DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on October 31, 2008, 12:28:15 PM
-
and why he WILL NOT RELEASE the military records pertaining to his stay in the Hanoi Hilton.
http://www.counterpunch.com/valentine10312008.html (http://www.counterpunch.com/valentine10312008.html)
McCain lied about being tortured, and gave away military secrets simply in exchange for special treatment for his wounds.
This writer argues that as an officer of the U.S. Navy who gave aid and comfort to the enemy, McCain is Constitutionally barred from seeking office.
-
http://www.miafacts.org/hopper.htm (http://www.miafacts.org/hopper.htm)
-
From the link provided in the opening post.
"It is alleged that McCain gave the numbers of aircraft in his flight formation, information about location of rescue ships, and the order of which his attack was supposed to take place. According to retired Army Colonel Earl Hopper, McCain divulged classified information North Vietnam used to hone their air defense system, including “the package routes, which were routes used to bomb North Vietnam. He gave in detail the altitude they were flying, the direction, if they made a turn … he gave them what primary targets the United States was interested in.” As result, Hopper claims, the U.S. lost 60 per cent more aircraft, and in 1968 “called off the bombing of North Vietnam, because of the information McCain had given to them.”"
=========================
Some facts concerning the air war over North Vietnam. Of particular interest:
"North Vietnamese to increase their missile firings from 30 per month in the first 11 months of operation to 270 per month between July 1966 and October 1967. >>>>The latter month, with between 590 and 740 SAMs fired, was the peak month of firing until the Linebacker II operations of 1972.<<<< From October 1967 to the bombing halt on 1 April 1968, SAM firings averaged 220 per month. During this period, the American airmen observed 5,366-6,037 SAMs, which downed 115-128 aircraft.
Despite the increase in SAM firings, their direct effectiveness declined. In 1965 it took almost 18 SAMs to down each American aircraft, a figure that rose to 35 in 1966, >>>>to 57 in 1967, and to 107 in 1968. <<<<"
BSB
"The Vietnam air war changed dramatically on 24 July 1965 when a Soviet SA-2 [(Russian ?-75, NATO reporting name SA-2 Guideline] missile downed an Air Force F-4 and damaged three others. Proving this shoot down was no fluke, two days later an SA-2 destroyed an American drone. .................................................................................................
........................................................................................Despite knowledge of the missile since 1957, and its potential (similar to the Nike Ajax), the United States made only mixed progress with countermeasures. Tight budgets in the late 1950s hampered these efforts. Airmen assigned high priority to countermeasures against the SA-2 in budgets for fiscal years 1964 and 1965, but had nothing effective in hand when the need arose. As a result, in 1964, some airmen believed that aircraft could not operate in SAM protected areas. ...
The potential SAM threat grew as the North Vietnamese incorporated more missiles into their inventory. North Vietnamese SAM battalions increased from one in 1965 to 25 the next year, to 30 in 1967, and to 35-40 in 1968. This growth in units permitted the North Vietnamese to increase their missile firings from 30 per month in the first 11 months of operation to 270 per month between July 1966 and October 1967. The latter month, with between 590 and 740 SAMs fired, was the peak month of firing until the Linebacker II operations of 1972. From October 1967 to the bombing halt on 1 April 1968, SAM firings averaged 220 per month. During this period, the American airmen observed 5,366-6,037 SAMs, which downed 115-128 aircraft.
Despite the increase in SAM firings, their direct effectiveness declined. In 1965 it took almost 18 SAMs to down each American aircraft, a figure that rose to 35 in 1966, to 57 in 1967, and to 107 in 1968. A number of factors contributed to this decline.
The airmen quickly learned that the SA-2 could be outmaneuvered. The Soviets designed the SA-2 to destroy highflying, non-maneuvering, strategic bombers; but until 1972 it engaged primarily low-flying, very maneuverable, tactical fighters. ............................................................................"
<http://warandgame.blogspot.com/2008/04/vietnam-sam.html>
-
Hugs BSB. I don't have a comment about the post, but I wanted to welcome you. ((BSB))
-
Even if Hopper is an unreliable guy who tried to weave a story about McCain giving away key tactical information to his captors into the actual history of the air war, blaming McCain for phenomena over which he had no real influence at all, one has to wonder about the enemy propaganda broadcasts which even McCain admits to making. Where are the tapes of all the broadcasts? They have to exist somewhere.
-
Even if Hopper is an unreliable guy who tried to weave a story about McCain giving away key tactical information to his captors into the actual history of the air war, blaming McCain for phenomena over which he had no real influence at all, one has to wonder about the enemy propaganda broadcasts which even McCain admits to making. Where are the tapes of all the broadcasts? They have to exist somewhere.
One would hope Counterpunch would want to enhance their credibility whilst in the midst of a fundraising campaign. Then again maybe they know their customers and feed them the schlock they want.
-
One would hope Counterpunch would want to enhance their credibility whilst in the midst of a fundraising campaign. Then again maybe they know their customers and feed them the schlock they want.
and there seems to be plenty of "schlock" to go around this election.
McCain was a soldier. Period. He served, he was shot down, and to anyone who considers ALL soldiers to be heros...he was a hero.
I consider all fighting military personel a hero in my eye.
This nation not unlike any other nation has a dedication to keeping things status quo and on the mark.
If a human being fights in a bloody battle, or sits on the sidelines for the sake of a "nation".....by damn that person deserves to be honored in my book...
McCain is running for president of the United States of America.
Obama is doing the same.....
I can't wait for all this Sh*t to be over so we can carry on and get back to the business complaining about something else.
Sarcasm alert. ::)
-
"McCain’s political fortunes balance precariously on the myth that he never collaborated, even under torture."
This is not what he says in his Memiors.
He recounts his being beaten to the point of wishing for death as a release and then beaten further , of his failed suicide attempt and his reading from a script for a recording.
Before writing this essay , one would think the author would have made himself familiar with what McCain himself admits to.
For this same very low level of proof why should you not beleive it when I tell you that O'Bama is a leader in an Irish Mafia?
Credibility count in negative numbers.
-
It has never been about race and gender so much as it is about class and ideology. Race and gender do matter – race, perhaps, more than gender, in so far as you’ll never see any mainstream magazine savage Sarah Palin for toting an AK-47, while The New Yorker used a mere caricature of Michele Obama armed with one to fan America’s latent racist flames.
The New Yorker Magazine desires to fan the flames of Americas latent racism?
This Author has credibility readings in high negative numbers.
Another erstwhile military officer said I was unfair toward McCain because (get this) all U.S. Navy pilot prisoners (all officers) of the North Vietnamese collaborated and signed confessions.
What does this tell us about officers? It tells us that they take their oaths but not very seriously, and that they feel entitled to special treatment, which they receive from their smarter brothers in the mainstream media.
It can't mean that when almost every Prisoner of North Vietnam says that they were tortured , that they might have all been tortured?
-
Ted Guy and Gordon “Swede” Larson were POWs with McCain. Indeed, they were McCain’s senior officers at the time he says he was tortured in solitary confinement. Guy and Larson, who have no axe to grind and have a better idea of what happened than almost anyone else, claimed that while they could not guarantee that McCain was not physically harmed, they doubted it. “Between the two of us, it’s our belief, and to the best of our knowledge, that no prisoner was beaten or harmed physically in [the camp where McCain was],” Larson said. “No one else in that camp was. It was the camp that people were released from.”
DOUGLAS VALENTINE you need to work on your skill at lying try not to use as unimpeachable witnesses , persons who are on record with long and detailed statements that shoot your thesis full of holes.
Gordon “Swede” Larson
. http://www.soft-vision.com/hanoi/larson/bio_1.htm (http://www.soft-vision.com/hanoi/larson/bio_1.htm) ........................................
After another eternity, I felt I could not take any more and agreed to tell him the names of the other three in my flight. I knew they had my wingman, and they couldn’t touch the others. When I was untied, Rope deftly popped my arm back into the socket and acted like nothing had happened. I later learned that this had happened to others. Unfortunately the questions didn’t stop there and back in the ropes I went. By this time my arms were hanging uselessly and I had no feeling in them.
...............................................
I’m convinced that if I had not been in a cell with Robby Risner, I would never have had that tooth looked after - nor would I have been taken to a hospital to be x-rayed. He and Admiral McCain's son, John, were their prized possessions and they were genuinely concerned that if and when we were released, people would listen to him and he could relate my treatment as a demonstration of their new found "lenient and humane" treatment of prisoners.
Gordon A. Larson
San Antonio, Texas
October 1996
(http://www.soft-vision.com/hanoi/larson/img/pow-legs.gif)
-
http://www.soft-vision.com/we-remember/index3.html (http://www.soft-vision.com/we-remember/index3.html)
It might also help to quote people who are liveing while you are supposed to be asking them the questions.
OBITUARY of Col. TED W. GUY
Theodore Wilson Guy, 70, of Sunrise Beach, Missouri, died April 23, 1999, at St. Marys Health Center.
-
I finally found it.
The article in which Guy and Larson discount McCain's torture.
http://www.powmccain.org/?page_id=41 (http://www.powmccain.org/?page_id=41)
Took a while to find , painfull to read too.
The thing in question seems to be that Ted Guy and Gordon Larson were pretty sure that up to 600 Americans were still alive in Vietnam and McCain didn't think so. So they compared cases of much worse torture includeing their own, with McCain's mere beatings. Their credibility for carrying more whip scars is thereby greater than McCains whose scars were less.
These guys were pretty mad because they were convinced that Nixon and Kissenger promised the Vietnameese 4 bilion Dollars or so and did not deliver it , resulting in the probable exicution of the Americans held hostage to the payment.
I hate to see this strife amoung people I respect so much , but if you must beleive their version , do you have to beleive that the Vietnameese exicuted these hostages too? Do you have to beleive in their recounting of what a real beating was like? Actually I do , but I don't think there was any saving the prisoners we were not sure existed.
In his book McCain flatly states that he knew of worse treatment than what he received , he credits the station of his father much as does Gordon "Swede" Larson , Larson even thought that haveing simply been seen by a prisoner with powerfull family connections in the States (Robby Risner) was good for his treatment .
McCain without his father Admiral McCain might very well have died as so many others did under the care of the Vietnameese military prisons.
Is this actually a fault of McCain himself?
-
<<McCain was a soldier. Period. He served, he was shot down, and to anyone who considers ALL soldiers to be heros...he was a hero.
<<I consider all fighting military personel a hero in my eye.>>
That is appalling bullshit. It depends entirely on what they were fighting for. Otherwise, Hitler's S.S. would have been a bunch of heroes as would the Japs who took part in the Rape of Nanking.
-
The article in which Guy and Larson discount McCain's torture.
http://www.powmccain.org/?page_id=41 (http://www.powmccain.org/?page_id=41)
Took a while to find , painfull to read too.
===========================================================
Thanks for finding the article, plane.
It really seems like McCain is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Sure, he admits that others were tortured worse than he. But once that token admission is made, everything we hear about McCain is about how he was tortured for his country, suffered for his country, etc. I only read for the first time in this thread that McCain had acknowledged others had it worse. If I had read it before somewhere, it had been effectively wiped clean from my memory, because clearly the thrust of 99.9% of McCain's public "story" is about him being tortured in prison.
"painful to read?" - - I've read a lot of reports of torture. These were far from the worst. It probably would have disturbed me had I not read so many others.
Since the end of the Second World War, the campaign to abolish torture, a very difficult undertaking, had been making slow progress, which was turned around 180 degrees and IMHO set back 100 years by the Bush administration. McCain at one time was prominent in the fight against torture, but in the end he supported legislation which facilitated torture, one of the reasons I root for Obama and hope that an Obama administration will begin to reverse at least some of the evil done by Bush and Cheney.
-
<<McCain was a soldier. Period. He served, he was shot down, and to anyone who considers ALL soldiers to be heros...he was a hero.
<<I consider all fighting military personel a hero in my eye.>>
That is appalling bullshit. It depends entirely on what they were fighting for. Otherwise, Hitler's S.S. would have been a bunch of heroes as would the Japs who took part in the Rape of Nanking.
Ahh, But, Michael.....those men WERE heros in Hitler's army. Hitler was not the hero, this we all know.... but those young men who went to war were INDEED heros in the eyes of their loved ones. Any person who fights a war under the proper conventions, is a hero.
Murdering and flying planes into buildings does not count as fighting for a nation under such circumstances. ..THUS they are murdering others based on their own selfish "cause".
We disagree on this issue, Mtee.
-
<<Ahh, But, Michael.....those [S.S. troopers, Japs at the Rape of Nanking] men WERE heros in Hitler's army. >>
Are they heroes to you? Should they be heroes to your students? Would you tell your students that they were heroes to anyone other than their families or Adolf Hitler?
What do you think is the worth of being a hero to your family or your leader? Isn't there a broader audience of people to whom one must be a hero before he or she can be truthfully described as a "hero?"
<<.... but those young men who went to war were INDEED heros in the eyes of their loved ones. Any person who fights a war under the proper conventions, is a hero.>>
What if they fight a war "under the proper conventions" but then commit atrocities against the occupied civilian population? Are they still heroes?
<<Murdering and flying planes into buildings does not count as fighting for a nation under such circumstances. ..THUS they are murdering others based on their own selfish "cause".>>
What if they were soldiers of a nation rather than a bunch of religious fanatics and were ordered to hijack planes and fly them into buildings by their duly appointed military superior officers in their national army? Would that change them from murderers to heroes?
<<We disagree on this issue, Mtee.>>
Then one of us has to be wrong. And I'm particularly concerned about this because I know you're a teacher. Some of the opinions I see in here in this group (a classic being that "this nation was founded on conservative principles") really give me the willies when I think of what kind of things American students are learning in their schools. I really do think it is crucially important that teachers have a good grasp of what is right and what is wrong. What is truly heroic (IMHO, Rosa Parks is a greater hero than John McCain or any other napalm-dropping murderer of helpless civilians could ever be) and what is not.
-
Re: Songbird - a devastating account of McCain's real-life incarceration . . .
« Reply #15 on: Today at 01:39:42 PM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Ahh, But, Michael.....those [S.S. troopers, Japs at the Rape of Nanking] men WERE heros in Hitler's army. >>
Are they heroes to you? Should they be heroes to your students? Would you tell your students that they were heroes to anyone other than their families or Adolf Hitler?
They are heros to me. I don't discuss such issues with my students. That's not my job.
What do you think is the worth of being a hero to your family or your leader?
I believe that any individual who fights for his/her country, no matter if I believe in that fight or not,is a hero.
In fact, "FAMILY" can mean something quite different to a soldier in battle. The individual in the foxhole, or crouched behind the torn down adobe style building, or walking down a dirty, dusty road to Baghdad actually considers his fellow soldier/buddy to be FAMILY! There is a sense of band of brother mentality...as they are fighting together for the same cause. No matter how much YOU DON'T want to believe that, Michael.
In this case, Bush's cause to invade Iraq was wrong, sure, a lot of us can sit here and agree to that. But that's not the fault of the soldier. Military has a job description....and if that person signs up for a job and does it as best as he/she can do, especially if it is a dangerous job of defending one's country THAT constitutes a hero in my opinion.
Isn't there a broader audience of people to whom one must be a hero before he or she can be truthfully described as a "hero?"
A hero can be defined by the individual, or a broader audience. I define "hero" with a deep respect for the unselfishness of that individual who has taken on a job especially for another person's benefit, willing to do so no matter the broader audience's view
Respect for a soldier..yep I have that, unconditionally.....not to mention the fact that the individual is putting his/her life on the line.
<<.... but those young men who went to war were INDEED heros in the eyes of their loved ones. Any person who fights a war under the proper conventions, is a hero.>>
What if they fight a war "under the proper conventions" but then commit atrocities against the occupied civilian population? Are they still heroes?
Those are criminals, and they are not heros in my mind. There are criminal factors in any given war. Raping of innocents etc. OF course not, Mtee.
<<Murdering and flying planes into buildings does not count as fighting for a nation under such circumstances. ..THUS they are murdering others based on their own selfish "cause".>>
What if they were soldiers of a nation rather than a bunch of religious fanatics and were ordered to hijack planes and fly them into buildings by their duly appointed military superior officers in their national army? Would that change them from murderers to heroes?
If the bunch of religious fanatics were ordered to disobey any sort of rules of war based on something like the Geneva Convention...then sure, they would not be a hero.
<<We disagree on this issue, Mtee.>>
Then one of us has to be wrong. And I'm particularly concerned about this because I know you're a teacher. Some of the opinions I see in here in this group (a classic being that "this nation was founded on conservative principles") really give me the willies when I think of what kind of things American students are learning in their schools. I really do think it is crucially important that teachers have a good grasp of what is right and what is wrong. What is truly heroic (IMHO, Rosa Parks is a greater hero than John McCain or any other napalm-dropping murderer of helpless civilians could ever be) and what is not.
Well, don't be concerned, Mtee. I do not teach war to my students! ha! I do not talk about my own personal beliefs in this regard AT ALL to my students.
So, your attempt to pull the "shame on you" approach is not going to hold water with me, Mtee..
McCain was a hero for running for president. I am a hero to my students. Hero can be defined differently to each person.
You tend to rant and try to create a sense of shame against America. That's what I constantly read here, Mtee.
-
<<You tend to rant and try to create a sense of shame against America. That's what I constantly read here, Mtee.>>
Well, I'm sorry about the ranting, I try to keep it logical and concise, but you're right, it often does degenerate into "ranting" and I gotta watch that.
I believe that America has done and is still doing some very shameful acts, but what bugs me most of all is not the shameful acts themselves but the total lack of shame on the part of many contributors to this group. Of course, most Americans - - and certainly the ones I know or have met personally - - are in fact deeply ashamed of the actions of their country, but in this group, I guess what is the most appalling thing to confront is the bare-faced shamelessness of so many, mostly with deep connections to the South, and my efforts described by you as "trying to create a sense of shame against America" are, from my own POV, just a challenge to their shamelessness. It's a hard thing NOT to confront, IMHO.
BTW, I'd like to thank you for answering the questions I put to you so thoughtfully and honestly. It's too bad we don't agree, but at least I have a good window into your way of thinking, and I thank you for it.
PS - Regarding your not discussing these issues with your students - - I went to what was generally regarded as the best public high school in the City of Toronto and its suburbs at the time, including its junior high school, where many of our teachers were well-educated veterans of the Second World War, almost all with Master's Degrees in the subjects they taught. These were men (and one woman) who really understood what they had been fighting for, and I still remember a talk that our Grade 8 history teacher gave us on academic freedom and something that our Grade 10 to 13 French teacher said about the brotherhood of man. I credit those teachers (and my dad) with the instillation of unshakeable liberal values in me (all of them, BTW, firmly opposed to communism in principle, but equally opposed to knee-jerk anti-communism of the McCarthy type) and I'm always grateful to them for instilling such values in me and my class-mates but also for allowing and encouraging us to question and challenge them so freely. I don't see the harm in a teacher allowing her students to know where she stands on an issue if the issue comes up in the normal course of a curriculum-related subject. (Although I can see how your "Nazis are heroes too" POV could land you in a lot of hot water up this way.)
-
Re 3
Hey Lanya.
-
Michael: "Then one of us has to be wrong."
Why is that?
-
<<You tend to rant and try to create a sense of shame against America. That's what I constantly read here, Mtee.>>
Well, I'm sorry about the ranting, I try to keep it logical and concise, but you're right, it often does degenerate into "ranting" and I gotta watch that.
I believe that America has done and is still doing some very shameful acts, but what bugs me most of all is not the shameful acts themselves but the total lack of shame on the part of many contributors to this group. Of course, most Americans - - and certainly the ones I know or have met personally - - are in fact deeply ashamed of the actions of their country, but in this group, I guess what is the most appalling thing to confront is the bare-faced shamelessness of so many, mostly with deep connections to the South, and my efforts described by you as "trying to create a sense of shame against America" are, from my own POV, just a challenge to their shamelessness. It's a hard thing NOT to confront, IMHO.
BTW, I'd like to thank you for answering the questions I put to you so thoughtfully and honestly. It's too bad we don't agree, but at least I have a good window into your way of thinking, and I thank you for it.
PS - Regarding your not discussing these issues with your students - - I went to what was generally regarded as the best public high school in the City of Toronto and its suburbs at the time, including its junior high school, where many of our teachers were well-educated veterans of the Second World War, almost all with Master's Degrees in the subjects they taught. These were men (and one woman) who really understood what they had been fighting for, and I still remember a talk that our Grade 8 history teacher gave us on academic freedom and something that our Grade 10 to 13 French teacher said about the brotherhood of man. I credit those teachers (and my dad) with the instillation of unshakeable liberal values in me (all of them, BTW, firmly opposed to communism in principle, but equally opposed to knee-jerk anti-communism of the McCarthy type) and I'm always grateful to them for instilling such values in me and my class-mates but also for allowing and encouraging us to question and challenge them so freely. I don't see the harm in a teacher allowing her students to know where she stands on an issue if the issue comes up in the normal course of a curriculum-related subject. (Although I can see how your "Nazis are heroes too" POV could land you in a lot of hot water up this way.)
Well, where do I begin.
First of all, you are a good egg on here in terms of being a gentleman to me. This is clear. I thank you for that, Michael. You have the right to your opinion, albeit, as BSB inquired....what the heck did you mean BY THAT statement; ONe of us is wrong?? LOL
That statement did not pass me by. I meant to address that too, but frankly it was so blantantly "typcial of your broad stroke thought process" with all due respect.
I didn't pay it much mind...as they say in the south. (my mama is southern)...
anyway.....
Michael Tee: The accusations you make here sometimes are no different from those "crimes and misdemeanors" that you accuse the US of A of committing. Ex:
"I believe that America has done and is still doing some very shameful acts," but what bugs me most of all is not the shameful acts themselves but the total lack of shame on the part of many contributors to this group".......
Or really? Shameful acts? That's like saying that those idiots who flew into the twin towers represented everyone is Iraq/Afghanistan! That's like saying that one of my students who has an issue with bullying---somehow that represents all of my students! No way.
You tend to broad stroke, dear MTee...you do. My god, man.....we can't even begin to compare Hitler to Bush..as much as you seem to want to do with the way you rant.
You set up that sort of comparison and the scenario for me in your last post by bringing up the issue of Hitler....I wasn't expecting THAT...but you jump to such an extreme comparison...my gosh....,dude. you really do.
I would never compare the military in this United State to any group such as Hitler's army. But my darn you brought it up and I am going to address it. So you don't think that the German mother who sent her boy off to war didn't think of him as a hero??
Come on!
Of course, most Americans - - and certainly the ones I know or have met personally - - are in fact deeply ashamed of the actions of their country,
OH REALLY? MOST??? That's laughable, Michael. Again, you jump! Leaping through the air with the greatest of the old rubber necking ease.
That's not an accurate portrayal of anyone, especially AMERICANS. You need to create a poll...give a few of us a call, and see how the slices comes out. Face it, dear.....face it ... you do want MOST of us to be on the side of your passion....
Ok, of course we all want support. But, to broad stroke the way you do....come on.
I guess what is the most appalling thing to confront is the bare-faced shamelessness of so many, mostly with deep connections to the South, and my efforts described by you as "trying to create a sense of shame against America" are, from my own POV, just a challenge to their shamelessness. It's a hard thing NOT to confront, IMHO.
THE SOUTH ...huh? Hmmm, I am a southwesterner...does that count in your bias poll?
South of France, South of Korea.....South Vietnam...now what the hell do you mean?
You are not happy with us, this I can tell. You make accusations against a broad base of folks in the country and on this board. That does not bode well for your point,however, MTee....honestly.. imho. Make your stance, as Brass does or Xavier...and stop the borderline steaming mad vent towards a nation!!..a NATION.. of folks. If you want to get your point across, keep it simple and on the ground floor level. OFten times, I wonder what is your point. . . But I always come back to a sort of
disdain for America.
I also do not agree that we should revisit the time of the early 50's overkill fear of commies....OF course not.
But, when you told Brass the other day that he should celebrate the new world to come.....ahh, he should perk up..why? Because you believe that our nation is going to end up completely socialist. You want that. Ok, I am not quick to accept that. I try to listen to the fathers of the past. I give them the benefit of the doubt. I believe radical beliefs in any form are dangerous....as is the right wing religious nuts of this country.
as for my job.....A BIG NO WAY.
I teach 8 year olds.
we'll talk about that issue another day.
Thanks,
Cindy
-
Cindy: <<We disagree on this issue, Mtee.>>
[The issue being, is a man who lays his life on the line for his country a hero or not?]
MT: <<Then one of us has to be wrong. >>
BSB: <<Why is that?>>
=========================================================
I was wrong. "Hero" was never defined to our mutual satisfaction. According to Cindy's definition of "hero" she could be right, and according to my definition of "hero," I could be right.
It might be more useful to just admit that McCain is a hero as Cindy defines one. It is certainly true that he did put his life on the line for his country. So the question I should have asked Cindy was, what follows from his having put his life on the line for his country?
Should he be elected President? Is he "entitled?"
I guess what really concerns me is whether a guy who put his life on the line for his country can get too much respect.
-
No Michael. I meant, why does someone have to be wrong? Can we get beyond the Old Testament here?
-
No Michael. I meant, why does someone have to be wrong? Can we get beyond the Old Testament here?
You mean...."you're either "in or yer out"?
Black and White...old testiment mentality.
I wonder if MTee has in mind that Old Testiment...meant AL-Ity!
;)
-
No Michael. I meant, why does someone have to be wrong? Can we get beyond the Old Testament here?
Now thare you go picking on the Old Testiment.
Where in there does it say that all games are zero sum?
-
Cindy: <<We disagree on this issue, Mtee.>>
[The issue being, is a man who lays his life on the line for his country a hero or not?]
MT: <<Then one of us has to be wrong. >>
BSB: <<Why is that?>>
=========================================================
I was wrong. "Hero" was never defined to our mutual satisfaction. According to Cindy's definition of "hero" she could be right, and according to my definition of "hero," I could be right.
It might be more useful to just admit that McCain is a hero as Cindy defines one. It is certainly true that he did put his life on the line for his country. So the question I should have asked Cindy was, what follows from his having put his life on the line for his country?
Should he be elected President? Is he "entitled?"
I guess what really concerns me is whether a guy who put his life on the line for his country can get too much respect.
So the question I should have asked Cindy was, what follows from his having put his life on the line for his country?
Should he be elected President? Is he "entitled?"
What do you mean...."What follows"?
Nothing follows....that's just his life. His experience certainly doesn't equate to qualifying as our best leader...my God, clearly, one of Bush's past "ahaa moments" simply reflects that he learned how to fly BIG JEt planes, and he looked hot in his uniform to boot!!
Look, MTee, if a man or woman can manage a country with the best to be offered, then he/she's gunna get the job.
Problem is, our airwaves tend to look at the superficial nature of a human being, instead of the bones and meat within.
So, in a way to go back to the question of educating our youth in that way...
I offer my little students the choice to "think for themselves" on issues that mean something in their own stage of development.
Those "activites" will transfer to critical thinking and constructive insights into the future.
But to "brainwash" or convince a child that your way is the "highway" is WRONG.
To do so is not the best practices element of good teaching.
If we were to teach one tiny bit of our belief system to a child, that would be wrong. Really wrong.
TALK ABOUT YOUR HITLER YOUTH?? That's why your definition of hero is askewed there for the German mother.
Not our job as educators, and it really is a tricky area to cross. Trust me on that one.
Ok, I can just see your next point here...Bush has indoctrinated the country with his injections of fear theory???
Not necessarily. We have TOO much freedom in this country, imo. We need to be accountable to what is best for one another instead of what is best for the ME, WE mentality. Global warfare takes on a whole new meaning here.
So, I listen to your thoughts as an intelligent gent from up north....don't get me wrong. I do want to hear more. I do understand some of your points of view.
But, I believe we must not show emotion in any venue of discussion that is so important that we want others to HEAR US OUT.
That's the first thing they teach us in college about educating children...NEVER show your emotional side....I see that now. I didn't before...
again..that's a whole other discussion...for another time.
Ok nite again,
Cindy
-
We have TOO much freedom in this country, imo. We need to be accountable to what is best for one another instead of what is best for the ME, WE mentality.
Say what?
-
So, in a way to go back to the question of educating our youth in that way...
I offer my little students the choice to "think for themselves" on issues that mean something in their own stage of development.
Those "activites" will transfer to critical thinking and constructive insights into the future.
But to "brainwash" or convince a child that your way is the "highway" is WRONG.
To do so is not the best practices element of good teaching.
Young minds deserve to learn how to stay open and receptive...,not take in the nearest adults point of view....just because.
Bravo bravo!
-
We have TOO much freedom in this country, imo. We need to be accountable to what is best for one another instead of what is best for the ME, WE mentality.
Say what?
In a way we have TOO much freedom, BT.....the scale tips.
We must also teach our kids how to use the freedoms we have so that responsibility becomes more of a key which gracefully unlocks the door to such things as knowledge and spending, and religion.
IN some ways we have TOO MUCH open minded views and those views are lack of knowledge.....in a free state.
I might have mispoke when I said that we HAVE TOO MANY FREEDOMS...so pardon me on that one.
But we must teach children how to care for the other person.
Someone posted a great cartoon recently here......me me me generation..and thee thee thee generation booths.
Giving to others is not to be underestimated, and should be taught within the home.
-
So, in a way to go back to the question of educating our youth in that way...
I offer my little students the choice to "think for themselves" on issues that mean something in their own stage of development.
Those "activites" will transfer to critical thinking and constructive insights into the future.
But to "brainwash" or convince a child that your way is the "highway" is WRONG.
To do so is not the best practices element of good teaching.
Young minds deserve to learn how to stay open and receptive...,not take in the nearest adults point of view....just because.
Bravo bravo!
Well,thank ya Plane...
But, that's what I do in my job.
I can't speak for the president of this nation.
Frankly, I don't think it should be up to ONE PERSON to run for president of this nation....
We get stuck in an American Idol election of sorts.....
Poignant cartoon brought to us by Ami recently....very poignant.
Cindy
-
I'm not sure if I follow.
What does a kind heart have to do with too much diversified and often ill-informed thought?
And what do you propose as the solution?
-
I'm not sure if I follow.
What does a kind heart have to do with too much diversified and often ill-informed thought?
And what do you propose as the solution?
I suppose that we want for too much in this country. We could live with less, and yet the more we make $$ the more we want...the less we were given as children, the more we feel we need to GIVE to our children.
Kind heartedness and good character traits are important in this or any nation.....generation.
But, we don't see that..because we are too busy making the big buck.
I am not saying that we should not teach our children to do their best or try to make the big buck, but we must teach our children to consider the other person.....the other person is just as valuable as the high dollar made. imo.
-
<<No Michael. I meant, why does someone have to be wrong? Can we get beyond the Old Testament here?>>
I'm not sure what you're getting at, BSB.
When I told Cindy that one of us had to be wrong, I meant wrong in the Aristotelian sense of the word ("false" as opposed to "true,") not the Biblical sense. Two conflicting views on a subject can't both be right if there is an objective standard of truth.
Were you referring to my argument with Cindy or to my own take on McCain's "heroism?" Or both?
-
When I told Cindy that one of us had to be wrong, I meant wrong in the Aristotelian sense of the word ("false" as opposed to "true,") not the Biblical sense. Two conflicting views on a subject can't both be right if there is an objective standard of truth.
Actually, since you talking about opinions, no one has to be "wrong."
-
<<Actually, since you talking about opinions, no one has to be "wrong.">>
That was probably the point of BSB's question. In the Old Testament sense, there are definitely right and wrong opinions. "The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God." There must be plenty of other examples as well.
-
<<Actually, since you talking about opinions, no one has to be "wrong.">>
That was probably the point of BSB's question. In the Old Testament sense, there are definitely right and wrong opinions. "The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God." There must be plenty of other examples as well.
You're either right er yer wrong!
You're either "in"
or
You're
Out! ......Project Runway mantra. ;)
The comments from Ami and BSB hold a hell of a lot water especially around here.....beatin' those dead horses again and again.....
wanting so very much to be right! We all want that. We all have our "truth".
AT the risk of turning this into an existential argument...
I bid you adious for a while, as I will be out of town.
Ciao.
Cindy
-
In the Old Testament sense, there are definitely right and wrong opinions. "The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God." There must be plenty of other examples as well.
There are opinions that will get you in trouble with the "big guy" upstairs and there are opinions that will get you in trouble with secular law enforcement, but that does not make those opinions factually incorrect.
-
<<There are opinions that will get you in trouble with the "big guy" upstairs and there are opinions that will get you in trouble with secular law enforcement, but that does not make those opinions factually incorrect.>>
Well, an opinion that will get you in trouble with the "big guy upstairs" is a "wrong" opinion in a Biblical sense and its opposite is a "right" opinion in a Biblical sense.
Factual correctness is never a factor in evaluating opinions from a Biblical perspective, since it's purely irrelevant. Being factually correct won't get you into Heaven or keep you out of Hell.
-
Well, an opinion that will get you in trouble with the "big guy upstairs" is a "wrong" opinion in a Biblical sense and its opposite is a "right" opinion in a Biblical sense.
Factual correctness is never a factor in evaluating opinions from a Biblical perspective, since it's purely irrelevant. Being factually correct won't get you into Heaven or keep you out of Hell.
When I told Cindy that one of us had to be wrong, I meant wrong in the Aristotelian sense of the word ("false" as opposed to "true,") not the Biblical sense. Two conflicting views on a subject can't both be right if there is an objective standard of truth.
-
Where is the discrepancy between the two statements? There is no factual issue involved in Biblical judgments, there is a moral issue only. Love your neighbour is no more "factually" correct than hate your neighbour. Logic could be found to justify either. Morally one sucks and the other doesn't, but Adolf Hitler and Dietrich Bonhoeffer would never agree on which one was the one that sucked.
-
Where is the discrepancy between the two statements?
You are equating the difference between your opinion and Cindy's opinion a difference in "fact" and therefore one of you must be wrong:
<<We disagree on this issue, Mtee.>>
Then one of us has to be wrong.
In actuality, they are both opinions and therefore neither of them has to be wrong.
-
<< . . . they are both opinions and therefore neither of them has to be wrong.>>
We're just going around in circles here. I've already given my POV - - that opinions can be right or wrong in the Bible. In other words, the author or authors of the Bible had one opinion on an issue (say, the existence of God) and of two possible opinions (excluding agnosticism) one opinion is clearly labeled "right" and one is clearly labeled "wrong."
So it is possible to have an opinion that, within one belief-system (the Biblical) can be labeled either "right" or "wrong," when in another belief-system (the Aristotelian,) it might be impossible to label the opinion as either "right" or "wrong."
-
An omnipotent God need not worry about ambeguity , when he knows he is right , he can be certain every time, Human beings have hunches , gut feelings , hypothesis, theroys even axioms but we never have the certitude about the rules as the one who wrothe them.
-
We're just going around in circles here.
You initially said that either you or Cindy had to be wrong. Later on you said that you were speaking of "Aristotelian truth" - ie, fact. When I pointed out that your and Cindy's disagreement was opinion, and not fact, you pulled out the "Biblical truth" claim.
-
<<You initially said that either you or Cindy had to be wrong. Later on you said that you were speaking of "Aristotelian truth" - ie, fact. When I pointed out that your and Cindy's disagreement was opinion, and not fact, you pulled out the "Biblical truth" claim.>>
That was my mistake. An opinion on a theological matter does not have to be subjected to Aristotelian logic in order to be found wrong or false. Perhaps the only possible Aristotelian judgment on any theological opinion is "insufficient data." If subjected to the standards of the Bible, which are NOT Aristotelian, one man's opinion can in fact be found to be wrong, and another man's, right.
Looks like I was badly confused.
-
All soldiers are heroes, or is it just American soldiers that are always all heroes?
I find this a confusing point of view.
Was Jeb Stuart a hero, because he was defending the Confederacy, or a monster because he was defending slavery?
-
<<Was Jeb Stuart a hero, because he was defending the Confederacy, or a monster because he was defending slavery?>>
Depends, not so much what you thought about slavery, but on how strongly you felt about it.
-
So you think that slavery was a bad idea, but that Jeb Stuart was bravely defending is homeland, then he is a hero.
But of you think slavery was a neat idea, and Jeb was defending his homeland as well as slavery, then he is a monster.
Interesting.
Could it be that young Adolf deserved his Iron Cross?
-
<<So you think that slavery was a bad idea, but that Jeb Stuart was bravely defending is homeland, then he is a hero.>>
If you're MILDLY opposed to slavery - - like, it's a shame but it's not the worst fucking thing on the planet, everybody did it, they all had a roof over their head and lotsa food and singing and dancing - - yeah, with that kind of take on slavery, Jeb Stuart could be a hero.
Same with these people who don't think the Holocaust was so terrible, sure it shouldn't have happened but neither should Hiroshima, we're all bad guys anyway, so they killed millions of Jews but who really gives a shit anyway? - - well, to those guys, an S.S. trooper could be a hero.
But if you think, slavery is a fucking abomination and every decent caring human being knows that in his guts, then Jeb Stuart is a criminal. Same kinda thing with the Holocaust and the S.S. guy.
<<But of you think slavery was a neat idea, and Jeb was defending his homeland as well as slavery, then he is a monster.>>
That last one doesn't make sense - - if slavery's great and Jeb's defending THAT and his home, he'd be a good guy.
Interesting.
Could it be that young Adolf deserved his Iron Cross?
-
Funny thing about heroism.
Right now many in here think Obama to be a fine caring guy. A guy who rose from nothing to be on the brink of being elected to the most powerful position in the land.
And if he is elected, I can pretty much guarantee you hat during the next 48 months an event will happen and a decison will be made , that could easily label him as a war criminal in the same eyes of those who tout his virtues today.
You have people and you have events. And sometimes those events overtake people.
Did JEB Stuart ride into battle, putting his life at risk in defense of his troops. Did he pull an injured troop from the line of fire, again at great risk to himself, did he lead a squad of men into the bush, knowing they were decoys and might not survive?
Acts can be heroic even if you don't agree with the underlying causes that lead to that act.
Heroism is not contingent on ideology.
-
BT, has it.
A German soldier, who charged an American machine gun, took it, turned it on another American position, then took that one, went down the line taking a half a dozen positions, saving 20 German soldiers lives in the process, could get put in a concentration camp and be a sadistic thug. One day a hero, the next day a parasite.
-
Heroism is not contingent on ideology.
==============================
So, then, young Adolf DID deserve his Iron Cross!
How about saying that anyone can act in ways that are both courageous and altruistic, but the cause for which one commits then define whether he (or she) is a hero or not?
I suppose we would have to see inside young Adolf's mind to determine whether his courageous service as a messenger was altruistic because he was thinking of saving the lives of his dear comrades, or less so, because he was defending Kaiser Wilhelm, who was a much nastier monarch than, say, King George.
Is a hero defined only after he dies, and is a consideration of lifetime service, like the Nobel Prize for Literature, or is one single act or set of acts adequate, like, say, being shot down on a bombing mission after offing both innocent civilians and military adversaries, then being tortured?
In Paraguay, Mariscal Lopez used to be vilified for picking a fight with three other countries (Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil) and followed by a five year war that left only 22,000 men in the entire country, out of a prewar population of a million "I die with my country", he said.
Now he's a national hero. Although it is a nice touch that the place of honor in the Panteon de los Heroes is the unknown soldado paraguayo.
-
Or, to remove Hitler from the equation, we can look at Che Guevara. From his Wiki article:
Forty years after his execution, Che's life and deeds still remain a contentious issue.
Some view Che Guevara as a hero; for example, Nelson Mandela referred to him as "an inspiration for every human being who loves freedom" while Jean-Paul Sartre described him as "not only an intellectual but also the most complete human being of our age." Guevara remains a beloved national hero to many in Cuba, where his image adorns the 3 $ Cuban Peso and school children begin each morning by pledging "We will be like Che." In his native homeland of Argentina, where high schools bear his name, numerous Che museums dot the country, which in 2008 unveiled a 12 foot bronze statue of him in his birth city of Rosario. Additionally, Guevara has been sanctified by some Bolivian campesinos as "Saint Ernesto", to whom they pray for assistance.
Conversely, others view him as a spokesman for a failed ideology and as a ruthless executioner. Johann Hari, for example, writes that "Che Guevara is not a free-floating icon of rebellion. He was an actual person who supported an actual system of tyranny." Detractors have also theorized that in much of Latin America, Che-inspired revolutions had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism for many years. He also remains a hated figure amongst many in the Cuban exile community, who view him with animosity as "the butcher of La Cabana."
Moreover, Guevara has ironically been subsumed by the capitalist consumer culture he despised. The primary variable of this phenomenon has been a monochrome graphic of his face, which has become one of the World's most universally merchandized images, found on an endless array of items including: t-shirts, hats, posters, tattoos, and even bikinis. Yet, Guevara also remains an iconic figure both in specifically political contexts and as a wide-ranging popular icon of youthful rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara)
-
I fail to see why to "remove Hitler from the equation". I realize being an Austrian homeboy, you'd prefer to pick on el Che, but reality is reality. Whatever Che did that was wrong was nothing compared with Herr Adolf.
If you like or dislike Che, there is certainly a nice amount of irony in his becoming an icon. Hitler's face is pretty recognizable too, but you don't see him on the teeshirts and bandannas of the cool youth of today, so you?
Of course, I don,t think Adolf ever learned to drive, let alone ride a motorcycle around the continent curing lepers.
-
BT sez "Heroism doesn't depend on ideology." I think he identified the issue succinctly enough.
The problem for me lies in the distinction between bravery and heroism. Hitler for sure was brave enough to win the Iron Cross (for which it appears he was nominated by a Jewish officer, in one of history's little ironies, no pun intended.)
The reason I don't like to call the man a hero is, obviously, because I don't want to put him on the same level of other heroes who, IMHO, because of the cause to which their heroism was wedded, such as, for example, Winston Churchill or Rosa Parks, are worthy of respect and admiration.
I would say that bravery in itself is just a personal quality like height, corpulence, hair colour; in real life, bravery is a public virtue at times, a threat to one's own existence at others; stand up to the mob and you're a hero on the six o'clock news but maybe what it really gets you is a pair of cement overshoes and a permanent resting place on the bottom of the East River. A smarter guy will let the mob be the mob, marry a well-put-together bit-part actress and at least pass a few genes into the next generation. From a Darwinian perspective, bravery today ain't what it was in Neolithic times, a passport to babes, bread and the good life with many, many descendants, all well-armed with sturdy clubs and ready at any time to do battle for the clan and its progeny.
I'm not going to the dictionary on this one. For me a hero is someone I can look up to and admire, can thank God that they existed and hope that I could be like. On November 11 Canada will be celebrating Remembrance Day, when we gather formally across the country to pay our respects to our veterans both living and dead. It's a day that means a lot to me. I pause, we all stop whatever we're doing at 11:00 AM and pay a one-minute moment of silent tribute to our heroes.
But Adolf Hitler a hero? Not to me. Not in a million years. Not with a hundred Iron Crosses. Physically brave? Sure but so what? I'd blast him out of existence with no more thought than I'd give to a cockroach if given the opportunity. Who gives a shit for his bravery if it's exercised in the wrong cause? We had millions of men who were brave enough to stand up to them and mow them down like grass, raze every home in their country and kill them by the millions. Bravery itself was never in short supply on either side of the line. But heroes? That's our side. Heroes are the good guys, not the bad guys.
-
I fail to see why to "remove Hitler from the equation".
Because there is pretty much nobody that would fail to see that Hitler was evil, and therefore people will have a hard time believing that German soldiers during WWII could be considered heroes.
However, there is some contention over whether Che was evil, so it's easier to see that soldiers following him could be considered heroes, regardless whether you agreed with Che or not.
-
Acts can be heroic even if you don't agree with the underlying causes that lead to that act.
Heroism is not contingent on ideology.
Precisely!
-
Acts can be heroic even if you don't agree with the underlying causes that lead to that act.
Heroism is not contingent on ideology.
Precisely!
What is the opposite of this idea?
Resolved : only our own people can be heros.
-
Acts can be heroic even if you don't agree with the underlying causes that lead to that act.
Heroism is not contingent on ideology.
Precisely!
What is the opposite of this idea?
Resolved : only our own people can be heros.
I am not interested in the "opposite" of the idea right now, Plane. This is an historic day! Time to focus on the positive as much as possible.
-
If you like or dislike Che, there is certainly a nice amount of irony in his becoming an icon. Hitler's face is pretty recognizable too, but you don't see him on the teeshirts and bandannas of the cool youth of today, so you?
Well .... yes you do , but that is the other cool group , they don't mix well.
-
Acts can be heroic even if you don't agree with the underlying causes that lead to that act.
Heroism is not contingent on ideology.
Precisely!
What is the opposite of this idea?
Resolved : only our own people can be heros.
I am not interested in the "opposite" of the idea right now, Plane. This is an historic day! Time to focus on the positive as much as possible.
Well then let us rejoice that all four presidential canadates can be called heroic, but each one in a completely diffrent way.
-
Well .... yes you do , but that is the other cool group , they don't mix well.
=========================================================
Nazis have not been a cool group since 1944 at the latest.
Genocide and total war are uncool activities.
-
Acts can be heroic even if you don't agree with the underlying causes that lead to that act.
Heroism is not contingent on ideology.
Precisely!
What is the opposite of this idea?
Resolved : only our own people can be heros.
I am not interested in the "opposite" of the idea right now, Plane. This is an historic day! Time to focus on the positive as much as possible.
Well then let us rejoice that all four presidential canadates can be called heroic, but each one in a completely diffrent way.
Hey, why don't you go to the opposite side and share what you think. You brought it up. I am just not in the mood today to go there. However, I am all ears. Pontificate on, Plane. BTW, are you a hero in someone's eyes? Why?
-
Well .... yes you do , but that is the other cool group , they don't mix well.
=========================================================
Nazis have not been a cool group since 1944 at the latest.
Genocide and total war are uncool activities.
It really depends on who you ask, to me ,Hitler and Che are both uncool , Hitler would still be much more marketable if he had died earlyer and accomplished less of his aims , Che got lucky and got killed before he had caused as much enslavement as Herr Hitler.
Imagine the Martyred Hitler killed somewhere as he rallied his people maybe ten years earlyer than his demise actually was, he would be on shirts because we would not know how bad he would have got.
-
Murdering and flying planes into buildings does not count as fighting for a nation under such circumstances. ..THUS they are murdering others based on their own selfish "cause".
====================================================
So Hitler's troops COULD be heroic, because they had a flag and a country, but the Al Qaeda terrorists, who also intentionally gave their all for a cause they considered greater than themselves...they were not heroic.
Mullah Omar of Afghanistan seemed to agree with them, and gave at least some of them refuge. They were, after all, Arabian patriots who felt they were defending Islam from those who had corrupted their leaders, the Saudi Royals.
I find this to be a rather odd view. Nazis can be heroes, but Al Qaeda cannot. Both were rather opposed to the US and iuts troops, after all.
What, pray tell, is the distinction that separates the Nazis from the Al Qaeda terrorists?
It would seem to be that all are heroes or none of them. I do nt see the distinction.
Could it be a difference of pigmentation?
Religious heritage?
-
Acts can be heroic even if you don't agree with the underlying causes that lead to that act.
Heroism is not contingent on ideology.
Precisely!
What is the opposite of this idea?
Resolved : only our own people can be heros.
I am not interested in the "opposite" of the idea right now, Plane. This is an historic day! Time to focus on the positive as much as possible.
Well then let us rejoice that all four presidential canadates can be called heroic, but each one in a completely diffrent way.
Hey, why don't you go to the opposite side and share what you think. You brought it up. I am just not in the mood today to go there. However, I am all ears. Pontificate on, Plane. BTW, are you a hero in someone's eyes? Why?
I am a hero to a four year old that I sometimes read to.
I recall very fondly someone who read to four year old me.
She picked up some strange politics and doesn't even live in the US anymore , but the admiration I had for her then has not faded.
-
Che got lucky and got killed before he had caused as much enslavement as Herr Hitler.
==================================================================
Hitler was all for enslavement of pesky and inferior minority groups.
Che Guevara may not be cool to you, but his image is marketed as a cool one and is everywhere.
It would be difficult to find a Hitler keychain, teeshirt or poster anywhere. In Germany, they would be illegal.
Che Guevara had no plans to enslave anyone, and never tried. Cuba is poorly run, but the people are not slaves. The biggest problem in Cuba these days is that there are few willing to be farmers, and in an intensely fertile country, much of the food is imported, and from the US, too.
If there were slavery in Cuba, there would be peasants toiling in those fields. But no, the peasants have moved to the cities, and the fields are full of weeds.
The principal problem in Cuba is that the children grow up hearing that they should want to be like Fidel and el Che, and that is what they do: Just like Fidel, they leave the farm and come to the cities. El Che was always a city dweller, a middle-class urbanite for nine generations.
When it comes to Cuba, you are utterly clueless.
-
Che got lucky and got killed before he had caused as much enslavement as Herr Hitler.
==================================================================
Hitler was all for enslavement of pesky and inferior minority groups.
Che Guevara may not be cool to you, but his image is marketed as a cool one and is everywhere.
It would be difficult to find a Hitler keychain, teeshirt or poster anywhere. In Germany, they would be illegal.
Che Guevara had no plans to enslave anyone, and never tried. Cuba is poorly run, but the people are not slaves. The biggest problem in Cuba these days is that there are few willing to be farmers, and in an intensely fertile country, much of the food is imported, and from the US, too.
If there were slavery in Cuba, there would be peasants toiling in those fields. But no, the peasants have moved to the cities, and the fields are full of weeds.
The principal problem in Cuba is that the children grow up hearing that they should want to be like Fidel and el Che, and that is what they do: Just like Fidel, they leave the farm and come to the cities. El Che was always a city dweller, a middle-class urbanite for nine generations.
When it comes to Cuba, you are utterly clueless.
Market forces are packing every city in the world , and the US producing cheap food is one of the causes, Cuba still responds to market forces because thay cannot repeal the laws of the market.
Hitler's Germany was very comfortable for the proper Germans lots of people became refugees because they were not the right sort.
Cuba has maintained that caricteristic a lot longer than Germany did.
Now of course Che did not become responsible for nearly as many killings as Hitler , he was proply only responsible for a few thousand killers he might have recruited and led, but given more time , would he have turned away a large number of Killers if he had found as many willing as Hitler did?
I have a shirt that is kind of a Joke , it looks like a Che shirt from a distance and like a Geico Caveman when you get closer , I work on an AFB so I don't wear that shirt to work.
-
Acts can be heroic even if you don't agree with the underlying causes that lead to that act.
Heroism is not contingent on ideology.
Precisely!
What is the opposite of this idea?
Resolved : only our own people can be heros.
I am not interested in the "opposite" of the idea right now, Plane. This is an historic day! Time to focus on the positive as much as possible.
Well then let us rejoice that all four presidential canadates can be called heroic, but each one in a completely diffrent way.
Hey, why don't you go to the opposite side and share what you think. You brought it up. I am just not in the mood today to go there. However, I am all ears. Pontificate on, Plane. BTW, are you a hero in someone's eyes? Why?
I am a hero to a four year old that I sometimes read to.
I
I recall very fondly someone who read to four year old me.
She picked up some strange politics and doesn't even live in the US anymore , but the admiration I had for her then has not faded.
I am a hero to my little niece who is 5. I spent time such quality over the weekend with her and her new born baby brother--my new nephew. So, I know that definition of hero, for certain, Plane.... Good for you. Keep reading!
-
<<I find this to be a rather odd view. Nazis can be heroes, but Al Qaeda cannot. Both were rather opposed to the US and iuts troops, after all.
<<What, pray tell, is the distinction that separates the Nazis from the Al Qaeda terrorists?
<<It would seem to be that all are heroes or none of them. I do nt see the distinction.
<<Could it be a difference of pigmentation?
<<Religious heritage?>>
==================================================
This goes back to what I said before, it all comes down to how strongly you feel about the "hero's" actions. If you think the guy was merely "wrong," he could still be a hero. If you really, really HATE the guy, he can't be a hero.
A lot of people don't really give a shit about the Holocaust. They will tell you Hitler was bad, but they think it was an everyday kind of bad - - he's bad, you're bad, we're all bad. A kind of "He gases Jews, we bomb Dresden," so really, how bad can the guy really be? Certainly, not bad enough that he can never be a hero.
OTOH, bin Laden HATES AMERICA. This is the worst fucking crime anyone can commit (at least in the eyes of a right-wing moron.) The guy has CROSSED A LINE. There is no fucking way that this guy will ever be a hero. He killed thousands of Americans. And of course, gassing millions of Jews and hundreds of thousands of Roma pales into insignificance beside the monstrosity of bin Laden's crime. Killed 'em LIVE on morning network TV, to add insult to injury. Betcher ass, this guy (unlike Hitler or his stormtroopers) will never EVER be a hero, man this is the lowest form of life you will ever see on this planet.
-
He killed thousands of Americans.
Mtee, Bin Laden was responsible for killing a world of people...not just Americans.
http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm (http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm)
-
Mtee, Bin Laden was responsible for killing a world of people...not just Americans.
===============================
He could have slaughtered acres of Hindus, bushels of Bahi'as, tons of Tamil Tigers, and he could still be a hero. It was killing New Yorkers that ruined his chances of sponsoring heroism.
-
Mtee, Bin Laden was responsible for killing a world of people...not just Americans.
===============================
He could have slaughtered acres of Hindus, bushels of Bahi'as, tons of Tamil Tigers, and he could still be a hero. It was killing New Yorkers that ruined his chances of sponsoring heroism.
That's a silly argument, X0.
Besides.....
To whom would he be a hero for killing Tamil Tigers?
A butcher is not a hero. A murderer is not a hero. IMO
-
<<Mtee, Bin Laden was responsible for killing a world of people...not just Americans.>>
Yeah but when he was killing Russians and Afghan Communists, the Americans were paying him to do it.
And as XO points out, no one in America gives a shit about who else he killed, as long as they weren't American civilians. Hitler and his S.S. killed tens of millions - - French, Poles, Dutch, Italians, Danish, Norwegian, Bulgarian, Jewish, Roma, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Greeks, Albanians, Macedonians, Serbs, Hungarians, just you name it - - but they left American civilians alone and had the further good grace to commit all their killings outside the U.S.A., so they sure as hell CAN be heroes, and basically because no one gives a shit about the people they killed.
Bin Laden, though, was different - - he attacked buildings and planes in the U.S. and killed U.S. civilians. Which is why, to an American, he can never, never, ever be a hero. If he really wanted to be a hero in the U.S., he should have joined Hitler's S.S. - - only he was decades too late.
-
To whom would he be a hero for killing Tamil Tigers?
==================
To the Buddhist Sri Lankans, of course.
Tamil Tigers, by the way, allow me to clarify, are NOT a sports team like the Cinncinati Bengals or the Detroit Tigers, nor are they wild large felines. They are a mostly Hindu Tamil ethnic minority that occupy southern India and parts of Sri Lanka. They want a separate nation of their own in Sri Lanka, formerly known as Ceylon.
Just so you know...
-
To whom would he be a hero for killing Tamil Tigers?
==================
To the Buddhist Sri Lankans, of course.
Tamil Tigers, by the way, allow me to clarify, are NOT a sports team like the Cinncinati Bengals or the Detroit Tigers, nor are they wild large felines. They are a mostly Hindu Tamil ethnic minority that occupy southern India and parts of Sri Lanka. They want a separate nation of their own in Sri Lanka, formerly known as Ceylon.
Just so you know...
At the risk of calling you a name like a patronizing male ;) no NEED TO clarify or monitor anything in my direction....XavierI!
Of course I assumed you WERE NOT SPEAKING of the animal.
-
When you asked who their heroes were, It gave me cause to wonder.
Everyone likes tigers in principle. Most would prefer not to share dinner with one, or clean out their cages, though.
-
When you asked who their heroes were, It gave me cause to wonder.
Everyone likes tigers in principle. Most would prefer not to share dinner with one, or clean out their cages, though.
I was baiting you...so I am sorry. I set MYSELF up. :(
Good to see you have a sense of humor.
Good ole Tigers.....
and Tigger too!