I wonder what type of service he did. I mean, it's got to be a major security issue for everybody around him to have a senator's son--never mention the son a leading presidential candidate--in a war zone.

And I'm not saying this to imply that McCain's son is a coward or McCain is an evil hypocrite who got his son some cushy desk job or anything of the sort. I'm simply wondering how the military handles combat assignments when one of the soldiers present, by his very name, would seem to make him (and those around him) a very high-priority target.

I didn't know he had a son in Iraq. Glad he's back safe.

By the way, is this his black kid?

Pocket Ninja: son some cushy desk job or anything of the sort

I suppose you could ask McCain himself. His father was an admiral when he was captured by the North Vietnamese and he was a lieutenant in an A-4 over Hanoi.

Much respect. McCain is one of the few who can't be touched by Michael Moore.

Now let's get the rest of them back home soon.

TheConvincingSavant: Much respect. McCain is one of the few who can't be touched by Michael Moore.

Now let's get the rest of them back home soon.

Yeah, we'd definitely like to have the real Marines back home, instead of you.

cameroncrazy1984: TheConvincingSavant: Much respect. McCain is one of the few who can't be touched by Michael Moore.

Now let's get the rest of them back home soon.

Yeah, we'd definitely like to have the real Marines back home, instead of you.

Bah, real men are in the Maureens.

/Redhead thread!

muck4doo: y the way, is this his black kid?

Of course not. They don't let darkies in the military.

If you're a McCain, you have to serve...it's in the blood.

So, including McCain, how many Congressional hawks have kids serving?

1? 2?

TheConvincingSavant: Now let's get the rest of them back home soon.

Agreed. 100%.

/I don't think I'd like to be touched by Michael Moore...

How does his son's personal choices have anything to do with him?

Lionel Mandrake: So, including McCain, how many Congressional hawks have kids serving?

How is that question even relevant except as an ad hominem? This country has an all-volunteer military. No parent "sends" their kids to war unless the kid signs the enlistment contract on the dotted line of his own free will. No parent should.

BackAssward: How does his son's personal choices have anything to do with him?

Could have used you in a few of "Bush's daughter's" threads.

BackAssward
In reality it doesn't. But it is easy for detractors to point and say, you wouldn't want your own son to be on the front lines would you?

And who would answer "Yes, I'd love my son to be on the front line of a war"?

Nobody would say that, so it is an easy hit, until you say it to somebody who truly has seen it all like McCain. several generations of Military men in front line combat.

MasterThief: Lionel Mandrake: So, including McCain, how many Congressional hawks have kids serving?

How is that question even relevant except as an ad hominem? This country has an all-volunteer military. No parent "sends" their kids to war unless the kid signs the enlistment contract on the dotted line of his own free will. No parent should.

Hardly ad hominem. It's a fair question. NO ONE said anyone "sent" their kids--but rather, how many hawks have children serving. Entirely different question, and that you'd spin it as such is telling.

muck4doo: By the way, is this his black kid?

No, it's the gay one.

Pocket Ninja: I wonder what type of service he did. I mean, it's got to be a major security issue for everybody around him to have a senator's son--never mention the son a leading presidential candidate--in a war zone.

It's happened before. One of them even won the Medal of Honor. Dude led an assault on Utah Beach while using a farking cane, and it's argued that he saved many lives by doing so.

hubiestubert: MasterThief: Lionel Mandrake: So, including McCain, how many Congressional hawks have kids serving?

How is that question even relevant except as an ad hominem? This country has an all-volunteer military. No parent "sends" their kids to war unless the kid signs the enlistment contract on the dotted line of his own free will. No parent should.

Hardly ad hominem. It's a fair question. NO ONE said anyone "sent" their kids--but rather, how many hawks have children serving. Entirely different question, and that you'd spin it as such is tellingtrolling.

FTFY

In other news, I support a mandatory 2-year sign-up for our young people. It'd help give them the discipline they need to get through life. And, perhaps it'd make our lawmakers less likely to get *into* wars. But that's just my feeling on the subject. YMMV.

cameroncrazy1984: TheConvincingSavant: Much respect. McCain is one of the few who can't be touched by Michael Moore.

Now let's get the rest of them back home soon.

Yeah, we'd definitely like to have the real Marines back home, instead of you.

bwahahahahahahaha



/Semper Fi

TheConvincingSavant: Now let's get the rest of them back home soon.

hahaha, how's life in the Marine Core dude?

MasterThief: How is that question even relevant except as an ad hominem?

You can take it that way if you please. My point was that people with less at stake are inclined to make decisions differently.

Would you agree with the general statement that "Washington is out of touch?" This is just another case of that, IMO...and in this case, young lives are at stake.

Why would his son not serving say anything about him?

Pocket Ninja: I'm simply wondering how the military handles combat assignments when one of the soldiers present, by his very name, would seem to make him (and those around him) a very high-priority target.

Don't know about now, but when McCain was shot down and captured during the Vietnam War, his father was a very high ranking Admiral. FDR's sons served during WW2 while he was in office.

BackAssward: How does his son's personal choices have anything to do with him?

Are you one of those that complain that the Bush duaghters aren't in Iraq?

goeniegoegoe: hahaha, how's life in the Marine Core dude?

Be nice to TF's favorite "marine core soldier" you Dutch bastard!

/I was at OCS with Pataki's son

From link in link:
According to three GOP sources present at the closed meeting of the House Republican Conference, the Arizona senator said that when his son first arrived in the country, he reported seeing IEDs everywhere - but when he recently left, some seven months later, Iraq had become so safe he was handing out soccer balls.

Isn't this essentially the same shiat McCain was saying.

Happy to hear he got home safe.

Also, I don't think anyone questions his military credentials, as the headline would imply.

Shouldn't his son be getting pretty close to retirement age?

As I understand it, Jimmy McCain is a lance corporal deployed to Anbar Province. McCain actually tried to get the story killed because he was worried about security (the mujahideen would dearly love to bag his son, of course). McCain hasn't exploited this on the campaign trail. He never mentions it.

Well, I WAS going to argue against 100 more years in Iraq, but since his son is serving, I guess I don't have a leg to stand on...

I Said: Happy to hear he got home safe.

Also, I don't think anyone questions his military credentials, as the headline would imply.

I don't think anyone who knows anything about McCain would question his military credentials even if his son weren't serving in the USMC.

ahab: /I was at OCS with Pataki's son

I want to go to OCS

Fark U: well sorry, i just can't support illegal invasions, regardless of the reasonings.

Good thing this wasn't an illegal invasion then.

MickeyD: I want to go to OCS

It's overrated. ;) I might just be bitter though, since I broke my foot week 5 the first time I went and got sent home with pneumonia week 9(!!!!) the second time I went.

Pocket Ninja: I wonder what type of service he did. I mean, it's got to be a major security issue for everybody around him to have a senator's son--never mention the son a leading presidential candidate--in a war zone.

And I'm not saying this to imply that McCain's son is a coward or McCain is an evil hypocrite who got his son some cushy desk job or anything of the sort. I'm simply wondering how the military handles combat assignments when one of the soldiers present, by his very name, would seem to make him (and those around him) a very high-priority target.

As the son and grandson of Admirals McCain himself was in a similar situation when he served and was taken prisoner. Once his Viet Cong captors realized who he was they offered to release him early, a ploy on their part for the publicity that would bring. He refused to leave before the other prisoners and got himself several more years of beatings for it.

ahab: Fark U: well sorry, i just can't support illegal invasions, regardless of the reasonings.

Good thing this wasn't an illegal invasion then.

So it begins . . .

I've always believed that if you were to put a rifle in the hands of your average Hannity / Kristol / Wolfowitz type and tell them that they had been conscripted for military service in Iraq or Afghanistan, they would collectively defecate themselves and scamper like frightened rabbits to the Canadian border. I'll never vote for McCain because of his policy stances, but I do respect him and his family's record of service -- as well as the fact that they have never been too cowardly or felt that they were "too good for" military service.

In comparison, this makes Mitt "My sons are serving their country by helping me get elected" Romney look like a fairy.

ahab: MickeyD: I want to go to OCS

It's overrated. ;) I might just be bitter though, since I broke my foot week 5 the first time I went and got sent home with pneumonia week 9(!!!!) the second time I went.

You know, it really worries me when you say that because I know you're a lot more athletic than me. Stop freaking me out!

After reading this artical I like McCain a little more now.

BTW Fark U-the invasion was not illegal and regardless of who is President in 2009-we will not pull out of Iraq.

I don't personally like McCain, but if he wins, at least he'll be better than Bush.

But then again, so would a moldy grilled cheese sandwich.

Well, right wingnuts can tear McCain down for not being sufficiently orthodox and lefties can blabber about "100 years" all they want, but McCain is an authentic guy. His patriotism isn't fake and his family has always served. He doesn't change his view because his own son could be killed. I don't agree with him on everything, but he isn't contrived and he isn't an empty suit - unlike the rest of the candidates. It might be refreshing to have a real person in the Oval Office for once.

I Said: So it begins . . .

Well, it IS the politics tab...

MickeyD: You know, it really worries me when you say that because I know you're a lot more athletic than me. Stop freaking me out!

Females have a better chance of making it through if they don't get a horrible injury. Both times I went, the female platoon had about a 35% graduation rate, male platoons had about 50%.

MickeyD: I know you're a lot more athletic than me

You gotta train more!

EIP

ahab: Females have a better chance of making it through if they don't get a horrible injury. Both times I went, the female platoon had about a 35% graduation rate, male platoons had about 50%.

Well, that's good to know.

goeniegoegoe: You gotta train more!

EIP

I'm not sending you pics of my tits, so quit hassling me

hubiestubert: Hardly ad hominem. It's a fair question. NO ONE said anyone "sent" their kids--but rather, how many hawks have children serving. Entirely different question, and that you'd spin it as such is telling.

So you are saying (and please correct me if I am misstating you) that only people who have served or have children serving in the military are allowed to view war as a legitimate tool of national policy. The only way this statement can possibly be true in a society is if there is some "warrior class" of families within that society where everyone serves in the military, and thus get to have opinions on issues of war and peace. Doesn't that strike you as a little bit dangerous to a democratic society? In fact, if I recall my history correctly, it was precisely to avoid this sort of professional military class that Congress has enacted programs like land-grant colleges, ROTC and affirmative action within the military - to ensure that the military would reflect American society and ultimately be accountable to it, and not be this isolated, unique, special class of people that get to write their own orders. (Ask the Japanese, Germans, Chileans and Argentinians how that worked out for them.)

xanadian: In other news, I support a mandatory 2-year sign-up for our young people. It'd help give them the discipline they need to get through life. And, perhaps it'd make our lawmakers less likely to get *into* wars. But that's just my feeling on the subject. YMMV.

How very socialist of you. The U.S. military exists to give this country a means of implementing a foreign policy when killing people and breaking things are the only way to go about it. (This is an oversimplification, but as Sherman said, war is cruelty and you cannot refine it.) Every other benefit that flows from the military is just icing on the cake. Outside of a dire national emergency where everyone knows the stakes, all conscription gets you is a military with a substantial number of people who do not want to be there. Look at how many fewer discipline problems the military was afflicted with after going to an all-volunteer force after Vietnam.

The whole point of the U.S. military is so that when Congress decides the benefits of waging war outweigh the costs, the military can fight that war and win it. We don't expect Generals and Admirals to have their kids serving in order to make them consider the costs of their orders. Why should it be expected of members of Congress, except as an artificially imposed (and strategically questionable) handicap?

Serving in the military is an honorable profession, but it is just that - a profession, no more or less essential than police officers, firefighters, doctors, lawyers, engineers, or ditch-diggers. It does not, and should not, entitle you to any freedoms above that you get as a regular citizen.

Sorry about the bold in my post. opps Close tag.. close tag.. :(

MindStalker: Depends upon what you define as illegal. "Not supported by UN" Blah, our sovereignty should not end at the UN. On the other hand, no actual declaration of War was declared, so just as every other war sense WWII that hasn't been properly declared, yea its kinda illegal. It wasn't as if it was an emergency and we couldn't wait for a proper declaration.

It was authorized by Congress. It's not technically a war, you're right about that. Doesn't make it illegal.

hubiestubert: MasterThief: Lionel Mandrake: So, including McCain, how many Congressional hawks have kids serving?

How is that question even relevant except as an ad hominem? This country has an all-volunteer military. No parent "sends" their kids to war unless the kid signs the enlistment contract on the dotted line of his own free will. No parent should.

Hardly ad hominem. It's a fair question. NO ONE said anyone "sent" their kids--but rather, how many hawks have children serving. Entirely different question, and that you'd spin it as such is telling.

It is not a fair question, thus ad hominem. By asking that question, you are attempting to disqualify them and stifle debate. It was a very thinly veiled attempt at saying "If you don't have family in the military, you have no say in this war, and should not support it." Why should anyone who supports the war either be in the military, or have family in the military? Next time, debate the issue on the merits. It is intellectually dishonest to do otherwise.

Zanshi: hubiestubert: MasterThief: Lionel Mandrake: So, including McCain, how many Congressional hawks have kids serving?

How is that question even relevant except as an ad hominem? This country has an all-volunteer military. No parent "sends" their kids to war unless the kid signs the enlistment contract on the dotted line of his own free will. No parent should.

Hardly ad hominem. It's a fair question. NO ONE said anyone "sent" their kids--but rather, how many hawks have children serving. Entirely different question, and that you'd spin it as such is telling.

It is not a fair question, thus ad hominem. By asking that question, you are attempting to disqualify them and stifle debate. It was a very thinly veiled attempt at saying "If you don't have family in the military, you have no say in this war, and should not support it." Why should anyone who supports the war either be in the military, or have family in the military? Next time, debate the issue on the merits. It is intellectually dishonest to do otherwise.

Fine. How many members of congress own stocks/options in companies that directly benefit from the war? How many members of congress received campaign contributions from said companies.

His son knows the value of oil as well...