assumption. I've talked to more WW2 and Vietnam vets than I can remember., and one common thread that weaves through all of them, is the value of life. Respect for those who they killed along with a greater value for their own lives

 

[sketchtrack]

Of coarse, John McCain never got to see anyone he killed, or even had to aim, he just pressed a button and people were killed. This would be similar to how it would be for him in the white house.

 

[B. Elliott]

The US is defended best by the fact that most of its people are madly in love with the freedoms and quality of life afforded to them by the Constitution and the citizenry (from law enforcement and emergency response personnel to teachers and doctors to construction workers and sushi chefs to bankers and lawyers). The military is charged as much with defending other countries' citizens (Koreans, Japanese, Europeans, Saudis, Afghans, Iraqis, etc.), carrying out responsibilities for the UN/NATO and now and then deposing one terrible government in some country in exchange for another terrible one than with actually defending the nation (mostly carried out by the Guard, Border Patrol, Intelligence, etc).

I think I see what you're saying, but I could be wrong. I believe that people should earn their freedom. I do not believe that anything should ever be handed to anyone on a silver platter. If you want to have your way of life, you're going to have to work for it. To me the free healthcare issiue is one of those freedoms. Free healthcare is something people should earn... and military service is one way of attaining it. Like I was indirectly implying, and as sketchtrack stated...

I think being confronted like that in war can make a person become more responsible, less childish, makes people more serious minded about world issues. It also makes you make judgments in less of an emotional way.

It's an excellent foundation which every single person should experience. IMO, the lack of discipline and 'childish expectations' is one of the primary problems with the United States economy; crime rates, poverty, lack of drive for education, ect.

The spoonfed mentality is growing.

 

[B. Elliott]

Of coarse, John McCain never got to see anyone he killed, or even had to aim, he just pressed a button and people were killed. This would be similar to how it would be for him in the white house.

Do you know for a fact this is how he feels, or is this just an assumption?

The commander of the Enola Gay also just 'dropped a bomb'.

'My God, what have we done?' - the commander of the 'Enola Gay'

 

[sketchtrack]

Do you know for a fact this is how he feels, or is this just an assumption?

The commander of the Enola Gay also just 'dropped a bomb'.

'My God, what have we done?' - the commander of the 'Enola Gay'

I never said anything about how he feels.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Some good military forums with very intelligent and quality people on them (of the caliber of this site) and lots of real soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, etc...are:

http://www.airwarriors.com
http://www.socnet.com
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com

 

[Gokul43201]

After the war, they ARE more sensitive to killing. If you believe that is wrong, it's obviously an assumption. I've talked to more WW2 and Vietnam vets than I can remember., and one common thread that weaves through all of them, is the value of life. Respect for those who they killed along with a greater value for their own lives

I remember reading that incarcerated vets were just as likely as incarcerated non-vets to be doing time for homicide, but thrice as likely as non-vets to be doing time for sexual assault. Also, I think these ratios were much higher for combat vets than for non-combat vets, but my memory is shaky on that. I'll look for a reference.

Free healthcare is something people should earn... and military service is one way of attaining it.

But you haven't explained why military service is a better way to earn it than say, laying bricks.

 

[B. Elliott]

I never said anything about how he feels.

Don't take the wording that technically. You know what I meant.

Assuming that that's how he would run the country, is also assuming that's how he experienced his time as a pilot 'dropping bombs'. You don't know John McCain that personally, so it's a pure uneducated assumption.

 

[vincentm]

I think he is considered to be a hero by the men who were POWs along with him.

IMO, he deserves to be honored for his service, but that was over 40 years ago. It has no bearing on the election. And it certainly doesn't give him any unique qualifications to be President.

 

[LowlyPion]

Of coarse, John McCain never got to see anyone he killed, or even had to aim, he just pressed a button and people were killed. This would be similar to how it would be for him in the white house.

That may be a little harsh. Wikipedia which I am sure has been cultivated carefully for political purposes does show this though:

"By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967 when he was near the center of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[28] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[29] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[30][31] With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

Can't we at least respect the man for his accomplishments? Can't our national choices be made on the basis of policy choices between two worthy candidates without the need to diminish those we would disagree with?

 

[B. Elliott]

But you haven't explained why military service is a better way to earn it than say, laying bricks.

I didn't see that question, sorry. Military teaches structure, professionalism, critical thinking and reasoning skills, leadership skills, ect, ect, ect. The military also PUSHES you you better yourself as an individual and provides avenues for better education.

Laying bricks, is just laying bricks. There's is also no reason for military personnel not to be called fourth do jobs such as that... building houses, constructing highways, better the community.

Serving in the military isn't just 'carrying a gun'.

 

[B. Elliott]

I remember reading that incarcerated vets were just as likely as incarcerated non-vets to be doing time for homicide, but thrice as likely as non-vets to be doing time for sexual assault. Also, I think these ratios were much higher for combat vets than for non-combat vets, but my memory is shaky on that. I'll look for a reference.

The real question is;

What percentage of homicides, sexual assaults, robberies, ect, ect, are committed by non-vets vs. vets?

 

[Gokul43201]

I didn't see that question, sorry. Military teaches structure, professionalism, critical thinking and reasoning skills, leadership skills, ect, ect, ect. The military also PUSHES you you better yourself as an individual and provides avenues for better education.

I meant "better" in the sense of defending the country, but I can't argue against this since I believe that you defend the country best by making yourself as productive and efficient as you can.

 

[sketchtrack]

That may be a little harsh. Wikipedia which I am sure has been cultivated carefully for political purposes does show this though:

"By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967 when he was near the center of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[28] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[29] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[30][31] With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

Can't we at least respect the man for his accomplishments? Can't our national choices be made on the basis of policy choices between two worthy candidates without the need to diminish those we would disagree with?

My point with that remark was just that he may not have been impacted as to affect him like a solder who was in direct combat killing people with guns. The president is responsible for many deaths, but he didn't see it with his own eyes, so it is less likely he will feel the same as the ones who committed the act. He didn't get to see who died. It is just different to look in some ones eyes and then blast them than it is to push a butting dropping a laser guided bomb. I don't really mean to insult him for it.

 

[B. Elliott]

I meant "better" in the sense of defending the country, but I can't argue against this since I believe that you defend the country best by making yourself as productive and efficient as you can.

And that's exactly what the military helps to do! It guides people and shows them efficient ways of being productive in society... how to work in groups, how to accomplish large tasks, how to properly conduct yourself as an individual and withing a group.

 

[Gokul43201]

The real question is;

What percentage of homicides, sexual assaults, robberies, ect, ect, are committed by non-vets vs. vets?

Again, I shall look for a reference, but I think the numbers said that there were lower rates among vets when you looked at raw numbers, but these lower rates were primarily due to age differences. Most vets were from the Vietnam era, and are over 60 years old now. Their incarceration rates were similar to non-vets in the same age group. But non-vets are mostly much younger. When adjusted for ages, the incarceration rates are similar. But that's for all vets. I don't really recall very much about the rates for combat vets vs. non-combat vets.

Even if you don't adjust for age, I doubt that the 3 to 1 ratio for sexual assault will be offset by the ratio of the percentage of vets to non-vets in prison for those crimes. My vague recollection of the take home message was that vets are more likely to rape, just as likely to murder and less likely to steal.

 

[sketchtrack]

Vets don't just go around committing homicide. Vets usually feel like the good guy, and if they kill someone, then they probably do it because the person was a bad guy. One vet I know had killed someone who tried to mug his wife. He didn't get into trouble, but he was quick to kill the bad guy without question.

When it comes to world issues, they may be more prone to use deadly force against the bad guys. I think John McCain isn't going to be cold except to our enemies which I think he makes clear. The only question is that use of deadly force sometimes isn't the best ay to diffuse the enemy, but it is certain that not having the guts to do it when necessary can be a bad thing as well.

 

[B. Elliott]

he only question is that use of deadly force sometimes isn't the best ay to diffuse the enemy, but it is certain that not having the guts to do it when necessary can be a bad thing as well.

Good point.

 

[chemisttree]

Again, I shall look for a reference, but I think the numbers said that there were lower rates among vets when you looked at raw numbers, but these lower rates were primarily due to age differences. Most vets were from the Vietnam era, and are over 60 years old now. Their incarceration rates were similar to non-vets in the same age group. But non-vets are mostly much younger. When adjusted for ages, the incarceration rates are similar. But that's for all vets. I don't really recall very much about the rates for combat vets vs. non-combat vets.

Even if you don't adjust for age, I doubt that the 3 to 1 ratio for sexual assault will be offset by the ratio of the percentage of vets to non-vets in prison for those crimes. My vague recollection of the take home message was that vets are more likely to rape, just as likely to murder and less likely to steal.

Maybe you were remembering your http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080114134026.aspx"
Or maybe you were thinking about http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3797346&page=1"
Or perhaps http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/183952"
The take home message is that vets are less likely to do any crime but when they do and go to prison for it, proportionally more of those vets are in for sexual assault than the other men of similar age. A meaningless comparison.

Veterans are half as likely to be incarcerated than the overall male population in the first place, researchers found, but 23 percent of the veterans in prison was a sex offender, compared with 9 percent of nonveteran inmates.

Stop trashing our Vets!

 

[Gokul43201]

The take home message is that vets are less likely to do any crime ...

That's false, and your own quote below this proves you wrong.

Veterans are half as likely to be incarcerated than the overall male population in the first place, researchers found, but 23 percent of the veterans in prison was a sex offender, compared with 9 percent of nonveteran inmates.

Half of 23% is still greater than 9%, so vets are more likely than non-vets to be sex-offenders, looking at raw numbers. The key point, however, is this:

Veterans as a group are older than the general population, so Campbell said it is not surprising to see a higher percentage of veterans imprisoned for violent crimes, which carry longer prison sentences.

"I think that would go away if you controlled for age" in the study, Campbell said. Because crimes against women or children can carry longer than average sentences, it is possible that statistic also follows from the aging veterans population, he said. He said the statistic about sexual assault was "potentially interesting" but said it is impossible to know what that means without more information.

So it is possible that there are fewer sex offenders among vets if you control for age.

Thing is, if you control for age, the overall incarceration rate among vets becomes nearly the same as the incarceration rate among non-vets, as revealed by this DoJ study (which may be more recent that what I'd read):

If veteran men had the same age distribution as nonveteran men, the incarceration rates would be similar. The age-controlled incarceration rate for veteran men (1,253 prisoners per 100,000) would be 10% lower than that of nonveteran men (1,390 per 100,000).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vsfp04.txt

So, I was correct in all essential aspects. I had the age-controlled numbers and the sex-offender numbers fairly close, but not exactly right.

 

[LowlyPion]

My point with that remark was just that he may not have been impacted as to affect him like a solder who was in direct combat killing people with guns.

I understood your point, but just thought to modify it by what other facts we find in his past. To say that he never met the enemy nor looked them in the eye is not exactly the case after being a war prisoner though.

Actually I'm in the ironic position of defending him on this where I won't be voting for him regardless. It's just that the US has had already in these Bush-Cheney-Rove years so much dissembling and fraud to manipulate and bend the country to the will of a small minded minority, that any continuation of any of these people is simply loathsome to me. But I am at the very least hopeful that we can put the kind of politics we have been subjected to behind us at the next inaugural address.

And just because McCain's party has behaved less than honorably in executing their offices the last 8 years doesn't mean that we have to paint him with the same brush if it's not warranted. [/End_Soap_Box]

 

[russ_watters]

Funny, I consider that to be a negative. Somehow being trained to kill people, and then actually killing people, doesn't seem like a life improving experience. Nor do I see any evidence of it. But since one has to be dispassionate to deal with the reality of dropping bombs, if there is any "value" in his experience in VN, shouldn't we expect that if anything, he has been desensitized to death, and kllling, as it was a part of his job? Do you consider that to be good?

It is not about being a good person or a bad person. We are talking about a mindset; in effect, a brainwashing.

What do you think of the other qualities that go along with the job? You do understand that "trained killer" is not the only thing that the military puts on your resume, right? The way you put it is disturbingly simplistic.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know who to believe about his war records, but even my uncle who is a Vietnam Vet and a strong supporter of McCain admits that most of his medals were undeserved and he wouldn't have gotten them if his father wasn't a four star general.

The highest medal that McCain got was the Navy Cross. He got it for continuing to carry out his bombing mission after his aircraft had receieved fatal damage. Attempting to fulfil your mission in disregard of your own life is an act clearly deserving of that medal.

 

[Gokul43201]

The highest medal that McCain got was the Navy Cross. He got it for continuing to carry out his bombing mission after his aircraft had receieved fatal damage. Attempting to fulfil your mission in disregard of your own life is an act clearly deserving of that medal.

Russ, that sounds almost like the Navy Cross is not a big deal. Someone reading your post wouldn't get the idea that it is the second highest Navy Medal, and only http://www.homeofheroes.com/navycross/index.html of the hundreds of thousands of navy personnel that fought in Vietnam received a Navy Cross.

PS: I didn't know McCain got the Navy Cross.

 

[BobG]

The highest medal that McCain got was the Navy Cross. He got it for continuing to carry out his bombing mission after his aircraft had receieved fatal damage. Attempting to fulfil your mission in disregard of your own life is an act clearly deserving of that medal.

Russ, that sounds almost like the Navy Cross is not a big deal. Someone reading your post wouldn't get the idea that it is the second highest Navy Medal, and only http://www.homeofheroes.com/navycross/index.html of the hundreds of thousands of navy personnel that fought in Vietnam received a Navy Cross.

PS: I didn't know McCain got the Navy Cross.

Actually, McCain received the Distinguished Flying Cross for that mission which is different than the Navy Cross. The DFC was the third highest medal McCain received. His highest was the Silver Star, which is the third highest medal for gallantry.

I don't know who to believe about his war records, but even my uncle who is a Vietnam Vet and a strong supporter of McCain admits that most of his medals were undeserved and he wouldn't have gotten them if his father wasn't a four star general.

There is a group called veterans against John McCain, who don't like him very much. They don't like him because of his role in fighting to keep us from going back for POWs after he was released. They say he didn't want them to get released because it would expose him. They say he was nicknamed song bird for talking so quickly to avoid torture, and that he was given extra special treatment while there. I'm not going to just go ahead and believe them, but he did fight relentlessly to keep us from going back for POWs which seems strange when he was one himself.

"As a member of the 1991–1993 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, chaired by Democrat and fellow Vietnam War veteran John Kerry, McCain investigated the fate of U.S. service personnel listed as missing in action during the Vietnam War. The committee's unanimous report stated there was "no compelling evidence that proves that any American remains alive in captivity in Southeast Asia." Helped by McCain's efforts, in 1995 the U.S. normalized diplomatic relations with Vietnam. McCain was vilified by some POW/MIA activists who believed large numbers of Americans were still held against their will in Southeast Asia; they objected to McCain not sharing their belief and his pushing for Vietnam normalization."

To believe McCain fought against the US going back for POWs, you have to believe there were still POWs in Vietnam in the 90's. You'd have to condemn every member of the committee along with McCain, plus any of the staff that helped research the issue. That's quite a few people keeping a pretty big secret. Being on that committee wasn't something that would help a person's political career. As Bob Kerrey (Senator from Nebraska and Medal of Honor recipient) said, "Nobody wanted to be on that damn committee. It was an absolute loser. Everyone knew that the POW stories were fabrications, but no one wanted to offend the vet community."

I see most of the trashing of McCain's military career as payback for Bush/Rove's trashing of John Kerry's career and the particularly despicable trashing of Max Cleland by Saxby Chambliss in a Georgia Senate race in 2002. Just one of the uglier legacies left behind by the Bush era. (In fact, wasn't fighting against going back for POWs one of the charges leveled against Kerry, who was also on that committee? There was so much BS flying about Kerry that it's hard to keep track.)

 

[Gokul43201]

Actually, McCain received the Distinguished Flying Cross for that mission which is different than the Navy Cross. The DFC was the third highest medal McCain received. His highest was the Silver Star, which is the third highest medal for gallantry.

I was only aware of chatter about the citation for the Silver Star, and nothing about a Navy Cross. And from what I'd read, I got the impression that there are a lot of vets that seem to think his Silver Star was undeserved. I don't know why.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I was only aware of chatter about the citation for the Silver Star, and nothing about a Navy Cross. And from what I'd read, I got the impression that there are a lot of vets that seem to think his Silver Star was undeserved. I don't know why.

Neither airforce nor officers are/were usually thought highly of by grunts and grunts probably make up the majority of vets. Add to that a rich family and a general for a daddy and its not too hard to see why some might think he was just a prissy flyboy.

 

[chemisttree]

That's false, and your own quote below this proves you wrong.

It doesn't prove anything. It could simply mean that the Military effectively trains it's troops for a career once their service is concluded. The other 50% of veterans that aren't incarcerated might be gainfully employed and thus much less likely to commit non-sex offender crimes. You have absolutely no data to prove anything and I certainly didn't provide it.

Half of 23% is still greater than 9%, so vets are more likely than non-vets to be sex-offenders, looking at raw numbers. The key point, however, is this: So it is possible that there are fewer sex offenders among vets if you control for age.

Here you make the logical error that the rates for all offenses would scale linearly. Clearly a worst-case extrapolation and not backed up by any methodology.

Thing is, if you control for age, the overall incarceration rate among vets becomes nearly the same as the incarceration rate among non-vets, as revealed by this DoJ study (which may be more recent that what I'd read):
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vsfp04.txt

You mean this statement in the report you referenced:

"If veteran men had the same age distribution as nonveteran men, the incarceration rates would be similar. The age-controlled incarceration rate for veteran men (1,253 prisoners per 100,000) would be 10% lower than that of nonveteran men (1,390 per 100,000)."

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vsfp04.pdf

I guess that 10% lower is "similar" in some people's eyes...

 

[humanino]

I guess that 10% lower is "similar" in some people's eyes...

Technically, you could claim that your 0.1M sample provides a 1% accuracy, providing enough statistics to prove a 10% meaningful difference. However, 10% are very hard to be convincing in social science because of the complexity of the problem. Can you check for the income dependency of your statement ? This requires to subdivide your 1k or so individual in further sub-samples with different incomes. I just take a silly example here, but the main point is simply, unless you get a large effect, say a factor 2 at least, it will be hard to convince oneself that there is no further bias one can think of.

Just a highly-biaised perspective from particle physics statistics

edit
still can not load your document...
edit again
ok I could load it, now I understand where I am wrong : statistics is large