Comments on: McCain and Ayers

By: chrisb

chrisb — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:22:26 +0000

Where the hell am I, DailyKos? The comparison is an absurd one.

By: HardCorps

HardCorps — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:19:55 +0000

Uncle – thanks man for being real about war. It’s sad that a lot on our side refuse to acknowledge the reality of it unless they’ve pulled the trigger on another human.

By: gattsuru

gattsuru — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:55:37 +0000

I was under the impression that for all the danger and property damage presented by the weathermen, the only physical human injury was the death of one of their own members.

The “Days of Rage” involved several physical human injuries caused by the Weatherman’s activities and, in some cases, Weathermen themselves. Brian V. McDonnell may also beg to differ with your impression.

Too much evil has been done in the name of doing good.

I’d argue the inverse.

[i]Shit happens[/i]. You can argue that there’s no moral obligation to help those who are having shit happen to them, although I’ll call you a bastard for doing so. But can you honestly sit back and look at places like Darfur (murders), Zimbabwe (intentional food supply collapse), or a half-million other places, it’s easy to see where a relatively very small amount of evil could prevent a whole lot of people from dying in really, really unpleasant ways.

By: Fiftycal

Fiftycal — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:29:49 +0000

Well, if the NVA’s TORTURE of John McCain was “justified” because the mean ol’ USA was bombing North Vietnam, then we should step up our torture of the prisoners in GITMO. Perhaps hanging them up by their wrists with their hands behind their back for 6-8 hours a day would be “justified”. Ain’t moral equivalencys great? They can work both ways.

By: Brutal Hugger

Brutal Hugger — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:38:50 +0000

I was under the impression that for all the danger and property damage presented by the weathermen, the only physical human injury was the death of one of their own members. I don’t think they were trying all that hard to avoid killing people, but I don’t think they actually killed anybody except their own.

By: Mikee

Mikee — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:40:35 +0000

Here is why the deaths of civilians in Hanoi, due to US bombing, are not morally equivalent to the deaths of police, judges, and civilians in the US at the hands of the Weathermen:
1. Legitimate, legal targets of war in North Vietnam were purposefully located amid civilian structures by the North Vietnamese military. Thus the civilian deaths that occurred while the military targets were attacked by the US are war crimes committed by the NV authorities, not the US bomber crews.
2. Civilians, judges, and police (not legitimate military targets) were purposefully attacked by the Weathermen Underground to cause anarchy, and allow them to promote their sick ideology. There was no military purpose in the attacks, except for the murder of innocents, which is the antithesis of a military action.
3. There were no legitimate targets of a declared war targeted. There were no attempts to follow the recognized rules of warfare between states, such as the wearing of uniforms allowing combatants to be distinguished from civilians, the separation of the military groups from civilians, the creation of a heirarchy of command to allow responsible orders to be promulgated and those who made orders identifiable within the command structure, and so on.

There was no moral equivalence between the limnited and legal war waged against the North Vietnamese, versus the immoral, illegal, guerrilla warfare waged against civilians by the Marxist/Anarchist Weathermen Underground.

A strong kick in the nuts should be the proper response to anyone making such an argument of moral equivalence. When the recipient of the kick asks why, say that the kick was the moral equivalent of their argument’s effects on your brain’s logic center.

By: Mark@Sea

Mark@Sea — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:53:03 +0000

If you would know a mans’ character, look to his friends.

By: Brutal Hugger

Brutal Hugger — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:45:12 +0000

I agree there’s no moral equivalency. I don’t read it for that point. What struck me was just a palpable sense of how horrible war-torn nations must be.

By: Kristopher

Kristopher — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:39:13 +0000

Ayers is a hero only in the eyes of the NVA.

Obama is not running for president of Vietnam.

By: Tomcatshanger

Tomcatshanger — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:23:18 +0000

Are we back to soldier’s eating babies yet? I want receipts.

By: Yu-Ain Gonnano

Yu-Ain Gonnano — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:42:40 +0000

Worlds apart.

It all has to do with intent. The police officer who is shooting at a criminal and hits an innocent by accident is vastly different than the criminal who purposefully shoots an innocent.

Both shot an innocent, but only the criminal deserves scorn.

By: Lornkanaga

Lornkanaga — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:18:18 +0000

I have to agree with Uncle here — the Weather Underground was responsible for bombing police stations and a judge’s residence, and these are hardly the targets of an anti-war protester but rather the targets of an anarchist.

By: Rustmeister

Rustmeister — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:18:01 +0000

Not in the least bit.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:10:41 +0000

i don’t think equivocating a soldier’s actions in a war to some hippie setting a bomb is valid. nor is it convincing with respect to some sort of moral equivalency.