whoever wins, their first 2 years'll be difficult yet easy to explain away...

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:17 am

is it right to question the intentions of the fighters of our country????
Sure it is. I am as pro-military as one can be. If you don't think that guys join the military just to bomb shit and kill people you are crazy. Just because you wear a uniform doesn't mean your judgement and character can't be question. I am not even talking in the McCain context because I don't know enough about his military service, I am speaking in general terms.

speaking in general terms then, i do not question a motive of a soldier looking to achieve his directive. i don't know why we're talking about kids wanting to join to bomb stuff up or shoot things....if it is, it is...has nothing to do with questioning anyones motives...i do not.

if we're speaking specifically to what the topic is (which is mccains motives for volunteering to fight in hanoi), i don't think it matters that he had a death wish, a screw loose in his head, or he was in it for medals....fact is, he raised his hand to go and he went.

who are any of us, much less mr dickinson, to question the motives of a soldiers interest to participate?

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:20 am

The point about how many jets McCain crashed relates to the question of why he was allowed to continue to fly according to military regs, rad. He should've been grounded after his first crash, if not his second. But he wasn't because of who his daddy was. Special treatment.
speaking of the institution giving out special treatment, perhaps...but if you're critical of the establishment and/or institution giving out perceived special treatment, shouldn't your issue be with the establishment and/or institution and not so much the one receiving it?

speaking of the individual receiving special treatment, could it possibly be that he just wanted back in to serve and be successful?
I think I am being critical of both the individual who exploited the special treatment and the institution which gave it. I have much more respect for people who earn it for themselves.

so am i but if you or i were to achieve based on special treatment, i wouldn't view that as sub standard to those who didn't.

why are we so opposed to special treatment anyway? would you turn down a job offer paying millions from a colleague based on his associations with you even though you knew you were less qualified than the other applicants? c'mon...what's that all about?

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:22 am

Still waiting for rad to find any factual inaccuracies, rather than nitpicking about perceived tone.

I'm guessing I'll be waiting for awhile.

josh...facts are facts and can be 'written' in negative lights and positive lights.

joe somebody can write a glaringly positive article based on the same facts

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:31 am

^and has i'm sure of it.

btw - dramesi, another POW, has questioned the beatings that mccain claimed to have had stating that it's impossible to prove since mccain and his captors were the only ones present during these beatings.

LMAO.

if i were dickinson, i would've asked mr dramesi about our astronauts landing on the moon.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:33 am

kudos to dickinson though for acknowledging mccain, and others, followed the code of conduct by not accepting early releases...THAT IS A FACT.

i'm reading on to see how dickinson questions this and/or interprets mccains motives on this.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:37 am

is it right to question the intentions of the fighters of our country????
Sure it is. I am as pro-military as one can be. If you don't think that guys join the military just to bomb shit and kill people you are crazy. Just because you wear a uniform doesn't mean your judgement and character can't be question. I am not even talking in the McCain context because I don't know enough about his military service, I am speaking in general terms.

speaking in general terms then, i do not question a motive of a soldier looking to achieve his directive. i don't know why we're talking about kids wanting to join to bomb stuff up or shoot things....if it is, it is...has nothing to do with questioning anyones motives...i do not.

if we're speaking specifically to what the topic is (which is mccains motives for volunteering to fight in hanoi), i don't think it matters that he had a death wish, a screw loose in his head, or he was in it for medals....fact is, he raised his hand to go and he went.

who are any of us, much less mr dickinson, to question the motives of a soldiers interest to participate?

So, I volunteer to be a minister and bang a kid. My motive was good so all is well?

You can slant your argument anyway you want but nobody, and I fucking mean nobody, should be above answering for their behavior. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:37 am

butler's comments are comments that seem to me to be made by a very jealous individual...jealous of how successful mccain has become...

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:41 am

is it right to question the intentions of the fighters of our country????
Sure it is. I am as pro-military as one can be. If you don't think that guys join the military just to bomb shit and kill people you are crazy. Just because you wear a uniform doesn't mean your judgement and character can't be question. I am not even talking in the McCain context because I don't know enough about his military service, I am speaking in general terms.

speaking in general terms then, i do not question a motive of a soldier looking to achieve his directive. i don't know why we're talking about kids wanting to join to bomb stuff up or shoot things....if it is, it is...has nothing to do with questioning anyones motives...i do not.

if we're speaking specifically to what the topic is (which is mccains motives for volunteering to fight in hanoi), i don't think it matters that he had a death wish, a screw loose in his head, or he was in it for medals....fact is, he raised his hand to go and he went.

who are any of us, much less mr dickinson, to question the motives of a soldiers interest to participate?
So, I volunteer to be a minister and bang a kid. My motive was good so all is well?

You can slant your argument anyway you want but nobody, and I fucking mean nobody, should be above answering for their behavior. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

eric - you banged a kid because you can't help your deviate nature....it's a crime

mccain volunteered to go to hanoi for glory as per dickinson....so what? his motives for wanting to participate should be questioned? are you serious?

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:46 am

We shall agree to disagree, you apparently think because a man raises his hand to be a soldier that absolves him from any and everything that happens while wearing a uniform. I think that is wrong.

If you try to play hero for medals and get your platoon captured or killed then you are a shitbag. I don't care if you are in a uniform or not. I don't care if you were the only one who raised his hand.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:03 pm

We shall agree to disagree, you apparently think because a man raises his hand to be a soldier that absolves him from any and everything that happens while wearing a uniform. I think that is wrong.

If you try to play hero for medals and get your platoon captured or killed then you are a shitbag. I don't care if you are in a uniform or not. I don't care if you were the only one who raised his hand.

negative.

i am saying that if a man raises his hand to be a soldier, i am not questioning his motives.

i've said nothing about absolving anyone from any and everything that happens while wearing a uni...where have i said that? you are getting way too emotional bud.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:06 pm

dickinson goes on to quote lobbyists as his primary source of information re: wasteful military spending and how mccain backdoored carter into signing a bill to replace the carrier 'midway'

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:09 pm

dickinson suggests that the nancy reagan only endorsed mccain because he was the party nominee....so?

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:10 pm

I am not emotional at all. Not in the least.

How can you not question motives? If the guy has serious issues and a hero complex, would you want him taking your kids into battle? Getting people killed because he needs the rush of bullets flying! That is ok because he raised his hand? Dude, surely you are just messing with me?

AdGator02 · Post by **AdGator02** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:10 pm

rad, how long have you been reading that article? must be really long or you're a slow reader.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:17 pm

i'm reading, cooking, and working on some stuff around the house at the same time....sorry.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:19 pm

dickinson gives mccain props for bucking reagan on lebanon...so does rollingstone, macneil/lehrer newshour, nytimes, and washington post.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:32 pm

I am not emotional at all. Not in the least.

How can you not question motives? If the guy has serious issues and a hero complex, would you want him taking your kids into battle? Getting people killed because he needs the rush of bullets flying! That is ok because he raised his hand? Dude, surely you are just messing with me?

dude - you're talking about raping children...not me...that's a bit emotional imho.

if you're interested in what dickinson is saying, you should read it...he doesn't say mccain gets people killed because he likes the rush of bullets flying...he says mccain's motive for volunteering to join the bombing effort in hanoi had to do with the prospect of obtaining medals.

where in that last statement does it talk about:

a - becoming a priest and raping children
b - getting people killed because he likes the rush of bullets flying
c - being a soldier absolves him of anything and everything that happens while wearing a uniform
d - paving roads to hell
e - having a hero complex

in it's simpest form eric, i "believe" dickinson is talking about medals to be earned as a way to shift focus on mccains motives to volunteer to fight as opposed to what mccain might have us believe that his motive to volunteer was to serve his country. nothing more about that statement, and nothing less. it's just my opinion that a soldiers motives to fight should not be questioned...rather, his commitment to service should be admired and honored (again, to be simple about it and more matter of fact for you - he served to protect...why question a soldiers motives? to dishonor a person who has served you?)

AdGator02 · Post by **AdGator02** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:34 pm

I think you're just trying to up your post count.

Tipmoose · Post by **Tipmoose** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:38 pm

(this is a general statement and not intended to point fingers at anyone on this forum)

Some folks question a soldiers motives because they don't have the stomach for the brutality of war. And later on, when the soldier does what he's trained to do, kill people and blow things up with extreme prejudice, those same people can avoid any perceived responsibility for those actions. They are safe in their sheltered worldview and can point out that "THEY had nothing to do with the killing and brutality. THEY didn't agree with it to begin with, and that it MUST be because of the bloodthirsty soldier that it happend. And therefore, any negative SOCIAL implication that can be made should not apply to THEM".

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:39 pm

I am not talking about McCain or Dickinson I made that perfectly clear. You asked if a soldier's motives should be questioned and I said yes. I specifically said that I don't know about McCain's service record and I was speaking in the generalist of terms.

The conversation is irrelevant because you already have your mind made up. I bet you if some Sgt. was taking your son into battle you would have a different opinion. It's ok though Rad, I understand that you like to try and rattle people's cages. No big deal.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:40 pm

dickinson's article is now touching on the keating 5...article does not cover what was discussed during those meetings.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:43 pm

I am not talking about McCain or Dickinson I made that perfectly clear. You asked if a soldier's motives should be questioned and I said yes. I specifically said that I don't know about McCain's service record and I was speaking in the generalist of terms.

The conversation is irrelevant because you already have your mind made up. I bet you if some Sgt. was taking your son into battle you would have a different opinion. It's ok though Rad, I understand that you like to try and rattle people's cages. No big deal.

i love ya bro....and i wouldn't question your motives if you decided that growl and GC were actually the good guys and that the BA was full of shit...would never question your motives.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:44 pm

I think you're just trying to up your post count.

I'm going to start awarding medals. We had stars, but someone made me take them down.

AdGator02 · Post by **AdGator02** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:45 pm

ah, rad's getting all twitter up in here to gobble up medals. i get it now.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:45 pm

Horseshit. You'd be IMing growl in the next 5 minutes.