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

  • Thread starter Thread starter sketchtrack
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the definition of a "war hero," particularly in relation to John McCain's military service and political career. While some argue that all soldiers deserve recognition, not all can be classified as war heroes, as true valor is often associated with extraordinary acts of bravery. There is debate over McCain's qualifications for the presidency, with some asserting that military service should be a requirement for candidates. Critics question the authenticity of McCain's war hero status, citing allegations of preferential treatment during his captivity and his opposition to efforts to retrieve other POWs. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of military service, heroism, and political eligibility.
sketchtrack
He is constantly referred to as a war hero, but is he? Hero, maybe, but war hero?, you could argue that all solders are heros, but not all solders are war heros, doesn't that take away some of the valor of people who jumped on grenades and saved people, or people who took some kind of extra brave action, and saved people.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
sketchtrack said:
He is constantly referred to as a war hero, but is he? Hero, maybe, but war hero?, you could argue that all solders are heros, but not all solders are war heros, doesn't that take away some of the valor of people who jumped on grenades and saved people, or people who took some kind of extra brave action, and saved people.
You don't think rejecting early release from a VC POW camp is "some kind of extra brave action"?
 
Whoever they happen to be, if they have a military resume with the following on it, I would consider them a war hero...

Achievements as a pilot and prisoner
McCain attended the U.S. Naval Academy from 1954 to 1958, and was commissioned as an ensign in June of that year. He retired in April 1981 with the rank of captain. In that time he received 17 awards and decorations. Besides the Silver Star Medal, McCain also received the Legion of Merit with a combat "V" and one gold star, a Distinguished Flying Cross and a Bronze Star Medal with a combat "V" and two gold stars.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24518450/

To directly answer the question, yes.
 
IMO, I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time in on of the armed forces to be eligible for presidency.

Pure political ascension should not be the only qualifying aspect. Nor should just 'being a war hero'. A true leader must be well versed and weathered on all fronts.
 
Yeah, but don't you think the guy that supposedly tortured him saying "Nah, we were pals" carries some weight?
 
WarPhalange said:
Yeah, but don't you think the guy that supposedly tortured him saying "Nah, we were pals" carries some weight?

Until McCain says something about it, it is one sided. I've never heard McCain speak publicly about this guy before. I'm just thinking that anyone who's known any of the other people who are running for president in the past, could pull off some tricky bad publicity.

I mean, people are accusing Obama of being a Muslim.
 
  • #10
But I can confirm to you that we never tortured him. We never tortured any prisoners.

This statement can be easily checked just by asking other prisoners.
 
  • #11
B. Elliott said:
IMO, I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time in on of the armed forces to be eligible for presidency.

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.
 
  • #12
I know you just joined the service, and now you know why I didn't comment in your thread. Sorry about that.
 
  • #13
sketchtrack said:
He is constantly referred to as a war hero, but is he? Hero, maybe, but war hero?, you could argue that all solders are heros, but not all solders are war heros, doesn't that take away some of the valor of people who jumped on grenades and saved people, or people who took some kind of extra brave action, and saved people.

Yes, he is. McCain's conduct as a POW does provide some insight into how far he will go in pursuit of things he believes in. That's one important trait, but not the only one. It might not even be the most relevant criteria for being President (a really strong commitment to bad ideas isn't a positive).

Fulfilling the obligations the country imposes on you is pretty relevant. In other words, dodging the draft reveals a little bit about a person's character. It could indicate how strong a President's commitment would go if a decision would hurt his chances of reelection.

Neither being a war hero or finding a way out of the draft is a failsafe measure of a President will perform in office decades later. Clinton found a legal way to avoid the worst consequences of a draft and had a reputation for letting poll numbers over influence his decisions. Bush found a legal way to avoid the worst consequences of the draft (and a way out of performing all of his duties), yet has a reputation for being totally committed to his decisions no matter what road his decisions take the country down.

Being a war hero is just one part of a candidate's history to be evaluated along with the other facets of his history.
 
  • #14
If he isn't a war hero than the term has absolutely no meaning.
 
  • #15
Ivan Seeking said:
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.

You bring up a good point. While having military service should give you a better perspective on it, hopefully meaning you won't start wars unless it's crucial (I hate chickenhawks), the military trains you to kill. It just depends on whether or not you can change your mindset on command.

It's kind of like a boxer knows how to knock someone out, but you don't hear boxers beating the crap out of random people. They know when to do it and when not to. I think for the most part soldiers are the same. You get psychos sometimes, but I think that would go away too if we gave them proper mental care when they need it instead of sending them back home or to the front lines again.
 
  • #16
Ivan Seeking said:
I know you just joined the service, and now you know why I didn't comment in your thread. Sorry about that.

No problem at all Ivan. Really. There's a lot of very intelligent people on this forum that I enjoy conversing with, and I don't hold grudges or look too deeply into reasons why someone said something, or didn't. Somewhat the same with an individuals political stance, it's their opinion, and rightfully. If they wish to share it, or not, what does it really matter? All for good conversation.:smile:

Ivan Seeking said:
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.

Well, to be honest, most people that I personally know that have served in WW2, Vietnam, the Korean War, Desert Storm, ect., didn't turn out to be desensitized cold blooded killers. The people that I personally know that dealt with that cold, hard, realistic slap-in-the-face, it actually made them more sensitized. They understand that the people they are fighting are other people... were brothers, were sisters, were fathers, were grandchildren. It's a reality that not a lot of people can cope with... having to fight for what they believe in let alone fighting for their lives.

The desensitization that you're speaking of is what happens to the small percent that can't deal with the realities of ones life actually being on the line... fighting for your life... for what you believe in and not just sitting back somewhere, cozy as can be, as if whatever war or conflict is only happening in fantasy land. That individual had to have the initiative and motivation to dedicate their time to a cause, and more so than just the dedication aspect, they dedicated their lives.

Too many people today can't grasp what it was was like to live 500, 600, 800 or 1,000 years ago. They've become too accustomed to everything always being there. Everything always being available whenever, wherever they want... Their freedom being simply handed to them. Well, that hasn't always been the case. At one time people had to put their lives on the line to for their freedom. The had to put their lives on the line to search for food for their families. The had to put their lives on the line to keep invaders out and their territory... otherwise they would loose their freedoms.

IMO, not understanding or fully comprehending the above, now that's true desensitization.
 
  • #17
B. Elliott said:
IMO, I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time in on of the armed forces to be eligible for presidency.

Pure political ascension should not be the only qualifying aspect. Nor should just 'being a war hero'. A true leader must be well versed and weathered on all fronts.

Fortunately, you did not write the constitution. The whole point of our great nation is that ANY natural born citizen is eligable to be president. Let's keep it that way.


Me.
ETR3
US Navy 1969-1973
Time in service 4yr Sea duty, 3 yrs 3 months.
 
  • #18
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.
 
  • #19
It's just that, if every veteran is a war hero, then a war hero isn't anything more than a veteran.
 
  • #20
Integral said:
Fortunately, you did not write the constitution. The whole point of our great nation is that ANY natural born citizen is eligable to be president. Let's keep it that way.Me.
ETR3
US Navy 1969-1973
Time in service 4yr Sea duty, 3 yrs 3 months.

Well, my true thought behind it is that EVERYONE should have to spend time in one branch of service or the other, so by that reasoning, everyone has an equal opportunity to run for president.
 
  • #21
B. Elliott said:
Well, my true thought behind it is that EVERYONE should have to spend time in one branch of service or the other, so by that reasoning, everyone has an equal opportunity to run for president.

I would agree, but for wars like the vietnam war and the Iraq war which I believe to be mostly in favor of private sectors profiting off of it rather than actually defending the country, and crashing our economy at the same time, it isn't the same as world war 2. Also, the current administration barely bothered to get the ones responsible for the attack of 911, and instead rushed into Iraq. If the military had it's priorities strait, then I would be glad to serve, but defending private profit isn't something I'll fight for.
 
  • #22
Not to stray too off topic, but I believe spending time in the military would also be a nice solution to the illegal immigration problem. If the illegals want to become US citizens, they should be allowed to, no problem, but with one stipulation. They must spend time in the military defending the country which they wish to be a part of. After spending X amount of years in the service, they will then be granted citizenship and become a full fledged American.
 
  • #23
Gokul43201 said:
You don't think rejecting early release from a VC POW camp is "some kind of extra brave action"?

Presumably you meant to say "NVA POW camp." The Viet Cong were not in the business of POW camps.
 
  • #24
B. Elliott said:
Not to stray too off topic, but I believe spending time in the military would also be a nice solution to the illegal immigration problem. If the illegals want to become US citizens, they should be allowed to, no problem, but with one stipulation. They must spend time in the military defending the country which they wish to be a part of. After spending X amount of years in the service, they will then be granted citizenship and become a full fledged American.

Actually, there is already a fast-track-to-citizenship program for foreign nationals who enlist in the US military. There's something like 5000-10000 foreign nationals currently serving under this program.
 
  • #25
quadraphonics said:
Presumably you meant to say "NVA POW camp." The Viet Cong were not in the business of POW camps.
I didn't then, but now that you've informed me, I do. My apologies.
 
  • #26
quadraphonics said:
Actually, there is already a fast-track-to-citizenship program for foreign nationals who enlist in the US military. There's something like 5000-10000 foreign nationals currently serving under this program.

I'm aware of this. I just wish more illegals were.
 
  • #27
B. Elliott said:
They must spend time in the military defending the country which they wish to be a part of.
If only there were a convincing argument today that someone's time in the military is more likely than not going towards "defending the country." Moreover, this presumes that any work in a civilian career does not help to defend the country. I wonder how well defended a country would be with a weak socio-economic infrastructure, underdeveloped technical capability and a disenchanted populace.
 
  • #28
Gokul43201 said:
If only there were a convincing argument today that someone's time in the military is more likely than not going towards "defending the country." Moreover, this presumes that any work in a civilian career does not help to defend the country. I wonder how well defended a country would be with a weak socio-economic infrastructure, underdeveloped technical capability and a disenchanted populace.

There's already plenty of civilian careers out there that 'defend the country'. It just depends of how tightly and literally you take that statement. By 'defending the country' to me, it also entails serving the country. Public service programs across multiple fronts would do a lot of good. There are many other uses for the military other than simply 'using big guns'.

I wonder how well defended a country would be with a weak socio-economic infrastructure, underdeveloped technical capability and a disenchanted populace.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you please elaborate?
 
  • #29
I want to change my stance slightly, in that without a military we would be entirely helpless, having a strong military is what keeps us in a position of power and gives us our defense, and the weight shouldn't be carried on the backs of the few, but abuses of power, our security, and using it for bad means is another thing. It is kind of a catch 22. People who sign up for the military are signing up to protect the country, and it isn't their fault that they get used as pawns for private sectors. I only want to defend the intelligent decision it might be in a time like now to become an engineer or a chemist rather than join the military, chances are you might help your country more through those means.
 
  • #30
sketchtrack said:
I want to change my stance slightly, in that without a military we would be entirely helpless, having a strong military is what keeps us in a position of power and gives us our defense, and the weight shouldn't be carried on the backs of the few, but abuses of power, our security, and using it for bad means is another thing. It is kind of a catch 22. People who sign up for the military are signing up to protect the country, and it isn't their fault that they get used as pawns for private sectors. I only want to defend the intelligent decision it might be in a time like now to become an engineer or a chemist rather than join the military, chances are you might help your country more through those means.

But for a great many people, joining the military is a way of gaining the education to become an engineer, or chemist. You don't have to stay in the military your entire life.
 
  • #31
The military doesn't brainwash people and turn them into mindless killers. They want smart people who have a brain and can think and are professionals. What you have to have is the ability to follow orders.

I believe Fallujah was a real first for militaries in that it was the first major battle in which an invading force won the battle while actively taking steps to not harm civilians who were caught in the cross-fire. Before this, this had never really been tried and no one was quite sure if it could be done. Fallujah showed the professionalism of the U.S. military and that a military can invade a country, fight an enemy in it, and at the same time take precautions not to harm innocents. Such professionalism requires soldiers with brainpower, not mindless trigger-pullers.

No one is more anti-war than the truly combat-tested soldiers. Those types are only willing to engage in a war if they absolutely believe it is necessary. And from what I have seen, usually such soldiers are very against killing unless absolutely necessary.

Look at Senator Jim Webb: Graduate of the United States Naval Academy, served as a Marine Corps Infantry Officer in the Vietnam War, won the Silver Star AND the Navy Cross and two purple hearts, served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, won an Emmy for his reporting from Beirut in 1983, is an acclaimed author, having written both non-fiction and fiction books, etc...anyway, he is a Democrat, and was (and still is) a staunch critic of the Iraq War. He also has a son who I believe just finished up a tour in Iraq.

This guy has seen a tremendous amount of combat and warfare, and is very much strong on national defense it seems, but he is not for war for the sake of war. If he thinks it un-necessary, he is not in favor it.
 
  • #32
B. Elliott said:
But for a great many people, joining the military is a way of gaining the education to become an engineer, or chemist. You don't have to stay in the military your entire life.

You can do it both ways to, for example the Navy NUPOC program (Nuclear Propulsion Officer Candidate program), to train officers to operate the nuclear reactors on those carriers and submarines. They also need nuclear-engineer officers to approve of the designs for new reactors and so forth.
 
  • #33
WheelsRCool said:
You can do it both ways to, for example the Navy NUPOC program (Nuclear Propulsion Officer Candidate program), to train officers to operate the nuclear reactors on those carriers and submarines. They also need nuclear-engineer officers to approve of the designs for new reactors and so forth.

I know. I just recently joined the Navy.:biggrin:
 
  • #34
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".
 
  • #35
WheelsRCool said:
The military doesn't brainwash people and turn them into mindless killers. They want smart people who have a brain and can think and are professionals. What you have to have is the ability to follow orders.

I believe Fallujah was a real first for militaries in that it was the first major battle in which an invading force won the battle while actively taking steps to not harm civilians who were caught in the cross-fire. Before this, this had never really been tried and no one was quite sure if it could be done. Fallujah showed the professionalism of the U.S. military and that a military can invade a country, fight an enemy in it, and at the same time take precautions not to harm innocents. Such professionalism requires soldiers with brainpower, not mindless trigger-pullers.

No one is more anti-war than the truly combat-tested soldiers. Those types are only willing to engage in a war if they absolutely believe it is necessary. And from what I have seen, usually such soldiers are very against killing unless absolutely necessary.

Look at Senator Jim Webb: Graduate of the United States Naval Academy, served as a Marine Corps Infantry Officer in the Vietnam War, won the Silver Star AND the Navy Cross and two purple hearts, served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, won an Emmy for his reporting from Beirut in 1983, is an acclaimed author, having written both non-fiction and fiction books, etc...anyway, he is a Democrat, and was (and still is) a staunch critic of the Iraq War. He also has a son who I believe just finished up a tour in Iraq.

This guy has seen a tremendous amount of combat and warfare, and is very much strong on national defense it seems, but he is not for war for the sake of war. If he thinks it un-necessary, he is not in favor it.

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.
 
  • #36
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.
 
  • #37
sketchtrack said:
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.
 
  • #38
B. Elliott said:
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.
 
  • #39
sketchtrack said:
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.
 
  • #40
B. Elliott said:
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).
 
  • #41
B. Elliott said:
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.
 
  • #42
sketchtrack said:
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
 
  • #43
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.
 
  • #44
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #45
sketchtrack said:
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'
 
  • #46
B. Elliott said:
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.
 
  • #48
B. Elliott said:
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.

B. Elliott said:
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.
 
  • #49
sketchtrack said:
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.
 
  • #50
Ivan Seeking said:
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.

:approve:
 

Similar threads

Need help from FUNNY people (creating a game for my students)
Replies
7
Views
2K
News Project Hero: Scholorships for children of Deceased soldiers.
Replies
20
Views
4K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
Replies
1
Views
3K
What defines a truly smart person?
Replies
33
Views
4K
News Who was Michael Murphy and why is a battleship being named after him?
Replies
11
Views
3K
News The Grand Deception: 'Kerry, War Hero,' Is a Myth
3
Replies
137
Views
13K
All About Assets (One-Stop Shop Chat Thread)
Replies
18
Views
2K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
Replies
29
Views
10K
News Were the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified to End WWII?
Replies
8
Views
5K
News Who influenced Breivik to commit his heinous act?
2
Replies
99
Views
16K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top