TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- what is 'heroic' about john mccain?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

what is 'heroic' about john mccain?

afaik, he spent time as a prisoner of war. some people consider him a war hero, but what exactly is heroic about being a prisoner of war? did he do something else or is 'war hero' label solely based on his time as a POW?

quote:

Vietnam operations McCain's combat duty began when he was thirty years old. In Spring 1967, Forrestal was assigned to join Operation Rolling Thunder, a bombing campaign against North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.[13][26] McCain and his fellow pilots were frustrated by Rolling Thunder's infamous micromanagement from Washington;[27] he would later write that "The target list was so restricted that we had to go back and hit the same targets over and over again.... Most of our pilots flying the missions believed that our targets were virtually worthless. In all candor, we thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn�t have the least notion of what it took to win the war."[26] By then a Lieutenant Commander, McCain was almost killed in action on July 29, 1967, while serving on Forrestal, operating in the Gulf of Tonkin. He was at the epicenter of the Forrestal fire, when a rocket accidentally fired across the carrier's deck and hit planes, including McCain's which had been waiting to launch. McCain escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded; McCain was struck in the legs and chest by shrapnel.[28] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[29][30] As Forrestal headed for repairs, McCain volunteered to join the short-staffed USS Oriskany. Prisoner of war John McCain's capture and imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a Soviet-made SA-2 anti-aircraft missile over Hanoi.[32][33][34][35] McCain fractured both arms and a leg,[36] and then nearly drowned when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi.[32] After he regained consciousness, a mob gathered around, spat on him, kicked him, and stripped him of his clothes.[37] Others crushed his shoulder with the butt of a rifle and bayoneted him in his left foot and abdominal area; he was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Loa Prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton" by American POWs.[37][38] Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to give him medical care unless he gave them military information, beating and interrogating him.[37] Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care[37] and announced his capture. His status as a POW made the front pages of The New York Times[39] and The Washington Post.[40] McCain spent six weeks in the Hoa Loa hospital, receiving marginal care.[32] Now having lost 50 pounds, in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white,[32] McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi[41] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week; they nursed McCain and kept him alive.[42] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[37] In July 1968, McCain's father was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater.[2] McCain was immediately offered a chance to return home early:[32] The North Vietnamese wanted a worldwide propaganda coup by appearing merciful, and also wanted to show other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially.[37] McCain turned down the offer of repatriation; he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.[43] McCain's refusal to be released was even remarked upon by North Vietnamese senior negotiator Le Duc Tho to U.S. envoy Averell Harriman during the ongoing Paris Peace Talks.[44] In August of 1968, a program of severe torture methods began on McCain, using rope bindings into painful positions, and beatings every two hours, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[37][32] McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession" that said he was a "black criminal" and an "air pirate".[32] He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable,[45] but as he would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[37] His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[46] He subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.[47] Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions",[37] with many enduring even worse treatment than McCain.[48] McCain refused to meet with various anti-war peace groups coming to Hanoi, not wanting to give either them or the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory based on his connection to his father.[37] From late 1969 on, treatment of McCain and some of the other POWs became more tolerable after disclosures to the world press of the conditions to which they were being subjected.[37] McCain and other prisoners were moved around to different camps at times, and later cheered the B-52-led U.S. "Christmas Bombing" campaign of December 1972 as a forceful measure to force North Vietnam to terms.[37][49] Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. The Paris Peace Accords were signed on January 27, 1973, ending direct U.S. involvement in the war, but the Operation Homecoming arrangements for POWs took longer; McCain was finally released from captivity on March 15, 1973.[50]

Pretty fucking impressive, even if he is a dickwad. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples that aren't even necessarily war/combat related.


btw, what is "afaik?"

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Pretty fucking impressive, even if he is a dickwad. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples that aren't even necessarily war/combat related. btw, what is "afaik?"

as far as i know

http://www.cfr.org/bios/662/

You might find this list useful, which didn't take that long for me to come up with, as many of them were easy enough to look up on the CFRs website:

1. Herbert Hoover: 31st American President.
   
   
2. Harry S. Truman: 33rd American President, Vice President under 32nd American President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
   
   
3. Dwight D. Eisenhower: 34th American President.
   
   
4. Hubert Humphery: Vice Preseident under 36th American President Lyndon Johnson.
   
   
5. Richard Nixon: 37th American President, Vice President under Dwight D. Eisenhower.
   
   
6. Gerald Ford: 38th American President, Vice President under Richard Nixon.
   
   
7. Nelson Rockefellar: Vice President under Gerald Ford.
   
   
8. Jimmy Carter: 39th American President.
   
   
9. George Pratt Shultz: Secretary of Labor under Nixon Administration (1069-1970), Secretary of the Treasury under Nixon Administration (1972-1974), and Secretary of State under Regan Administration.
   
   
10. Henry Alfred Kissinger: Secretary of State in the Richard Nixon administration.
    
    
11. Daniel Irvin Rather: a former news anchor for the CBS Evening News.
    
    
12. Consuelo Mack: Anchor and Managing Editor of Wealthtrack and former CNBC television personality.
    
    
13. Ethan Bronner: deputy foreign editor of The New York Times.
    
    
14. Zbigniew Brzezinski: National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter.
    
    
15. John C. Whitehead: Deputy Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, chairman of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation.
    
    
16. Brent Scowcroft: National Security Advisor under Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush.
    
    
17. George H.W. Bush: 41st American President, former CIA director, former UN Embassador under Nixon (1971-1973).
    
    
18. Bill Clinton: 42nd American President, former Governor of Arkansas.
    
    
19. Warren Minor Christopher: Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration.
    
    
20. James Woolsey, Jr.: former Director of Central Intelligence and former head of the CIA.
    
    
21. Vernon Jordan, Jr.: advisor in Clinton Administration.
    
    
22. Irving Kristol: founder of American Neoconservatism, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
    
    
23. Robert Kagan: co-founder of Project for the New American Century.
    
    
24. John Kerry: 2004 Democratic Party Presidential Candidate.
    
    
25. Lawrence Eagleburger: former Secretary of State under George H. W. Bush.
    
    
26. Colin Powell: Secretary of State under George W. Bush.
    
    
27. Paul Wolfowitz: former president of the World Bank Group, former Deputy Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush, Neoconservative think-tank, Project for the New American Century co-signer.
    
    
28. Condoleezza Rice: Secretary of State under George W Bush, Former National Security Advisor under George W Bush.
    
    
29. Dick Cheney: Vice President under George W Bush, Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush, Whitehouse Chief of Staff under Gerald Ford, former Halliburton CEO.
    
    
30. John McCain: 2008 Republican Party Presidential Candidate Nominee.
    
    
31. Barack Obama: 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Candidate Nominee.
    

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z http://www.cfr.org/bios/662/ You might find this list useful, which didn't take that long for me to come up with, as many of them were easy enough to look up on the CFRs website: I guess you guys needs false idols, heores, and saviors, Have fun with your illusion on choice.

I'm sorry, somewhere in the middle of all that insinuation, I lost your point.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I'm sorry, somewhere in the middle of all that insinuation, I lost your point.

No need to state the obvious, as amusing as it is. I did't expect you to get it in the first place. Go back to sleep, nothing to see here.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z No need to state the obvious, as amusing as it is. I did't expect you to get it in the first place. Go back to sleep, nothing to see here.

Excuse me, I just thought you'd have the balls to state whatever allegations you're implying rather than hide them in snark.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Excuse me, I just thought you'd have the balls to state whatever allegations you're implying rather than hide them in snark.

It's rather obvious, unless you're more daft than I thought. Now, please, do shut the fuck up kid. Or must you troll me in every thread with your stupid little insecurities?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z It's rather obvious, unless you're more daft than I thought. Now, please, do shut the fuck up kid. Or must you troll me in every thread with your stupid little insecurities?

Haha, ok, keep hiding what you mean behind snide, effete retorts - you're a lot less open to deserved criticism that way.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Haha, ok, keep hiding what you mean behind snide, effete retorts - you're a lot less open to deserved criticism that way.

Why thank you Leb, you're sparing me quite a bit of time engaging in a pointless exchange with you by not having to quote my very first post . It's not a hard inference really. Plus, I prefer you using your own grey matter for a change, despite how unfamiliar that may be to you .

Though I sympathize with McCain's experience, if the American's didn't feel like they had the right to tell the Vietnamese how to run their own country, there would not have been the Hanoi Hilton.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z It's rather obvious, unless you're more daft than I thought. Now, please, do shut the fuck up kid. Or must you troll me in every thread with your stupid little insecurities?

Could you explain it to me what this means?

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru Could you explain it to me what this means?

He can't, so he cops out by telling everyone else they are simply too stupid to understand.

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru Could you explain it to me what this means?

I'll give you a hint, the CFR, Bildergerg group, and Trilateral Commision have had top politicians and CEOs from all over the world attend meetings that went unreported in the press for years, and still go completely uncovered, not to mention are heavily guarded to maintain security and keep and kind of journalists or press completely out and the public absolutely in the dark. Doesn't sound very democratic to me. Especially when an unknown governor from Arkansas goes to meeting before his 1992 campaign and magically becomes president. That's just one of many examples. Some key funders are the Morgans, Rockefellars, and Rothchilds. That should tell you a little something. Ofcourse, it means absolutely nothing to some people, just pure coincidence.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov He can't, so he cops out by telling everyone else they are simply too stupid to understand.

I guess it's too bad you feel that way, you're really doing yourself a disservice.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I'll give you a hint, the CFR, Bildergerg group, and Trilateral Commision have had top politicians and CEOs from all over the world attend meetings that went unreported in the press for years, and still go completely uncovered, not to mention are heavily guarded to maintain security and keep and kind of journalists or press completely out and the public absolutely in the dark. Doesn't sound very democratic to me. Especially when an unknown governor from Arkansas goes to meeting before his 1992 campaign and magically becomes president. That's just one of many examples. Some key funders are the Morgans, Rockefellars, and Rothchilds. That should tell you a little something. Ofcourse, it means absolutely nothing to some people, just pure coincidence.

First of all, your allegation surrounded the Council on Foreign Relations, which is a far cry different than the Trilateral Commission, etc.

Second, your evidence consists of nothing other than "we don't know what they do behind closed doors" - which isn't really even true. The Council on Foreign Relations is akin to the National Honor Society - the leading foreign policy thinkers in the country are invited in order to create a forum for the free exchange of ideas. You might get that idea just by looking at its membership - it's basically a who's who of the foreign policy establishment in the United States. An invitation to join the CFR is considered the pinnacle of a career in foreign policy - it is basically an acknowledgment that you are one on the forefront of thinking and influence in foreign affairs.

It is not a secret society - it's membership is well-known, the events it puts on are indeed well-attended and frequent (and reported in the media from time to time). Your allegations about secret meetings are the board meetings - what organization invites reporters to their board meetings? Why should a private organization be completely transparent to the press? And furthermore, what does 'democracy' have anything to do with it? Only members have the right to know what goes on at meetings. If you want transcripts of their public meetings, well, they provide those:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/by_type/transcript.html

In addition, it is simply absurd to think that the CFR has some common agenda that all of its members push in concert. It comprises officials and academics from all theoretical and practical perspectives - these people rarely, if ever, agree with each other on anything. Your insinuation that Bill Clinton won the Presidency because of his membership in the CFR is REALLY absurd - George H. W. Bush was a member as well. You think the entire CFR orchestrated in concert (and you provide no evidence of how this could possibly be done) the election of a new member over the re-election of a well-respected President with a strong international affairs resume?

For goodness sake, Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton are both members of the CFR - you really want to tell me that they are in cahoots in some grand scheme to manipulate and deceive the entire world?

God, just take a look at what CFR publishes - whether through op-eds, pieces for their think tank, or in Foreign Affairs - if you can provide a common foreign policy agenda that is consistent through everything they publish, I'll put you in my will. CFR is about the free exchange of a wide and disparate array of viewpoints, nothing more.

So while you can sit in your basement and connect all the dots you want, you should know that you just look silly.

But I'm sure they invited Angelina Jolie to be a member of the CFR because she's such an important component to their plan to take over the world.

I've had the opportunity to discuss the CFR and its various events with several members, and I can tell you that they certainly do not have a common agenda of world domination or whatever it is you are alleging they do.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov First of all, your allegation surrounded the Council on Foreign Relations, which is a far cry different than the Trilateral Commission, etc.

Facts are not allegations, nice try.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Second, your evidence consists of nothing other than "we don't know what they do behind closed doors" - which isn't really even true.

If I have an hour long conversation of which I publicly distribute a selective clip of one minute, that's not exactly anything even remotely resembling any form of transparency.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The Council on Foreign Relations is akin to the National Honor Society - the leading foreign policy thinkers in the country are invited in order to create a forum for the free exchange of ideas. You might get that idea just by looking at its membership - it's basically a who's who of the foreign policy establishment in the United States. An invitation to join the CFR is considered the pinnacle of a career in foreign policy - it is basically an acknowledgment that you are one on the forefront of thinking and influence in foreign affairs.

Yes, war criminals like Henry Kissinger and Dick Cheney are at "the forefront of thining."

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov It is not a secret society - it's membership is well-known, the events it puts on are indeed well-attended and frequent (and reported in the media from time to time).

No shit. That's really funny coming from someone who's probably never set a foot in a masonic lodge or ever read a single gnostic text. I know what a "secret society" is, and certainly don't need an explanation from someone as clueless as you on the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Your allegations about secret meetings are the board meetings - what organization invites reporters to their board meetings? Why should a private organization be completely transparent to the press?

Gee, I don't know... maye because they're formulating policy? Which again is not a private enterprise to be kept out of public scrutiny.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And furthermore, what does 'democracy' have anything to do with it? Only members have the right to know what goes on at meetings. If you want transcripts of their public meetings, well, they provide those: http://www.cfr.org/publication/by_type/transcript.html

Sniplets don't mean a thing, but they certainly appease people like yourself. Tell me something I don't already know.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov In addition, it is simply absurd to think that the CFR has some common agenda that all of its members push in concert. It comprises officials and academics from all theoretical and practical perspectives - these people rarely, if ever, agree with each other on anything. Your insinuation that Bill Clinton won the Presidency because of his membership in the CFR is REALLY absurd - George H. W. Bush was a member as well. You think the entire CFR orchestrated in concert (and you provide no evidence of how this could possibly be done) the election of a new member over the re-election of a well-respected President with a strong international affairs resume?

The CFR is just one of the many big boys clubs, it jusp happens to be the least discreet one.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov For goodness sake, Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton are both members of the CFR - you really want to tell me that they are in cahoots in some grand scheme to manipulate and deceive the entire world?

US foreign policy (since WW2) has pretty much always been pretty fucked up regardless of weather it's a Democrat or Republican in office. I fail to see the point you're trying to make. Cheney might be the one of the biggest dicks we've seen in a while, but that's simply in relative terms. Politicians are (generally) nothing more than useful idiots that you're giving too much credit. They aren't exactly the ones calling the shots, it's their corporate master that are and they're simply doing their bidding. Name one foreign policy issue that's doesn't revolve around corperate interests or strategic interests (eventually relating to long term or short term corperate interests).

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov God, just take a look at what CFR publishes - whether through op-eds, pieces for their think tank, or in Foreign Affairs - if you can provide a common foreign policy agenda that is consistent through everything they publish, I'll put you in my will. CFR is about the free exchange of a wide and disparate array of viewpoints, nothing more.

Uhhh, no, there's isn't much difference at all between foreign policy issues once the presedent has already been set. Is there a single President with a dramatically different stance on Iraeli policy? Take a look at the current ones, not a single one of them can do jack shit about the Iraq war as it's already been set in motion. The end results as far as corporate interests go are going to be the same regardless.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov So while you can sit in your basement and connect all the dots you want, you should know that you just look silly.

LOL, what basement? It's nice and sunny outside. I hope you realize (and I think it should be apparent by now) that I don't really give a fuck about the former, regardless of how important such superficial things may be to you.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov But I'm sure they invited Angelina Jolie to be a member of the CFR because she's such an important component to their plan to take over the world. I've had the opportunity to discuss the CFR and its various events with several members, and I can tell you that they certainly do not have a common agenda of world domination or whatever it is you are alleging they do.

It's to bolster public image, nothing more. That's something you insinuated, not me. There's other organizations you don't know jack about for that task lol.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Facts are not allegations, nice try.

The only "fact" you provided was a partial list of membership. I can only work with what you give me.

quote:

If I have an hour long conversation of which I publicly distribute a selective clip of one minute, that's not exactly anything even remotely resembling any form of transparency.

I suggest you actually read the transcripts.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/1560...pe%2Ftranscript

There's a good one to start with - I think you'll see that they include a tiny bit more than a "one minute snippet."

quote:

Yes, war criminals like Henry Kissinger and Dick Cheney are at "the forefront of thining."

They formulate and implement US foreign policy. Regardless of whether or not you or I agree to it, they are extraordinarily influential and are at the forefront of their field. It just highlights again the disparate array of views and opinions among members of the CFR.

quote:

No shit. That's really funny coming from someone who's probably never set a foot in a masonic lodge or ever read a single gnostic text. I know what a "secret society" is, and certainly don't need an explanation from someone as clueless as you on the subject.

I didn't tell you anything about what a secret society is - I just pointed out something that isn't. I might not know the first thing about what legally constitutes a multi-national corporation, but I can tell you with reasonable certainty that the local Kwik-E-Mart doesn't fit the bill.

quote:

Gee, I don't know... maye because they're formulating policy? Which again is not a private enterprise to be kept out of public scrutiny.

And maybe they're dressing babies up like bunny rabbits. You are throwing out unsubstantiated allegations again. Mere application of logic would tell you that putting 100 people, with vastly different conceptions of the direction that US foreign affairs should take, in the same room for an hour doesn't lend itself very well to crafting a coherent, cogent, and unanimously approved foreign policy.

quote:

Sniplets don't mean a thing, but they certainly appease people like yourself. Tell me something I don't already know.

You didn't click on the link. Those are full transcripts (except for in a few cases).

quote:

The CFR is just one of the many big boys clubs, it jusp happens to be the least discreet one.

Great.

quote:

US foreign policy (since WW2) has pretty much always been pretty fucked up regardless of weather it's a Democrat or Republican in office. I fail to see the point you're trying to make. Cheney might be the one of the biggest dicks we've seen in a while, but that's simply in relative terms. Politicians are (generally) nothing more than useful idiots that you're giving too much credit. They aren't exactly the ones calling the shots, it's their corporate master that are and they're simply doing their bidding.

Well, your definition of "fucked up" foreign policy not withstanding, certainly you aren't about to deny any nuance or difference between various foreign policy doctrines over the past 50 years? This coordination bullshit is really simplistic.

quote:

Name one foreign policy issue that's doesn't revolve around corperate interests or strategic interests (eventually relating to long term or short term corperate interests).

Every policy has winners and losers. It's easy for you to cherry-pick corporate winners in any foreign policy decision. But if you're asking for foreign policy directives that I don't believe were directly motivated by corporate interests, than I'll throw out PEPFAR, UN Peace-keeping missions, efforts made through USAID and American participation in UNICEF and the WHO, as well as coordination of American and international NGO efforts through UNHCR and UNDP.

quote:

Uhhh, no, there's isn't much difference at all between foreign policy issues once the presedent has already been set. Is there a single President with a dramatically different stance on Iraeli policy? Take a look at the current ones, not a single one of them can do jack shit about the Iraq war as it's already been set in motion. The end results as far as corporate interests go are going to be the same regardless.

Wow, ok. Read international relations theory. Please. Or better yet, just read John Lewis Gaddis' work on foreign policy strategies during the Cold War or Andrew Bennett's "Taking Sides" - which presents the various arguments surrounding the twenty most critical foreign policy issues of the contemporary era from the perspective of policy-makers and leading analysts. That would be a good place to start.

If you can't see nuance between say, the George H. W. Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration, to say nothing of the current Bush Administration, then you've really drunk the Kool-Aid on this one.

quote:

LOL, what basement? It's nice and sunny outside. I hope you realize (and I think it should be apparent by now) that I don't really give a fuck about the former, regardless of how important such superficial things may be to you.

I don't really put a whole lot of value on basements... but it's nice to know that you don't care about them either.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z It's to bolster public image, nothing more. That's something you insinuated, not me. There's other organizations you don't know jack about for that task lol.

So if the CFR is just around to "bolster public image" - why use it to slime Senators Obama and McCain?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov So if the CFR is just around to "bolster public image" - why use it to slime Senators Obama and McCain?

Jesus, that's only one of the few things you've completely misread somehow.

Hint:

key word - Angelina Jolie

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Jesus, that's only one of the few things you've completely misread somehow. Hint: key word - Angelina Jolie

Work on your transitions from thought to thought. That would help.

Certainly they didn't invite Angelina Jolie to be a member of the CFR for her great work as a UNHCR Special Ambassador?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8022702217.html

Naw, doesn't fit the conspiracy.

seen this script before...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Work on your transitions from thought to thought. That would help. Certainly they didn't invite Angelina Jolie to be a member of the CFR for her great work as a UNHCR Special Ambassador? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8022702217.html Naw, doesn't fit the conspiracy.

You do realize that only adds to my point about bolstering image?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.