McCain the POW

[Paddy]

Lots of guys were POW's, lots were wounded and many lost their lives.  McCain ain't nothin' special.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Lots of guys were POW's, lots were wounded and many lost their lives.  McCain ain't nothin' special.

some of thel folks who viewed it from a lil closer have a diferent opinion

[Paddy]

And what might that opinion be, O Wise and Articulate One?  I was in that war and saw it up close and personal and that's my opinion.

[Lee]

True.  But they weren't sons of the Navy's Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command (thanks for the correction cassandrasdaddy), or held in the Hanoi Hilton under GRU supervision for nearly five years.  And they aren't running for President. 
I admire McCain tremendously for his service and what he went through, although I still have concerns about this. Hopefully, they are unfounded.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

And what might that opinion be, O Wise and Articulate One?  I was in that war and saw it up close and personal and that's my opinion.

you were in thehanoi hilton with mccain?blessed with the fine medical treatment afforded our guys by the comrades after you were wounded?  turne ddown preferential treatment? early release because you believed in principal? damn riley i never knew you had it in you. my sarcasm notwithstanding i do sincerely thank you for your servicein that era. and since it might be tuff to tell i genuinely mean the thanks.  but i meant the earlier stuff too

[Paddy]

No, I was on active duty between 65 and 68.  I wasn't dumb enough to get captured.  Some of my friends were wounded and some were killed.  What is your point, anyway?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

that some of those dumb bastards that weren't as smart and talented as you and who were with him in hanoi seemed to have a different opinion than you.  might be a question of perspective or maybe just attitude

[grampster]

You're a young man, Iain.  That makes you quite sure of yourself.  The young tend to believe more in what they are told because they haven't been around long enough to experience a good deal of reality.  You seem to lend moral equivalence
to strapping bombs on retarded children and send them into market places to explode and threatening terrorists with barking dogs.  (As for the buggery and dog bites, links and proof please.  And not quotes from released terrorists, please.)

I've been reading your posts for several years now and have noticed an improvement in your grasp of reality.  A few more years will continue to season you, I think.

[Iain]

Whilst pointing out the wrongs of one situation, it should never be necessary to divulge a great long list of things what I consider to be worse. My posts are probably long enough as is.

At no point did I equate Abu Ghraib with terrorist actions, but you equated it with 'teasing', so tell me who has the greater grasp on reality. You can find 'seem to' wherever you like, makes your counter-arguments easier eh? Sillier too.

http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/iraq/tagubarpt.html#ThR1.9

ARTICLE 15-6 INVESTIGATION
OF THE
800th MILITARY POLICE BRIGADE

...(S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles)
to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least
one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

7. (U) These findings are amply supported by written confessions provided by several of the suspects, written statements provided by detainees, and witness statements.

 (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses

(U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and
perhaps a broom stick.

That'll probably cover it.

There are many many things I'm unsure of, but I am sure the moral equivalence here is to be found in those who justify the above with either 'but they're worse' or 'they did it first'. Arguments that the very young should discard. Kindergarten young. Spare me the wise old man routine.

[roo_ster]

Iain:

So, you make no distinction between organizations that brutalize wholesale as a matter of policy and those that do so against policy...and prosecute to the fullest extent possible those who do brutalize?

Moral equivalence, my fourth point of contact.

[Iain]

I guess someone is adding whole paragraphs to my posts that I can't see.

Of course those who brutalise as a matter of policy are worse than the abuses at Abu Ghraib. We're talking about referring to Abu Ghraib as teasing, which justifies sodomy and inflicting dog bites as teasing. If that is teasing, I'd hate to see the horseplay, it'd probably involve real horses.

It wasn't teasing, it was abuse. You cannot explain it away as teasing, or hazing or a bit of fun. It was abuse, and it was recognised as such by the US authorities. It was not justified in their eyes, it was not acceptable to them because others did worse, or did it first. That is all I said, all I'm saying.

It is interesting to see who deliberately misunderstands.

[geronimotwo]

no

but lets entertain your fantasy a moment.  what do you imagine they got on him?  remember since all we are dealing with is what happens between your ears the skys the limit

are you another paulista by any chance?

maybe they took pictures of him nude, and made him pose with other pow's