Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Jj Roberts
  • Tim Holloway
  • Piet Souris
Bartenders:
  • Himai Minh
  • Carey Brown
  • salvin francis

Heh, another good reason to vote Democrat this year

 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I probably would pusht the button. I might hate myself for it, but I couldn't conceive of letting my brother die.

How many people would you kill? We know you would kill one, how about 2? 10? 100? 1000? What if he told you that pushing the button would cause an earthquake in some foreign country and would kill 10,000 people? Would you still push the button?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Actually in 1968, LBJ was still trying to hold onto the myth that we could win the war. Nixon was talking about getting out but LBJ wouldn't let Humphrey talk about it until September. Probably cost Humprey the election.
Tom, maybe you should quote sources when you give this historical information. According to my research, Johnson announced he would not run again and would instead turn his attention to "de-escalating" the Vietnam conflict in March of 1968.
Anyway, enough of this. You're quoting Twilight Zone and Michael Moore to make your points, which is enough to signal that the conversation has veered pretty heavily out of the factual. I understand your disdain for the President's service in the Guard, but I don't take it as personally as you do.
Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
"Anyone who thinks that Bush did his duty by joining the ANG is irrational and not worth listening to."
I said no rational person has accused the President of a crime. And I stand by that statement.
The only "crime" I have heard anything about is this specious AWOL claim, which has already been disproven. The person who first brought it up (again, without evidence) is Michael Moore, whom I consider a very irrational human being. The only people I have heard of since then have all been basically parroting Moore, and none have offered any evidence.
To me, anybody who parrots Michael Moore without actually looking into the facts is not acting rationally. And anybody who looks into the facts - facts which clearly indicate that the President was never AWOL - and yet still uses the term AWOL, is not rational. It is irrational to accuse someone of a crime for which there is no evidence.
Anyway, as I said in my previous post, this conversation is no longer productive.
Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
How many people would you kill? We know you would kill one, how about 2? 10? 100? 1000? What if he told you that pushing the button would cause an earthquake in some foreign country and would kill 10,000 people? Would you still push the button?
I don't know, Tom. Would you kill Hitler's mother?
Joe
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 196
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I guess that's one way to ignore someone's argument
It's not just me, Tom. I don't have a single friend or associate who listens to what Michael Moore says.
Joe



Hey Joe, out of curiosity do you disagree with everything he says? What about his views on the sixth ammendment? Gay rights? Seperation of church and state? Or how about the fact that he thinks americans should get as much holiday as we do? I for one am totally against that What about corporate bosses getting jail time for fraud? There has to be something he says you agree with? Or is it dangerous to admit?
He may not exactly be the most intellectual political commentator but the guy is fun to watch. Watching a man his size try to chase after some business mans limo driving off has me running bets on whats most likely: Moore having a heart attack or Moore getting run over by an irrate corporate boss.
BTW Is it true that Moore once ran a pot plant for congress or something?
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
What if he told you that pushing the button would cause an earthquake in some foreign country and would kill 10,000 people? Would you still push the button?
I thought about this. You know what, Tom? I might do it. Does that answer your question? Are 10,000 strangers worth the life of my brother? Maybe, just maybe. If you caught me on a day when he was suffering horribly and the only other reasonable option was euthanasia, I might be able to convince myself that the earthquake could have happened anyway, and I might just push the damned button.
So what does that prove? Does it make me a good person, a bad person, or just someone who loves his family?
I tell you this: if it were my brand new baby boy, you wouldn't have to ask the question twice. I'd shut my eyes, pray to God to redeem my soul, and smash that button down. Does that answer your question?
The good news is that God doesn't make us make those kinds of decisions.
Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Hey Joe, out of curiosity do you disagree with everything he says?
No, Morgan, I simply ignore him.
Joe
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Of course we're conveniently ignoring that the only way to get certain jobs in the military is through volunteering. People cannot get drafted to become pilots. People cannot be drafted into the officer corps unless they were previously an officer. Further, there are only so many slots available for things such as OCS and flight training in the active duty military and it is not easy to get them. If you want to become a fighter pilot in the military, often the surest way to make that happen is to join the Guard. Further, miiltary aviation is extremely dangerous. It is in no way comparabe to joining to become a supply officer for example. It requires a longer active duty commitment of Guard and Reserve personnel who wish to become pilots than the active duty commitment of those who are drafted. I guess though the conclusion we are supposed to draw is that people who volunteered for military service are scum and those who waited around hoping not to be drafted have a much stronger moral position. Further we are also supposed to draw the conclusion that those who did not get sent to Vietnam were also scum, as opposed to those who did happen to get sent. The guy who joins the military because he wants to be in maintenance and not infantry is a scumbag as well it would seem.
Bush voluntarily undertook hazardous duty for his country. Is non-combat flying any more or less dangerous than combat flying? I can't say I know what the statistics are, but what I do know is that units I have been assigned to have lost personnel and aircraft flying non-combat missions and have at the same time lost no personnel or aircraft on combat missions.
Peace time military aviation is about as dangerous a job as there is. There are the ever-frequent occurences of IFEs (in-flight emergenies), which are life threatening situations for the aircrew. Smoke in the cockpit, hydraulic failure, electrical failure, stuck flaps and slats, hung munitions, stuck landing gear... all these are all too-frequent occurences which put the lives of the aircrew in jeopardy. The vast majority of the time the crew is able to safely bring in the aircraft, but it doesn't always happen that way. Aside from that, there are the aircrew mishaps which result in loss or damage.
In any event, the arguments I've seen so far are quite specious. Do you know what it means when someone loses their "flying status"? It happens all the time, in both the active and non-active elements. A certain training criteria lapses without being fulfilled (and there are many legitimate reasons this happens), you can get temporarily grounded. You have an illness and you can get temporarily grounded. If there's an air mishap (very common) then you can be grounded while the incident is being investigated. If you are allowed to take temporary duty in a non-flying position, your training criteria will lapse and you will be removed from flight status until you get yourself recertified. My point is that there are millions of common, and quite acceptable reason (to those who know what they're talking about at least) for a pilot being temporarily grounded. We used to jokingly tell these aircrewmen that they were stuck flying a desk when they were restricted from flight duties.
The only conclusion I can draw is that anyone who is belittling someone for becoming a military aviator really isn't up to speed on the topic. I've said it before and I'll say it again, read the previous link I posted. The charges being made against Bush, while I suppose sounding plausible to laymen, quite often sound comlpetely ridiculousto those who have actually served in the USAF or ANG.
One hundred percent of 1-As were not drafted in 1968. Let's see the facts if you care to back that up. The accusation that a person volunteering for military service is letting somebody "die in his place" is nothing but virulence. Logically, if you want to use this argument against the Guard and Reserves, then it would also have to apply to people who join the regular military as well. The person who actually is drafted and then doesn't show up is the one who is willing to let someone else die in his place, not the person who willingly undertakes military service.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
JM: I mean, it's not like we didn't spend the better part of fifty years ensuring Western Europe's democracy.
MB: Youre right, its not.

That's right, I forgot. My mistake. It was the Dutch military that deterred the Soviets from rolling across Western Europe.
 
Morgan Bath
Ranch Hand
Posts: 196
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
[b]
I don't know, Tom. Would you kill Hitler's mother?
Joe


Wouldn't have helped I think. In my opinion he was just the guy that filled the space. If not him, someone else. Europe was a mess. Anti-semitism was rife. In fact Hitler was probably barely noticable on the anti-semitic radar until after he entered politics. He needed an enemy, someone to blame for all the ills of the world. And as was his habit, he took what he needed to prove his point and acted as though it had been his belief since birth. Even had he had died in the Great War some other little tit would have taken the tide of anger, hatred and discontent that was brewing and used it for war.
We like to think of this one moster as the source of all evil of the time, but in reality the man was a schmuck that was pissed cos he had the artistic ability of a chimpanzee, and even less money. Read his book, its a serious let down (except his chapter on propganda). He like several million europeans of the time were itching for a fight. He was just shouting his ass off at the right time in the right place and so it became about 'him'.
The evil was in poeple, not the person.
 
Morgan Bath
Ranch Hand
Posts: 196
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

That's right, I forgot. My mistake. It was the Dutch military that deterred the Soviets from rolling across Western Europe.


Out of curiosity what evidence do we have that Stalin had concrete plans to 'roll across' western europe? I must have missed the news reels that decade. I was under the impression they tried to get out of East Germany in 1952. Perhaps that was a ploy, perhaps not. But I never saw any military build up aimed at the western europeans specifically. Some sword rattling agaisnt the nato troops who were rattling just as hard right back, yeah. Invasion forces? Have to disagree there.
The cold war was a useful diversion, but not something im gonna accept as a reason for unquestioned obedience to a foreign power
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
JP to TP: I tell you this: if it were my brand new baby boy, you wouldn't have to ask the question twice. I'd shut my eyes, pray to God to redeem my soul, and smash that button down. Does that answer your question?
I have a question, -- is there a threshold that you would not be willing to cross? Let's say that pushing the button would kill 1 million other babies. Would you still smash them?
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I have a question, -- is there a threshold that you would not be willing to cross? Let's say that pushing the button would kill 1 million other babies. Would you still smash them?
Can one realistically answer this question? How could such a thing be possible? How would you prove it to me?
Whether there is or isn't a threshhold is a pretty unproductive question. Maybe I'd convince myself that the man was lying and push the button, or maybe I would decide for the other babies and not push the button and then kill myself. Or maybe I'd simply kill the guy asking me. Or just go insane.
Anyway, anybody who wants to debate this bizarre ethical dilemma, feel free, but leave me out of it. I've said my piece, and been pretty damned forthcoming about it. I'd rather not discuss it any more, as it no longer has much to do with whether you'd save your own brother by getting him a deferment.
Joe
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Actually in 1968, LBJ was still trying to hold onto the myth that we could win the war. Nixon was talking about getting out but LBJ wouldn't let Humphrey talk about it until September. Probably cost Humprey the election.

Did you actually read the speech? We are "de-escalting" but we are sending more troops. Typically, this is the way the war was run from beginning to end. Put more troops where they could be killed while not letting them actually fight. We misunderstood this war right from the start.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I don't know, Tom. Would you kill Hitler's mother?

No. Murder is murder and rationalizing killing an innocent for the greater good is immoral. Suppose you found out that your son would grow up to be a serial killer. Would you smother him in his bed tonight?
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
The good news is that God doesn't make us make those kinds of decisions.

Actually He does every single day. It's just that the choices aren't quite as obvious as pushing that button.
I will add that I am disappointed in your answer.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I'd rather not discuss it any more, as it no longer has much to do with whether you'd save your own brother by getting him a deferment.

Actually it does. As Jason pointed out, there is a 2.5% chance that a draftee would die if sent to Vietnam (Are you sure Jason? That seems awfully high.) So you are deciding that you want someone else to take that risk. I guess it's easy to make that decision when the person who ends up taking the risk is a stranger.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I will add that I am disappointed in your answer.
Tom, given your statements in this thread, I'm not too worried. Your ethical stance is too hardline for me. You're willing to let millions of people die to satisfy your own personal ethics. I can't even begin to tell you how disappointed I am by that.
And, no, I wouldn't kill my baby. I'd simply do everything I could to make sure he didn't become a serial killer. But that's because the rules are different for my family.
Joe
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Of course we're conveniently ignoring that the only way to get certain jobs in the military is through volunteering.

You can ignore the main point if you want. The Guard was considered a cushy job during Vietnam and only people with influence could get those jobs. Bush used his influence to stay out of Vietnam.
As far as Bush's draft status goes, he was on a college deferrment which expired in June 1968. That virtually guaranteed that he would be called up.
I have some statistics for you:
Of the 26.8 million young men who reached draft age between 1964 and 1973, 16 million (60 percent) did not serve in the military. Of those who avoided service, 15.4 million received legal exemptions or deferments, and 570,000 evaded the draft illegally.
So removing those with deferrments (which Bush no longer had) and those who evaded the draft illegaly, that meant that of the 26.8 million men who reached draft age and did not get a deferrment less than 1 million did not get drafted. Virtually all of those were in the later years when the lottery was set up. Bush's odds of being drafted in 1968 were as close to 100% as you could get. The normal process was that your university would notify Selective Service that you were no longer a full time student and they would issue you a draft notice unless you another exemption or deferment. My brother got out of college in June, 1968 and was at boot camp in August.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Actually He does every single day. It's just that the choices aren't quite as obvious as pushing that button.
The vision of God put forth in this statement is stark in its coldness and utterly opposed to the loving, caring God of my understanding. My God does not put me in moral dilemmas; mankind creates those. If it were up my God, we'd never have an ethical dilemma, we'd simply live happy lives. But my God gave us free will, and we choose to exercise it by causing pain for one another, eventually leading to the ethical quandaries this thread is discussing.
Nothing in this thread had any thing to do with God. It was all about mankind.
Joe
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
You're willing to let millions of people die to satisfy your own personal ethics.

If you are willing to kill innocents for the greater good than you are on a long, slippery slope that leads right back to Hitler.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
If it were up my God, we'd never have an ethical dilemma, we'd simply live happy lives.

It still does not change the point that every day you are faced with exactly the type of moral dilemmas that we are talking about. Every day you must decide whether to push that button or not, it's just that the dilemma isn't as obvious as just pushing a button.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
If you are willing to kill innocents for the greater good than you are on a long, slippery slope that leads right back to Hitler.
That's your own opinion, Tom. I disagree. I think there are times when human beings do wrong things for the right reasons. This is the difference between ethics and morals. Doing something ethically wrong is not necessarily immoral, although it does not absolve you of having to take the consequences.
Ethically, it would be wrong to kill Hitler's mother. Morally? I don't know. But even if I decided it were morally right and I did it, I'd expect to be put in jail. I'd just have to reconcile myself with the thought that I saved millions of lives.
But let's continue on with the discussion. Hitler's mom is an innocent. Hitler was not, and I assume you would find it reasonable to assassinate Hitler once he gave the orders to gas the Holocaust victims. However, would it be wrong to kill Hitler as a baby? As a teenager? As he organized Germany? When on your hardline scale does it become okay to kill Hitler? How much blood does he have to have on his hands? Knowing as you do that millions will die, when is it okay to kill Hitler?
When is Hitler no longer innocent?
It's this whole "innocent" label that bothers me. The very fact that you differentiate between killing "innocents" and killing in general means that you have decided that you can determine who is innocent and who is not, and thus you, Thomas Paul, can decide who deserves to live and die.
Wow.
Joe
[ February 22, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]
 
Morgan Bath
Ranch Hand
Posts: 196
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
If you are willing to kill innocents for the greater good than you are on a long, slippery slope that leads right back to Hitler.


a) Hitler didnt believe in the greater good. Only the survival of the strongest. Social darwinism.
b) Do you honestly believe systematic industrial genocide for the sake of 'living space' is comparable to anything anyone here has condoned?
Can we not discuss without ludicrous comparisons?
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Every day you must decide whether to push that button or not, it's just that the dilemma isn't as obvious as just pushing a button.
Nor is it as easy as reading from a list of "Dos" and "Don'ts". Each decision is its own decision made both within the framework of your personal ethics and based on the situation and external circumstances. Circumstances don't change the ethics of a situation, but they do change the morality: what choice I'd make. I have purposely sinned, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad. I was equally "wrong" either way, but it's a lot easier to live with the one than the other. Sometimes your principles have to take a back seat to the exigencies.
Don't get me wrong; principles are important and I try to live by my principles. I try to give change back when I'm undercharged and I try not to flip off bad drivers. But those sorts of questions are easy compared with the issue we're facing today. And in that decision, you'd rather your brother go to war than you compromise your principles.
That sounds pretty self-serving to me.
Joe
[ February 22, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Anyway, this is a two-person discussion, with occasional chimes in. I'll see if anyone else has any input. Off to hang with the baby!
Joe
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Joe: That sounds pretty self-serving to me.
To get your brother out of potential danger is self-serving, and refuse to do it is self-serving too? In other words there is no difference?
I tell you this: if it were my brand new baby boy, you wouldn't have to ask the question twice. I'd shut my eyes, pray to God to redeem my soul, and smash that button down. Does that answer your question?
It does for me. You would kill 10,000 other people without thinking twice to save your baby.
Thanks for being so honest, Joe, I for one appreciate it. This explains a lot. I struggled to understand why American public doesn't care a damn when her President starts a war to protect America from a danger that soon turns out to be non-existent. As long as "we" maybe, just maybe will be safer, it's Ok. As for Iraq, we will pray to God that it will maybe it will be Ok also.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I am not sure you weren't simply too emotional when answering this question, though. You said once that you hoped you would be a part of resistance movement if you lived in Hitler's Germany. This would undoubtedly endanger your son. If you insist on your "yes, I would smash that button down" answer, you more likely would be busy killing Jews, or whoever you were told to kill.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Map: You would kill 10,000 other people without thinking twice to save your baby.
See, that's the problem with absurd hypothetical situations. They are absurd. Let's spin it around.
Would you sacrifice your child to save a stranger? Two people have a deadly poison, one your baby, one a stranger. You have one dose of antidote, and it can only save one person. Who do you give it to? If you say your baby, then that means you would kill at least one person to save your child. (And none of this crap about who does the killing - you are allowing someone to die to save your child.)
Either you would let your child die to save a stranger, or you would let a stranger die to save your child. For me, that's a pretty easy question. The stranger dies. And if you don't agree, please don't ever be a parent.
Let's continue, shall we? At this point, one dead stranger is acceptable. But ten thousand is not. Thus, the number of acceptable dead people to save my baby is a number between one and ten thousand.
Who decides what that number is? Let's let Map! Map, tell me exactly how many people it is acceptable to kill to save my baby.
You can do so as well, Thomas. But based on your big whooptie-doo about how killing is alwyas wrong, you would let your baby die in order to not kill the stranger, correct? You would rather let your own flesh and blood die rather than face the consequences of killing someone.
And Map, your business about equating it with geopolitics is disingenuous at best. Thomas stuck me in the position of "either do this or your baby dies". That's got nothing to do with the war in Iraq, except in your mind.
Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
you more likely would be busy killing Jews, or whoever you were told to kill.
I have no words for you ever again, Map.
Joe
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I have some statistics for you:
Of the 26.8 million young men who reached draft age between 1964 and 1973, 16 million (60 percent) did not serve in the military. Of those who avoided service, 15.4 million received legal exemptions or deferments, and 570,000 evaded the draft illegally.
So removing those with deferrments (which Bush no longer had) and those who evaded the draft illegaly, that meant that of the 26.8 million men who reached draft age and did not get a deferrment less than 1 million did not get drafted.


Your math is incorrect. You state that 16 million men of draft age did not serve in the military, and then you lump their numbers in with those who were deferred from service. The bottom line, and the only number that matters, is that out of 27 million eligibles, only 1.7 million were actually drafted (6% of total eligibles). Of those, 31.5% were sent to Vietnam. If my math is correct, that would mean the average draft eligible person in the US had a 1.8% chance of being drafted and sent to Vietnam. To be more specific, the average draft eligible person in this country at that time had approximately a 0.05% chance of being drafted, sent to Vietnam, and KIA.

Bush's odds of being drafted in 1968 were as close to 100% as you could get.


There is no evidence of this, only supposition. I notice that we've evaded the point that your accusation applies across the board to all people who joined the military (Guard, Reserves, or Regular) instead of sitting around and hoping not to be drafted. Hey they were working the system right? Just so they could avoid being one of those 0.05% who were drafted, sent to Vietnam, and killed. It doesn't matter that their volunteer service statistically increased the chances of them being sent into combat, does it? I also notice that we are avoiding the fact that flying a fighter aircraft in combat or otherwise is in no way a safe and "cushy" job.
So the argument is that because Bush volunteered for military service as a fighter pilot in the ANG he was taking thesafe and easy way out and avoiding certain service in Vietnam. Well, we've already shown that there was far from certain service in Vietnam to begin with. Ok, so now he has his safe and cushy fighter pilot job. The accusation is that he used his influence, although it should be noted that both Bush's deny this. Unlike Clinton, the Texas ANG unit Bush joined did not create a spot for him, a spot as a pilot existed and was open (Clinton later changed his mind and didn't join the Guard). As I know what dangers are involved with flying fighter aircraft, this whole condemnation of him (and by extension anyone who served in the military voluntarily) seems irrational.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
If you insist on your "yes, I would smash that button down" answer, you more likely would be busy killing Jews, or whoever you were told to kill.


That's certainly out of line, particularly in response to an answer given for a ridiculous hypothetical question that nobody can truthfully answer unless they are placed in such a situation (which in this case cannot happen anyway, unless of course someone has one of those boxes with the button on it).
 
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
This thread is about two angry posts away from being closed. I have zero interest in assigning blame here - but if people can't post without either offending or getting offended, deservedly or not, the thread will be closed. Thank you.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Thanks for being so honest, Joe, I for one appreciate it. This explains a lot. I struggled to understand why American public doesn't care a damn when her President starts a war to protect America from a danger that soon turns out to be non-existent. As long as "we" maybe, just maybe will be safer, it's Ok. As for Iraq, we will pray to God that it will maybe it will be Ok also.


So not only does Joe's answer to an impossible hypothetical question now reflect on the entire American public (hey if Joe would press that imaginary button, so would everybody else, right?), it now also by some stretch of the imagination equates to Iraq... :roll:
 
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Hate to point this out guys, but some of these above arguments are rather pointless and really going nowhere. (hint, hint - use this as a good point to jump off the merry-go-round)
Anyway, I was thinking of something related to the whole draft-dodge stuff:
My cousin was a captain in the US Army in 68. He was also shot in an ambush, along with his entire squad, (most were killed), so he was damn lucky to have gotten out alive. When I asked him about Clinton, he didn't really seem to care. He said, EVERYONE thought of dodging. Himself included. He said he didn't think he could live on the run... He volunteered for OCS so he could go in style as an officer. It was the times they lived in -quite different than today. He feels guys that got out deserve the credit for getting out. He was happy for those that got out cause they didn't have to go and fight a stupid war.
I wonder if John Kerry, is really angry at Bush or is HE using Viet Nam as a political tool? Don't you think John Kerry has a few really good friends that evaded the draft?? I'd think that he's got to...
I think these yahoos should be talking about exactly what they will be doing in Iraq after the election. IMO, the media is doing a HUGE disservice to the public was avoiding the REAL important issues here.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Your math is incorrect. You state that 16 million men of draft age did not serve in the military, and then you lump their numbers in with those who were deferred from service.

Jason, I think you missed the point. The question was, what was Bush's chances of being drafted in 1968. Since he no longer had a deferrment, his chances were 100%. In 1968, the only people not being drafted were those with a deferrment. The lottery did not start until 1969.
If Bush is arguing that he got the spot on merit without any political influence then in my opinion Bush is a liar. In 1968 there was virtually no chance of getting into the National Guard unless you knew someone.
Finally if you want to argue about the "high risk" of flying in the ANG in Texas in 1968 then please produce some casualty lists demonstrating this. I have shown that exactly one air national guardsmen died in combat in Vietnam.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Would you sacrifice your child to save a stranger? Two people have a deadly poison, one your baby, one a stranger. You have one dose of antidote, and it can only save one person.

You can only save one person. Your direct actions are not responsible for any deaths. Therefore ethically you can give the antidote to your child. But what if the antidote was already in the hands of the stranger and you had a gun. Would you shoot him to get the antidote? That would be unethical. that would be murder.
Map makes a good point. If you are willing to kill 10,000 strangers to save your child then how does that make you different than a concentration camp guard who is killing people to protect his family? That button is just a literary device. Real people are faced with these kinds of questions. Does a scientist build an atomic bomb for a dictator because his children are threatened? Does an army officer use poison gas on civilians because he is afraid his family will be killed?
Personally, I think there are many things worse than being dead.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
And Map, your business about equating it with geopolitics is disingenuous at best. Thomas stuck me in the position of "either do this or your baby dies". That's got nothing to do with the war in Iraq, except in your mind.

Actually it has everything to do with it. The reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq was that we saw Iraq as a threat to us. Destroy Iraq or they will destroy us. The linkage is clear to me.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by John Dunn:
I wonder if John Kerry, is really angry at Bush or is HE using Viet Nam as a political tool? Don't you think John Kerry has a few really good friends that evaded the draft?? I'd think that he's got to...

I think the problem is that they are both using their Vietnam experience as a political tool. It's funny that Bush can admit that he was an alcoholic party boy but he can't admit that he used the ANG to stay out of Vietnam.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I think this is a rather obcene debate.
To speculate about inner motivations of the probable oponents in the presidential elections regarding issues 35 years ago.
Are those spin docters and journalist who now earn their money by publishing their superficial articles ever been confronted with taking a decision regarding being involved in a dangerous war, from which lots of people did not return and not few became mad, drug adicted or both?
regards Axel
 
I don't get it. A whale wearing overalls? How does that even work? It's like a tiny ad wearing overalls.
Thread Boost feature
https://coderanch.com/t/674455/Thread-Boost-feature
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic