Who do you R-E-S-P-E-C-T More? McCain or Aretha?

well, that was quite the spectacle..

 

hey when mcain was doing what y'all say for the gas companies were y'all still buying gasoline as a form of some kind of fucked up protest?......was there gasoline in those hippie vans I am assuming y'all drove to Washington to protest in?

Talking shit about JM is kind of a low class move at this time....y'all had your chance....now its just parrot talk and piling on

for shame

 

Vietnam has oil?

 

Even if it does i don't see how it negates the heroism he showed in the line of duty... To the detriment of his own health.

There is no greater love.

 

No, the first paragraph is bullshit.

Twice as many bombs dropped just in Rolling Thunder as for all of the War in The Pacific against Japan, with the politicians picking the targets, they didnt have the technoligy for surgical strikes. Even the CIA says 80% of the casualties where civilians in 1966.

They were bombing the crap out of anything built up, and they knew it.

Kudos to him for helping with the fire and surviving as a POW, but he would have known full well he was taking out civilians in those sorties

 

A practice that started as early as WWI. Total warfare. But sure, put it on the shoulders of a dead senator.

 

This^^^


But I've met Tom Petty, so there's that.

 

^Yeah I was just thinking about him being a bit hawkish

I respect what he endured in Vietnam

Edit, damnit i thought i was posting under a completely different post and i'm not gonna go back and quote it now.

 

Had our chance? Indeed, and many of us took it. McCain was part of the towel tossing republicans who took a dive for cash and prizes. But really, the whole republican party knew Obama would waste a silver spoon fed establishment politician. And he did. Then they gave the nod to Romney? Really?

While I don't look at McCain with any fondness, I'm not inclined to cheer his death. However, I would have gleefully cheered if he had been voted out of office much sooner. Hell, he may have lived longer. I've said before that Americans don't have any friends in Washington. McCain was near the top of that list for a long time.

 

Modern American warfare has always been about dropping bombs from a distance. Just look at the casualty rates over the last few wars from military personnel on the ground. They weren't very good at fighting the Japs and resulted to just nuclear bombing and fire bombing civilians in plain murder. They weren't much better at fighting the Germans either resulting in much of the same. They couldn't win in the jungle either, had to bomb civilians. Didn't fair too well in the desert either, have to still bomb civilians.

That's what America does, it bombs countries. That's all it has up their sleeve. It's always the first reaction. Drop some bombs.

Truth is all the gangster bros and redneck gungho folks don't make for good soldiers. America has numbers and technology after taking all the German scientists after WW2, but all they really have are bombs in their military might. That's all they can do.

And they were even banned from flying night bombing missions in WW2 because they couldn't read a map and always bombed French civilians towns and villages. Always bombing and killing civilians.

 

what a sorry loaded question. both - for different reasons.
Both were great Americans

 

American marines kicked the Japanese off a whole lot of islands without extensive bombing. And it wasn't the Americans shooting rockets into London because their Navy couldn't get the job done.

 

V2 rockets were used to demoralise their opponents, not to take them out like nuclear weapons and incindary bombs. Everybody should know by now that the casualties in war have always tilted to the civilian side. The biggest factor for the V1 & V2 was to keep the English on their toes, they weren't exactly weapons of mass destructions. It was more gamesmanship saying "hey we can do damage from over here too you know."

But that's just how wars have always been rife with civilian casualties. There's no point fighting a war if you don't have a population anymore. Not just modern either, long time ago too, when besieged a fort they throw diseased animal carcass over the walls. It's all demoralisation. Demoralise the population and you're already half way to victory. Unfortunately that means civilians are going to die.

I know there's a few scenarios to a aerial bombing run especially in the WW2 era with concussion strategy etc. But it's still all for demoralising purposes. Civilian, soldier, political.

I also don't think German strength was ever in its navy, if it was I think the allies would have had a much harder time crossing the channel. Though we had good U-Boats, but many of them were up north because ships kept bombing civilian towns in Norway and civilian transport ships were being sunk by the allies too, so many U-Boats were used to stop this and allow civilians to flee to provinces up north.

But anyway my point was more to do with why people would condemn someone for bombing a civilian town when all through history, that's what they've done.

 

So we can't criticize someone complicit in war crimes if we didn't boycott his associates? That doesn't even make sense. And yes, I believe many of us who critique shitty people do try and live ethical lives, to answer your question. This reminds me of a comic

 

However the Germans were actively trying to develop nuclear weapons. They weren't going to use them if they had? It's not a defect one side got them first.

And the English already were on their toes fearing an invasion and fighting the Battle of Britain . All the rockets did was kill civilians.

Fair enough, but I wasnt the one who called an entire nations method of warfare into question, including the war against the Japanese. That was very disrespectful.
And i'm a guy who thinks the soldiers of the Wehrmacht should be honored and not removed from history.

 

hemp for fuel..

 

nvc had migs, you cant out run a mig loaded with bombs. I don't know McCains story but do know bombing runs over Vietnam were no piece of cake ..

 

They abandoned the nuclear effort because they knew that it would take more years to develop and they wanted the war to be over by the time of its development. They sank most of the uranium etc into deep lakes which would still be present today.

I'm not here to divert anything we did in the war or any tactics, but I don't feel I was wrong in saying since WW2 the American tactic to win wars was to bomb civilians because it's what we've seen since WW2. Even the cold war. Though not a full scale war, threats were all about bombs and how many bombs and what kind of bombs we can drop to kill the population. No disrespect there, I've already said, that's how you win wars especially in this modern time. Sorry if it came out wrong, but I was just sarcastically exploring the realistic implications of the surrounding events. That being. When you win wars from dropping bombs and demoralising your opponent and those tactics work and support the American way of life of Freedom and all they have because of it, why would you condemn one person for following through with the orders? Especially when those orders give you the freedom of living today. It doesn't make sense to me.