Today I unwittingly stumbled upon a reason to loathe McCain

http://www.patriotsrevolt.com/?q=node/605

Patriots Revolt (We are NOT Left Wing or Liberal - CAVEAT!)
Patriots Revolt neither supports nor endorses submissions to Patriots Revolt nor individual positions or opinions, we do attempt provide somewhat of an OPEN forum, presenting, "within limits", various interesting viewpoints.

Click to expand...

http://powwarrior.wordpress.com/

Since his return from Hanoi, McCain has …

~Ignored pleas of POW/MIA Family Members for his political influence in the overall POW/MIA Issue as well as with their individual cases

~Verbally abused POW/MIA Family Members in public and private

~Attempted to negatively influence those who testified before the 1992 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs

~Diminished legislation that gave oversight and protection to the families

~Dismantled protection to any future servicemen that go missing.

Click to expand...

Don said:

This is actually old news. It was discussed during the primaries, but never gained any traction in the national press, although several efforts were made to bring it to their attention.

Click to expand...

If this is true, then my feelings and opinion for the American media has sunk to a new all time low. I guess this is the spirit behind all those "Go back to Vietnam" movies of the 80s like Rambo II, Delta Force, Iron Eagle, etc. etc.

whistlelock said:

If it's true, just one more chapter of tragedy in the long book of the Vietnam war.

Click to expand...

This is also a very complex issue and I don't think it is fair to throw it all on McCain's shoulders. Admittedly, that was my first visceral response (my second being to cry). But then, when i thought about the politics of this, that is where the complexity became apparent to me.

So, transport yourself back to 1973. Intelligence just confirms that you have 400 prisoners still left in Communist Vietnam--Soviet and Chinese supported Vietnam. Now, add on top of that that the American Public's anti-military anti-governmentness is at an all time high. What are the ramifications of acknowledging these prisoners?

Option #1, You acknowledge them, then you have to go back and get them which means War and tens of thousands of more lives lost.

Option #2, You acknowledge them, then proceed to pay through the nose for them which means a precident for future conflicts and encouragement of future prisoners in future conflicts (ask Israel how well this works out for them) this action (including future lives) means thousands of lives lost

Option #3, You ignore them and let them die. 400 lives lost, international face saved, no precident to be used against you in the future is set. War is averted, tens of thousands of lives saved.


I say this all the time, affairs between states is a Machiavelli affair.
Trying to apply personal morality and logic to these types of conflict is sometimes a recipe for disaster.

Now, we live in interesting times because Machiavelli 'logic' relys on the populace never finding out, so it will be interesting to see the affairs of states in this new globalized media accessible environment. But going back to this situation in 1973 US...

This is an absolute giant bowl of shit. Considering the facts and situation and the time period, there is no good way out of it, only varying degrees of bad.

And yes, I realize we've had global media since 1940s, but not really on the scale of what we have now. Similarly, there is inertia of politics and old school thinking that takes many generations to adapt to changing times (for example, many militaries rode calvary lines (horses) into battle during WWI despite the well established technology known as the machine gun)

This was a very hard story to read. As ex military, I am repulsed and a part of me wants to cry out for blood and vengeance for both our leadership and Vietnam, but the analytical part of me sees this for the no-win-bowl-of-shit situation that it is. I'll have to think more on this, but I think burying it was the right decision viewed in the context of Machiavelli Politics and Utalitarian morality (the total good or the many vs the few)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolò_Machiavelli#Il_Principe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

Mel...
aka
the shit stirer

McCain's stance on this has been consistent and it's something that he apparently believed in even when it was his own life on the line.

There are tons and tons of sources for this stuff.

It's just a matter of whether you agree with his stance on it or not. Plot Device obviously disagrees with it; Dmytryp sees his point. I think Mel and are sharing the middle, with him leaning toward acceptance and me leaning the other way.

This actually isn't a deal-breaker for me. Of course, I've voted, and it wasn't for McCain, but this wasn't why. And if I supported McCain, this wouldn't turn me away.

Although it does make my stomach turn. It's a sad, sad situation, and I'm not sure we could have done much more for those left behind in Vietnam. But it does seem to me that McCain has gone overboard on this issue more than once.

I'm just annoyed that people are dismissing the OP without resorting to facts.

Monkey said:

Quote:
Patriots Revolt (We are NOT Left Wing or Liberal - CAVEAT!)
Patriots Revolt neither supports nor endorses submissions to Patriots Revolt nor individual positions or opinions, we do attempt provide somewhat of an OPEN forum, presenting, "within limits", various interesting viewpoints.

Click to expand...

That's all fine and dandy, but the story doesn't authenticate the one posted, sorry.

Monkey said:

This actually isn't a deal-breaker for me. Of course, I've voted, and it wasn't for McCain, but this wasn't why. And if I supported McCain, this wouldn't turn me away.

Although it does make my stomach turn. It's a sad, sad situation, and I'm not sure we could have done much more for those left behind in Vietnam. But it does seem to me that McCain has gone overboard on this issue more than once.

Click to expand...

I agree. But i'm voting for Obama and this story doesn't change much of my opinion of McCain. Well, actually it does, but I don't hate him. Some of his mystique about being a hero may have washed off some, but I still think he is among the better conservatives.

Monkey said:

I'm just annoyed that people are dismissing the OP without resorting to facts.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting human reaction. When faced with something contrary to our belief system, denail is a very powerful and automatic response.

I've recently (last few years and also thanks to AW) have learned to challenge myself and try to incorporate these types of things into my belief system, that is. If what I believe is true, than my logic should be able to stand the light of anything, otherwise, my logic may be off.

Similarly, when reading that article, the logical premises, deductions, and facts all fit. It was probable. There was no need for super duper conspiracy theories and magic bullets. The majority of ascertions made by the article stand up in the light of logic. Furthermore, a quick google search found scores of other sites that collaborate much of the article. So the authenticity was never in question. Which brings me to my deduction.

The more I thought about it, the worse this situation becomes. So much so, that i'm looking forward to blocking it out of my mind and never consciously thinking about it again come tomorrow.

I will offer a prayer to the almighty and wish those poor souls and their familiers some measure of peace. I know my prayers will be like an ice cube tossed in a lake of fire, but that is all I can do. I wish it were more.

Mel...

Ok, Captain. I'll spell it out for you.

From the OP:

The pressure from the families and Vietnam veterans finally forced the creation, in late 1991, of a Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. The chairman was John Kerry. McCain, as a former POW, was its most pivotal member. In the end, the committee became part of the debunking machine.

Click to expand...

From the website that you said didn't authenticate the OP:

In mid-summer 1991, the U.S. Senate created the Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs and charged it with conducting a no-holds-barred investigation into the long-festering matter of American POWs reportedly still held captive by the Communist North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao.

<snipped for brevity>

Enter John McCain.

Given his wartime experiences as a POW in Vietnam, Sen. John McCain was by default the most powerful and influential member of the Select Committee. Members on both sides of the aisle deferred to his judgment; reporters hung on his every pronouncement. And so when McCain, his chief of staff Mark Salter and their allies on the Select Committee joined forces with top Bush administration officials to assail, ridicule, attack, discredit, photoshop, retouch, manipulate, massage and/or "cherry-pick" the intelligence in order to destroy its intelligence value and keep the matter of live POWs from becoming an issue in the 1992 election, the live POWs never had a chance.

Click to expand...

If the facts are clear, and they are well-supported by documentation, there must be a million lawyers in this country who could put it together and raise one hell of a stink, ending, if it's all true, in criminal action against any number of high-ranking government folks.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to step on anybody's toes. If you believe it, you believe it. I am a soldier by profession, now retired. My greatest fear in combat was not death, but captivity. So I have great emotional response to the plight of prisoners of war. I just happen not to believe this particular vast plot, in a country that can't keep a secret for more than 12 minutes.

dgiharris said:

Similarly, when reading that article, the logical premises, deductions, and facts all fit. It was probable.

Click to expand...

The facts are probable. The fluff? I seriously doubt it. He'd have never gotten the nomination.

Monkey, I searched like crazy and got NOTHING, other than comments based on the original article, or the original article itself. Most either cite the article directly, or there are quotes pulled from it. You've also put yourself in a quandary. You're now not believable without facts to prove things didn't happen.

And Princess Di was killed by MI6 and the Royal family.

Never mind that this would be the stupidist and most easily foiled murder plot in the history of the world. But there certainly is LOTS of supposed evidence and lots of web sites dedicated to it. Never mind that all Princess Di had to do to foil the greatest macheavellion murder plot in the world was put on her seat belt.

AncientEagle said:

I agree. I'm no supporter of John McCain, but my opinion of him has nothing to do with this conspiracy theory. The idea that Vietnam was holding numbers of POWs never made sense to me.

Click to expand...

I agree entirely. Vietnam has had no reason to hold American POWs since we got out in 1975. Excuse me now, for I have to go out for my nightly watch for Bigfoot.

caw

ricetalks said:

And Princess Di was killed by MI6 and the Royal family.

Never mind that this would be the stupidist and most easily foiled murder plot in the history of the world. But there certainly is LOTS of supposed evidence and lots of web sites dedicated to it. Never mind that all Princess Di had to do to foil the greatest macheavellion murder plot in the world was put on her seat belt.

Click to expand...

Oh, and yeah, this too I agree with. Four people in that car, and the only one wearing a seat belt, the one sitting in the classic "death seat", is the only survivor . . . duh . . .

Plus we all know that Elvis forced that Mercedes off the road into that pillar, anyhow.

caw

Captshady said:

The facts are probable. The fluff? I seriously doubt it. He'd have never gotten the nomination.

Monkey, I searched like crazy and got NOTHING, other than comments based on the original article, or the original article itself. Most either cite the article directly, or there are quotes pulled from it. You've also put yourself in a quandary. You're now not believable without facts to prove things didn't happen.

Click to expand...

The two links I gave you above were both from the searches I'd listed previous.

I've shown you one of the ways in which they back up the OP; if you read them, you'll find more.

The facts of the article are what I'm supporting, although the spirit of the article is definitely corraborated by various POW/MIA groups. If you want to disprove any of the facts, it should be easy enough. To go back to the example in my earlier post, you could show us how McCain was not listed as a member of the senate committee formed in 1991 to investigate POW/MIA, or if he was a member, where he made statements afterwards that were inconsistent with what's been posted.

My only "quandary" here is why I'm bothering to argue this at all.

blacbird said:

I agree entirely. Vietnam has had no reason to hold American POWs since we got out in 1975. Excuse me now, for I have to go out for my nightly watch for Bigfoot.

caw

Click to expand...

Did the Vietnamese hold French Troops after their conflict?

Did the Vietnamese sell back these hostages to France?

I believe the answer is yes.

If so, can you think of a reason to hold 400 people hostage, 400 people who belong to the wealthiest nation on the planet?

This would be a logical reason.

Another one (not to dive into conspiracy theories).

If I were Russia, i'd urge Vietnam to hold some hostages--- keep America occupied, bloody their noses more, make them lose face, weaken their world presence, or hell, just out of spite.

In conclusion, there are logical reasons to do so.

Mel...

Plot Device said:

Cares enough to lie about their very existence?

Click to expand...

If you are going to decide based upon politicians NOT lying, you cannot vote for anyone in politics. EVER. For, there is not one politician that has not lied on some thing, at some point for some reason (good or bad). If there is one, show me. I won't hold my breath - you cannot.

And yes, I think his actions speak louder than any words someone wishes to stuff in his mouth. IF he did such, lied about such, there may have been an agenda that he had to follow - regardless of his opinion/desires.

When dealing with terrorists or enemies, showing any weakness bad. Thus, at times, it must be shown that one is not. Even if one must lie to do it.

And, I do not feel confident that what I have searched and what has been linked here is proof positive of him lying.

Again, though, I will state that words are words, his actions show much more than anything he can say. He offered his life for you, for me and he offered it in place of fellow prisioners. If you cannot see the good in that for what you believe a lie that changes your opinion of the man, that is fine. I cannot dismiss his sacrifice (or offer of it) for some political spin. I cannot. His actions show his character (on this topic) more than any words can say.

Christine

Again, though, I will state that words are words, his actions show much more than anything he can say. He offered his life for you, for me and he offered it in place of fellow prisioners. If you cannot see the good in that for what you believe a lie that changes your opinion of the man, that is fine. I cannot dismiss his sacrifice (or offer of it) for some political spin. I cannot. His actions show his character (on this topic) more than any words can say.

Click to expand...

Well stated.

I would also suggest that holding office as a Senator might force his hand on some issues with which the Senator doesn't personally agree. Regrettably, sometimes really tough calls are made 'for the good of the country'. It really sucks for those involved, but it has happened in every war that the USA has engaged in.

I know a former air force fighter pilot who got canned because of a training mission. The mission was to fly up this valley, under radio silence, and drop ordinance on a target out past the far end of this long valley. When he rolled in, he heard US troops begging for air support. He broke radio silence and coordinated a close-in air support attack.

He failed the mission. They gave him a second, and a third chance, and he did the same thing every time. His reasoning was that the troops are in trouble, and it's his job to come to their aid. He just could not see that, maybe, he didn't have the whole picture. He could never see that those soldiers he was so gallantly rescuing were a holding force, written off the moment their orders were cut, and that the big fight was at the end of the valley.

I think those who now 'loathe' McCain for this don't have the whole picture, either.

who were the US troops asking for air support, Joe? Besieged brigades?, or POW's? You've piqued my interest with this inside scoop.

Anis, it was a training excercise, so there were no troops in actual danger. As I recall, it was a group of marines in a running battle, routed in full retreat.

I was not present for the exercise, but the pilot who failed it is the person I heard it from. I understood the training mission's point, and I am still amazed that he just refuses to try to understand the point.

ahh, a training mission. I overlooked that in your previous post. I guess like all things, military missions, like this, take a certain natural knack. Not everyone is cut out to do them.

Yeah, not everyone's cut out for them. Just a quick look at WWII will show folks how the military often sets up large groups of troops for failure to position the enemy for a crushing blow.

They will sacrifice some to save many. Not everyone has the stomach for it.

During WWII in the ETO, fighter escort of bombers had orders not to go into hot pursuit of German fighters that appeared but did not attack. They had to stay with the bombers to avoid being lured away and leaving the bombers vulnerable to massed enemy fighter attack.

Reflexes also count for much in the air. I have been told that 25% of ETO fighter losses were due to pilot error such as when the leader says "Break Left" and someone Breaks Right. And there were many cross landing and takeoff collisions as well.

not a very reliable source of info, but in the movie The Longest Day ships that invaded Normandy landed miles away from the targeted area due to miscalculations. And while the soldiers who fought there are hereos in every sence of the term and deserving of everlasting fame, the military strategy itself of attacking a steep, bunker-clad cliff might not have been the wisest one.

We can only be thankful that the Germans were ill prepared to deal with the invasion at that point in the war, having just one plane and two fighter pilots left to send and also that Hitler was asleep at the time and had issued orders that he was not to be roused, leaving generals unable to take any decisive action.

Thinking on this...

Really...

What Mel said. He knows more about the military than I do. Somehow, actually being *in* the military managed to impart more knowledge to him than me reading 60,000 and 1 books about the military, and so I agree with his opinion.

Sometimes, a few people need to die so that everyone else can live. That doesn't make it right, but sometimes is necessary.

I've made the distinction between right, necessary and wrong before, but I'll make it again cause I like talking.

Some things are right. Loving people, making people happy, curing diseases, fixing problems, helping people. Those are right.

Some things are wrong. Killing people, blowing things up, breaking things, genocide, rape.

And some things are NECESSARY. If someone is going to kill me, I'm going to do my best to kill his ass first. That does not make it right!

Its never right to kill another human being. But sometimes, sadly, it is necessary.

Now, I don't know whether or not what McCain and others did was necessary, but I do know it was wrong. But, as I said...I trust Mel. So I'm going with his whatshit. Thingy. You know.

Joe270 said:

Rice, I don't get where you're coming from here. I suggest some editing because I doubt many folks will find the comment humorous.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Click to expand...

Yeah what this dude said.

There is no equate with your comment to this topic or thread. The compare is not only poor it is sensless and offends.

Christine

Okay, yes, rape before murder is a horror that can be traumatic to even consider, much less experience.

Let me aid ricetalk (if I may) by saying that right, wrong and necessary are categories of judgment after-the-fact that do not cover the before-the-fact motivational comprehension.

Wait, no. In addition to right, wrong and necessary are considerations of intent and effect.

I'll add that "necessary" needs extrapolation. To what end, with what justification, etc?

Monkey said:

I've read McCain's stance on POW's in various places at various times. From what I've gathered, it comes down to this: McCain believes we should ignore POW's, because acting as if they are a big deal gives our enemies power over us. To his credit, he apparently believed this even when he was a POW.

Click to expand...

If this is his reasoning, as a veteran myself, I can't fault him for it.