Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

J McCain's passing & the veneration if not near deification of war heroes since VN

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

    Where did you come up with that generalization of BULL SSHIT?
    Here's a pair of quotes:

    “In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation. It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you, there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.” —Seymour Hersh . . . .

    “For someone who was responsible for, again, nobody knows, but a certain amount of death of innocent people as John McCain was, the time spent in a North Vietnamese prison where he claims to have been tortured was probably time spent that a Catholic priest, for example, would find completely understandable. It’s called doing penance, John. You don’t bomb and kill people for no reason, even when corporate America or your daddy, who was the supreme commander of Southeast Asian forces, South Pacific forces, orders you to do it. You can’t just take orders, we decided that at Nuremberg. So, if you suffered, I am sorry for your suffering, I truly am, in and of itself, but John-John-John, did you think about the suffering of the people you bombed and strafed? They were civilians, you know.” —Mike Malloy

    https://townhall.com/columnists/john...-kyle-n1954002
    Maybe down in West Virginia you didn't get too many lefty types -- I mean real lefty types, that make Barack Obama look like Rudolf Hess -- but New York and New England practically crawl with them. From high school and college, I've heard perhaps eight or ten teachers/professors state plainly that only morons enlist, and that enlistees are de facto just this side of war criminals -- in rooms full of US veterans, in the case of the colleges, attending on GI Bill benefits, mind you. I've seen employment denied veterans for no other reason than they're veterans. I rode with one independent news producer past the US Armed Forces Recruiting Center in Times Square, wherein the producer said to his teenaged son that only chumps enlist -- with two veterans in the car! Can't find it now, but I recall reading a Village Voice piece that blasted Wesley Clark because he was a Vietnam veteran. I've known people personally -- real life New Haven hippies, not just the movie variety -- who stated outright that they wouldn't vote for Al Gore or John Kerry because they were Vietnam veterans.And I can still recall Eleanor Clift on the McLauglin Group dismiss Bob Kerrey during his '92 run for the Democratic presidential nomination as "just another Marine": she couldn't even be bothered getting his branch of the service right. If that isn't contempt then I don't know what is. My own stepfather, whose not even that political, derided the choice to enlist as "pathetic." I'm sorry John, but the air around here is thick with such condescension. How you missed I'm sure I don't know, but clearly you did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    You already know the answer: statistically speaking, if you get enough of anybody into a room, some share of them will prove "top blokes," and some share will be a$$holes. There's nothing provocative about it. "It is what it is."

    Just keep this in mind: no Vietnam veteran has been elected, or will ever be elected, President of the United States.
    In the eyes of liberals/progressives, all Vietnam veterans are "baby-killers":
    see the lukewarm support from Democrats that greeted John Kerry's and Al Gore's runs, and the outright hostility that Bob Kerry and Wesley Clark encountered during their respective Democratic primaries. On the other hand, conservatives resent Vietnam veterans because they're a living reminder of the US' only lost war. For all the talking-up of veterans that Republicans do, they've proved time and again that they'll deride Vietnam veterans in base terms, on ephemeral and usually nonexistent character issues. In short, Vietnam veterans will likely always get the short end of the stick, from both sides.
    Where did you come up with that generalization of BULL SSHIT?

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by lodestar View Post

    Glad you asked. I'm currently working on a thread-starter for the WWII forum along the lines of:
    'Wereall WII Aussie 'Diggers' really Top Blokes?
    I have great admiration for Australia's military tradition and would never belittle or denigrate the Australian soldier just to be provocative.
    And the above opening gambit is just a proposed gentle prod to encourage robust debate. . . . .
    You already know the answer: statistically speaking, if you get enough of anybody into a room, some share of them will prove "top blokes," and some share will be a$$holes. There's nothing provocative about it. "It is what it is."

    Just keep this in mind: no Vietnam veteran has been elected, or will ever be elected, President of the United States. In the eyes of liberals/progressives, all Vietnam veterans are "baby-killers": see the lukewarm support from Democrats that greeted John Kerry's and Al Gore's runs, and the outright hostility that Bob Kerry and Wesley Clark encountered during their respective Democratic primaries. On the other hand, conservatives resent Vietnam veterans because they're a living reminder of the US' only lost war. For all the talking-up of veterans that Republicans do, they've proved time and again that they'll deride Vietnam veterans in base terms, on ephemeral and usually nonexistent character issues. In short, Vietnam veterans will likely always get the short end of the stick, from both sides.

    Leave a comment:


  • lodestar
    replied
    Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
    It may be off-topic but the USA is certainly not alone in expressing such an attitude-rightly or wrongly- to service in the armed forces.
    What's your take on the militarification (my word-patent pending) of Australia's history ?
    Glad you asked. I'm currently working on a thread-starter for the WWII forum along the lines of:
    'Wereall WII Aussie 'Diggers' really Top Blokes?
    I have great admiration for Australia's military tradition and would never belittle or denigrate the Australian soldier just to be provocative.
    And the above opening gambit is just a proposed gentle prod to encourage robust debate.

    However adulation can, and I believe has, gone a bit too far.
    I raised it initially in my heroism thread-starter in one post and said:
    "Want to use this thread-starter as tutorial topic but have issues
    If I do go back to assist-tutoring I'd just love to raise this issue with the ‘young generation' as they seem so susceptible to having their minds and mind-sets shaped and manipulated by the sort of tabloid rubbish.

    But how do I delicately suggest that their dear old grand-dad who drove a truck in Adelaide or manned a typewriter in Cairo or was on a tug/tender in port Melbourne in 1943, while no doubt a bloke doing his bit for kangaroo and country may not really be deserving to be called a hero?

    Already had one old Uni crony from the ‘70’s dare me to do just that."
    Stay tuned.

    However the issue you raised about the errr…... ummm….. what was that patented term? Of right! Militarification, is a very real one and many commentators are concerned it is a phenomenon in Australia, and I'm sure the rest of the wider 'Anglo-sphere' (sorry must be the French in me).

    A recent book What's Wrong With Anzac?: The Militarisation Of Australian History
    by Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds covered the issue very well :

    Lake herself put the dilemma she had put herself in this way:

    "To write about what’s wrong with Anzac today is to court the charge of treason. And much else besides. When I presented a public lecture on the subject last April, which was printed in an abridged version as an ‘Opinion’ piece in the Age newspaper, and later broadcast on Radio National, an avalanche of correspondence descended, much of it in the form of personal abuse and accusations of disloyalty. In the Age blog that followed emotions ran high."

    See what I'm getting at?
    I'm sure a similar situation exists in regards to the military in the USA

    Regards lodestar

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Persephone View Post
    Heroes don't win medals, they are awarded them.
    Very well said.

    Leave a comment:


  • Persephone
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    My first !st Sgt who won the Navy Cross. He didn't get the Medal because he wasn't wounded in the fighting he was involved in.

    My brother, Capt Michael J Kiley, who won four silver stars in South Vietnam in the Battle for Dak To, along with a Purple Heart. I met his CO from his first Vietnam Tour and he told me that my brother was the bravest man he had ever met.

    General Ernest Cheatham, who won the Navy Cross in Hue City. I worked for him at Headquarters Marine Corps.

    My father, Francis M Kiley, who was the CO of USS Spica, an attack transport, in War II.

    There's four-that's enough-and enough to make you a person who makes false accusations because either you're dishonest or you don't know any better. So, if you don't like it, lump it. Your keyboard cowardice is getting old.
    Heroes don't win medals, they are awarded them.
    Last edited by Persephone; 03 Sep 18, 14:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • lodestar
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    All this is the result of the fact that the Millennials have received no education and that they confound emotion with knowledge .
    But it's not just milieniums many, many older people also seem susceptible to the massive dumbing down in public culture that has been a feature of the past twenty five years.

    The internet has not helped and has made it in many ways much worse.

    As I said in one of my posts in the aforementioned thread:
    " My inital question was if the 'democratization' of military history was making the term 'hero' less meaningful.
    I think the growing popularity of interest in the military past (if that's how you want to define democratization) and an icreasingly gringe-making 'tabloid' approach to surviving veterans has most definitely caused the term to become abused."


    Still wondering if I should encourage robust discussion about this in possible tutes as members of the younger generation are very, very sensitive and need to be handled so bloody carefully.
    Oh for the old days when a boots and and all approach could be taken and no one batted an eyelid!"


    God I loved those days!
    Teaching people HOW to think, NOT what to think!
    Like extracting teeth with a lot of them.....but when they'd see the light (that is to say when they saw things my way) ..... worth every effort!


    Regards lodestar


    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Martok View Post

    McCain's funeral is today.
    No. The funeral was yesterday; the burial is today. The burial usually follows the funeral.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    A funeral is a ceremony connected with the burial, cremation, or interment of a corpse, or the burial (or equivalent) with the attendant observances.

    Observances is plural.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Martok View Post
    This past week's slobbering all over the memory of McCain by the Democrat establishment and members of the media had nothing to do with honoring his service in Vietnam. Or anywhere else, for that matter. It has been about using McCain's death as a means to slight and/or outright attack the President.
    If saying good words about a dead person who served his country is perceived by you as an attack against the president, it is because you know that the president chose not to serve his country when it called him and chose to attack a person who actually answered that call.

    Leave a comment:


  • Martok
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    Of course, if you didn't watch the funeral yesterday, how would you know that?
    McCain's funeral is today.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Martok View Post
    This past week's slobbering all over the memory of McCain by the Democrat establishment and members of the media had nothing to do with honoring his service in Vietnam. Or anywhere else, for that matter. It has been about using McCain's death as a means to slight and/or outright attack the President.
    There were plenty of Republicans who had kind words to say about John McCain, including the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House, and including a former Republican president, vice-president, and secretary of state. I didn't notice any 'slobbering' unless you're referring to his immediate family members crying at the loss of a husband and father.

    Of course, if you didn't watch the funeral yesterday, how would you know that?

    And any and all are entitled to their opinions and to express them in any way they see fit.

    Seems to me all you're doing is attacking people because they don't care for the current president-which is their right as well as their right to express that disgust.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Originally posted by Martok View Post
    This past week's slobbering all over the memory of McCain by the Democrat establishment and members of the media had nothing to do with honoring his service in Vietnam. Or anywhere else, for that matter. It has been about using McCain's death as a means to slight and/or outright attack the President.
    Yep.

    Leave a comment:


  • Martok
    replied
    This past week's slobbering all over the memory of McCain by the Democrat establishment and members of the media had nothing to do with honoring his service in Vietnam. Or anywhere else, for that matter. It has been about using McCain's death as a means to slight and/or outright attack the President.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

    For me, bravery is often confused with heroism. Heroism is extreme bravery; I label people as heroes that knowing risked their lives to save another. We can identify heroes in the military or as civilians. Firefighters in the Twin Towers risked their lives to save others knowing that any second those buildings would be coming down. McCain was a brave man but not a hero in my book.
    From Webster's Dictionary:

    Bravery: The quality or state of having or showing mental or moral strength to face danger, fear, or difficulty.

    Hero: One who shows great courage; a person admired for achievements and noble qualities.
    Heroism: Heroic conduct especially as exhibited in fulfilling a high purpose or attaining a noble end.

    Courage: Mental or moral strength to venture, perservere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty.

    Seems to me that John McCain achieved the definitions listed above.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X