Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
View Poll Results: Is the effect of POW history off limits?
For cryin' out loud! The man's a war hero! Leave it alone.
3
11.11%
Off-limits -- really tacky to bring this up.
1
3.70%
Fair game -- for POTUS, nothing should be off-limits.
16
59.26%
This needs to be discussed openly and realistically.
If you've ever called W or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rice or anybody else a "chickenhawk" (and it's not an uncommon criticism on this board), you've lost the intellectual authority to object to McCain citing his war experience as a qualifying factor for President.
And like I said on an earlier thread, I really hope McCain gets it worse than Kerry did (i.e. the arguments in the OP, that he cannot be trusted because he was a POW, and he might have PTSD because he was tortured, and he wasn't capable of understanding the strategic and political nuances of the Vietnam War because his nuts happened to be in a vice at the time). I'd imagine most would disagree and many would think the charges made in poor taste, and I bet he'd get a hell of a lot of sympathy he otherwise might not.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
If you've ever called W or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rice or anybody else a "chickenhawk" (and it's not an uncommon criticism on this board), you've lost the intellectual authority to object to McCain citing his war experience as a qualifying factor for President.
And like I said on an earlier thread, I really hope McCain gets it worse than Kerry did (i.e. the arguments in the OP, that he cannot be trusted because he was a POW, and he might have PTSD because he was tortured, and he wasn't capable of understanding the strategic and political nuances of the Vietnam War because his nuts happened to be in a vice at the time). I'd imagine most would disagree and many would think the charges made in poor taste, and I bet he'd get a hell of a lot of sympathy he otherwise might not.
If you've ever called W or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rice or anybody else a "chickenhawk" (and it's not an uncommon criticism on this board), you've lost the intellectual authority to object to McCain citing his war experience as a qualifying factor for President.
Apparently I'm too dumb to follow your logic here, I need you to dumb down for me two things:
1) How calling a person who advocates war, yet is unwilling to fight themselves a chickenhawk results in the loss of intellectual authority?
2) How McCain citing his war experience as a qualifying factor is the same thing as questioning whether his war experience is detrimental to his abilty to lead our country?
If you've ever called W or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rice or anybody else a "chickenhawk" (and it's not an uncommon criticism on this board), you've lost the intellectual authority to object to McCain citing his war experience as a qualifying factor for President.
And like I said on an earlier thread, I really hope McCain gets it worse than Kerry did (i.e. the arguments in the OP, that he cannot be trusted because he was a POW, and he might have PTSD because he was tortured, and he wasn't capable of understanding the strategic and political nuances of the Vietnam War because his nuts happened to be in a vice at the time). I'd imagine most would disagree and many would think the charges made in poor taste, and I bet he'd get a hell of a lot of sympathy he otherwise might not.
While I suppose it is fair game, the benefits of bringing such things up come nowhere near outweighing the risks of doing so. It simply is not necessary. I think Obama's campaign (based on the primary performance) is smart enough to figure that out.
Apparently I'm too dumb to follow your logic here, I need you to dumb down for me two things:
1) How calling a person who advocates war, yet is unwilling to fight themselves a chickenhawk results in the loss of intellectual authority?
2) How McCain citing his war experience as a qualifying factor is the same thing as questioning whether his war experience is detrimental to his abilty to lead our country?
I'm not sure we're on the same page. Here's where I'm coming from:
A. Charging somebody with being a "chickenhawk" suggests he lacks the moral authority to order the military into combat, because he never engaged in combat himself.
B. Declaring that somebody should not cite his military service as a qualification for being Commander in Chief suggests actual military service is irrelevant to ordering the military into combat.
If W's a chickenhawk because he was huffing coke in Texas when John McCain was flying combat missions over Vietnam, you can't legitimately argue that John McCain flying combat missions has nothing to do with his readiness as Commander in Chief. Decent arguments can be made for and against whether prior military service is germane in a Presidential election, but you can't have it both ways (and stay intellectually honest).
And my post was pointed at those who've yelled "chickenhawk" while now suggesting that McCain stay silent, not those who lambasted W for being gutless and would charge McCain with being an unreliable, unpredictable nervous wreck because he was tortured. Military service or the lack thereof is either relevant to everybody or relevant to nobody, and I think we agree on that point.
I'm not sure we're on the same page. Here's where I'm coming from:
A. Charging somebody with being a "chickenhawk" suggests he lacks the moral authority to order the military into combat, because he never engaged in combat himself.
B. Declaring that somebody should not cite his military service as a qualification for being Commander in Chief suggests actual military service is irrelevant to ordering the military into combat.
If W's a chickenhawk because he was huffing coke in Texas when John McCain was flying combat missions over Vietnam, you can't legitimately argue that John McCain flying combat missions has nothing to do with his readiness as Commander in Chief. Decent arguments can be made for and against whether prior military service is germane in a Presidential election, but you can't have it both ways (and stay intellectually honest).
And my post was pointed at those who've yelled "chickenhawk" while now suggesting that McCain stay silent, not those who lambasted W for being gutless and would charge McCain with being an unreliable, unpredictable nervous wreck because he was tortured. Military service or the lack thereof is either relevant to everybody or relevant to nobody, and I think we agree on that point.
I believe McCains son is serving in Iraq (or is it Afghanistan???) and his second son is finishing Naval Academy and soon will become an officer in the Marine Corps ready for tours over seas.
__________________ All Hell is breakin loose!!!!!
An unarmed person is a subject. An armed person is a citizen.
I didn't vote on the topic, but my belief is... if it's determined by someone that Mccain is not fit to lead based on what happened to him as a POW, that is not the same as determining whether his military background is an asset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolobotomy
A. Charging somebody with being a "chickenhawk" suggests he lacks the moral authority to order the military into combat, because he never engaged in combat himself.
I think you've warped the meaning of 'chickenhawk' to fit your beliefs on the issue. To me a chickenhawk is one who is willing to ask others to sacrifice, but unwilling to do so themselves. It's an elitist attitude, it's diminishing others sacrifice as less than yours.
Quote:
B. Declaring that somebody should not cite his military service as a qualification for being Commander in Chief suggests actual military service is irrelevant to ordering the military into combat.
I must have missed where this was suggested. I certainly don't believe that, but citing his military service and determining whether that experience is detrimental to his ability to lead are two seperate issues.
Quote:
If W's a chickenhawk because he was huffing coke in Texas when John McCain was flying combat missions over Vietnam, you can't legitimately argue that John McCain flying combat missions has nothing to do with his readiness as Commander in Chief. Decent arguments can be made for and against whether prior military service is germane in a Presidential election, but you can't have it both ways (and stay intellectually honest).
Of course that would be intellectually dishonest, but I have yet to see that arguement being made.
And my post was pointed at those who've yelled "chickenhawk" while now suggesting that McCain stay silent, not those who lambasted W for being gutless and would charge McCain with being an unreliable, unpredictable nervous wreck because he was tortured. Military service or the lack thereof is either relevant to everybody or relevant to nobody, and I think we agree on that point.
Ok, but I've not heard that arguement. Who says Bush was unfit because he lacked military expirence and says McCains is irrelevant? Of course that would be an obvious contradiction.
I didn't vote on the topic, but my belief is... if it's determined by someone that Mccain is not fit to lead based on what happened to him as a POW, that is not the same as determining whether his military background is an asset.
I think you've warped the meaning of 'chickenhawk' to fit your beliefs on the issue. To me a chickenhawk is one who is willing to ask others to sacrifice, but unwilling to do so themselves. It's an elitist attitude, it's diminishing others sacrifice as less than yours.
I must have missed where this was suggested. I certainly don't believe that, but citing his military service and determining whether that experience is detrimental to his ability to lead are two seperate issues.
Of course that would be intellectually dishonest, but I have yet to see that arguement being made.
I don't want to search through old threads because it really isn't that important, but I'm pretty sure two posters on this board have cried chickenhawk in the past, while now saying McCain's service is irrelevant. But I won't name names because even though I think it's pretty inconsequential, I could be wrong. Suffice it to say, I think it's intellectually dishonest to take both positions.
And you seem to be suggesting here--
I didn't vote on the topic, but my belief is... if it's determined by someone that Mccain is not fit to lead based on what happened to him as a POW, that is not the same as determining whether his military background is an asset.
and here--
I must have missed where this was suggested. I certainly don't believe that, but citing his military service and determining whether that experience is detrimental to his ability to lead are two seperate issues.
that it's ok to argue that torture as a POW has made McCain unfit to be President, but it's not ok to argue it made him more fit to be President. But I could be wrong, and maybe I'm just not following you all that well.
I don't want to search through old threads because it really isn't that important, but I'm pretty sure two posters on this board have cried chickenhawk in the past, while now saying McCain's service is irrelevant. But I won't name names because even though I think it's pretty inconsequential, I could be wrong. Suffice it to say, I think it's intellectually dishonest to take both positions.
And you seem to be suggesting here--
I didn't vote on the topic, but my belief is... if it's determined by someone that Mccain is not fit to lead based on what happened to him as a POW, that is not the same as determining whether his military background is an asset.
and here--
I must have missed where this was suggested. I certainly don't believe that, but citing his military service and determining whether that experience is detrimental to his ability to lead are two seperate issues.
that it's ok to argue that torture as a POW has made McCain unfit to be President, but it's not ok to argue it made him more fit to be President. But I could be wrong, and maybe I'm just not following you all that well.
I must not be making myself clear.
There are some that were POW's in a war that do not suffer from PTSD, and there are some who do. But, all of them made a great personal sacrifice serving in a war. So IMO, he deserves to be recognized for his service, I believe it an asset to his character. But, a seperate issue is if he is mentally fit to be President. It really doesn't matter if he was found not to be based on his service experience or some other trauma. I don't think the two go hand in hand. Does that make it clearer?
Just to add to the confusion.... while I see military service as an asset to ones character, I don't believe that equates to an aptitude to lead. I think people generously assume McCain would make a good military leader based on his military service.
I think the generalized meaning of "chickenhawk," as it applies here is:
"A politician or other person who promotes war without having had any personal experience of it; especially those who have avoided the experience."
Just my opinion, Kolo, but I don't think it has anything to do with the "courage" to send other men/women into battle.
My take, anyway....
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
Cosmic Defender Champion!
Apparently I'm too dumb to follow your logic here, I need you to dumb down for me two things:
Moon Lander Champion!
All Hell is breakin loose!!!!!
Linear Mode
