Ollie North weighs in on Kerry

[Vegasbob 0]

you are right we have differences but we did stick to some facts and respect

 

 

 

 

Now if we could get our respective candidates to do the same, we all might be able to make an informed decision........I want details.

[Scout_51 0]

BTW I wasnt refferring to medical treatment..Everyone deserves medical treatment wether they are illegal or not.. We all know this wasnt the issue.

I thought so,just making sure I had it right.. :D

[Scout_51 0]

Now if we could get our respective candidates to do the same, we all might be able to make an informed decision........I want details.

not bad comment,not bad at all,I do agree..BOTH sides stand down,quit the rethoric talk ISSUES and NOT ones over 30 yrs back..

[Vegasbob 0]

best defense would be to establish and army specifically created to round up aliens and deport them..we need to drop deportation laws that prevent us from sending them back and drop all benifits to illeagals that manage to make land fall

 

 

I like it. Only problem is that we no longer have the money to regulate. Bush has spent us into a 500 billion dollar deficit. Taxes will have to be raised or our country will end up in economic ruin. Democrats have a bad reputation for raising taxes but they always have to pay off the republican's debts.

[Vegasbob 0]

not bad comment,not bad at all,I do agree..BOTH sides stand down,quit the rethoric talk ISSUES and NOT ones over 30 yrs back..

 

 

I 100% agree. I have to disagree with John Kerry and George Bush on this. Neither candidate has given details of what the will do when they get the job. I hope the debates change that but I have a feeling it will be a bilateral smear fest. In that case, I think Bush will win, but if issues are discussed, I think it will be Kerry

[SniprKlr 0]

I agree with you.. Government should not be legislating morality on such issues! When government starts pushing religious views or moral valued sensorship apon its peopel its no longer a free county..THis would no longer be america..The people can think for them selves and choose for them selve and teach and control what their kids view on tv at home! Parenting Is the key thing the determines how our young grow up! We dont need our government poking its nose in private matters!

[Scout_51 0]

I hope the debates change that but I have a feeling it will be a bilateral smear fest. In that case, I think Bush will win, but if issues are discussed, I think it will be Kerry

it just might be tight,tho I think kerry would get more bristled and upset if his voting record is recalled verbatim....but a nice CLEAN debate by BOTH would certainlly be refreshing...for example,just for the sake of the question..kerry says he would only increse taxes on the rich,I think in order to target just a singular group is not in the constitution,nor in the tax codes..therefore ALL would get more taxes...I said several posts bavk it would be fair(for ALL) to just go with a straight across board 10% tax,period,no loopholes no shelters nothing..

[SniprKlr 0]

wow lots of errors in that post lol:P I should have read it through before posting it lol.. Sorry guys..yer gunna have to suffer my home grown mommentary lapse in broken english :P

[SniprKlr 0]

No I believe he ment giving tax breaks to the rich..As we all know its not possible to not tax the poor or middle class..I dont think rich people need tax breaks at all.. However, I dont think this has anything to do with the constitution or singling out a group rather than stating the obvious needs of the poor. Rich people have the luxury of all the tax loop holes..As the poor do not.. There is no reason why the tax breaks should only be given to the rich by Bush. THat was the issue..THe poor are over taxed! Had nothing to do with just singling out the rich.

[Scout_51 0]

There is no reason why the tax breaks should only be given to the rich by Bush. THat was the issue..THe poor are over taxed! Had nothing to do with just singling out the rich.

ok lets see...the tax cut was also on the poor,just the case being if you make less you get less a break...as I said lets tax EVERYONE the same ammount and I assure you the rich would PAY more than you or I

[SniprKlr 0]

actually no it wasnt.. it only effected incomes of 100k and above.. nobody thats poor has recieved this tax break..and the main part of it was for the rich and corporations..

[Foofighter 0]

Hey Chief,

You and I haven't been directly invoved in this debate (maybe indirectly ;) ) But Scout and I have been having a good one but I gotta respond to your last post. Heh-Heh!

 

You said,

And all this talk about Bush not serving his country, while Kerry went to Vietnam. You know, I bet all the folks who served in the various National Guard units would take issue with the comparison. Somewhat of a slap in the face to them, wouldn't you say?

 

I didn't say Bush wasn't serving his country all I said was:

I just feel that it's been a little unfair to Kerry that all the scrutiny is being focused on him when he was over there in the heat, under fire, etc. while Bush was comfortably back in the states. And that more focus has been Kerry's service while we haven't heard anything at all lately about Bush's service.

 

In terms of Bush's speech, no- offense Chief but all the inuendo, bravado, etc. after while can get old after a while. But it wasn't bad either IMHO.

 

And can I say one thing about Kerry,

 

I said this in a previous post, He went over there and fought, saw how f-d up things were over there because of the McNamara's and the politicos controlling it were f-ing it up (which is why we lost) so he changed his mind and went against the war after serving because of what he saw and experienced. He can't be that stupid after all we lost not because of the soldiers, but because of the political interference keeping them back (i.e. Rules of engagement) so he changed his mind and what's wrong with that? Because he knows how this can affect a war and the cost in lives and that's why I think he would make a GREAT Commander in Chief because he was affected by it personally while at war! And I'm sure the first thing he would do (as I would) is sack Rumsfeld.

 

Cheif, take it easy on the move and I don't think it'll take long to sell your house, it looks pretty nice to me so I don't think you'll have a problem selling it.

 

Foo

[Scout_51 0]

In terms of Bush's speech, no- offense Chief but all the inuendo, bravado, etc. after while can get old after a while.

I was going let The Chief reply,but I had to on this comment....get old after a while..kind of like the other guy replying to everything with 'im a decorated vietnam vet'? trust me that got old a long while back...

[Scout_51 0]

I said this in a previous post, He went over there and fought, saw how f-d up things were over there because of the McNamara's and the politicos controlling it  were f-ing it up (which is why we lost) so he changed his mind and went against the war after serving because of what he saw and experienced.  He can't be that stupid after all we lost not because of the soldiers, but because of the political interference keeping them back (i.e. Rules of engagement) so he changed his mind and what's wrong with that?  Because he knows how this can affect a war and the cost in lives and that's why I think he would make a GREAT Commander in Chief because he was affected by it personally while at war!  And I'm sure the first thing he would do (as I would) is sack Rumsfeld.

oh what the hell,this is a bit close to home for me so Im going flip-flop here(gee nice example we had set for us)..kerry MADE it a big issue,thats why the scrutiny,which he has not had much of actually..its starting to tho...he went over there,the rest is open to debate...the politicians were not the only ones hurting us,you forget bout the 'peace ins'? the anti war rallies? kerrys OWN words? all of that told the enemy all he had to do was stand pat with their hand..the 'rules of egagement' were the very first thing to go out the door when under fire,trust me on that..I have NO problem with a person changing his mind(kerry done it numerous times),he COULD have been more articulate and say it is not us who will loose this,it is you..he could have said he saw extreme acts of bravery instead of comparing us all with the hordes,he could have talked about the medic crawling thru the bush,shot and under fire, to get a buddy,but of course he could not do that because Im trully sure he NEVER saw anything like that..most of what he said in front of the senate was second hand to him..he could have said 'gentlemen there has been too many Brave young men that have died,you have to make a decision as to wether this war is going be won or if we just cut and run'..he COULD have said I did my time,I understand war,but the men I served with were the cream of my generation..in other words we Deserved better from a so called brother vet..we did NOT need be compared to hordes,we did not need be blanket marked as baby-killers,war criminals..last but not least,I have NEVER heard kerry say one thing that all combat vets know to be true,the REAL Heroes are BURIED,they are missing Limbs,Minds,they are STILL mia.....sorry I got long winded...

[SniprKlr 0]

I think this kid has no idea what he speaks of.. If you really wanna know what war is my friend go to Iraq and serve under fire...Doesnt matter if kerry chooses to use his war record..He has that right.. All you guys can do is talk about his record but you never discuss Bushs severe lack there of.. Serving as a pencil pusher gets no credit for bravery from me. Bush is not fit to be a commander and chief..He has a severe lack in ability to judge or command a war. When you stand on a Aircraft Carrier and claim a victory to America and the world while your men are still dying in combat is so extreemely idiotic and a very insulting way to use the lives of our servicemen as a political stand of make belief glory.. You have got to be kidding that you think you can challenge any millitary and fitness of Kerry to be commander and Chief.. Bush is clueless..Im willing to bet hes not even in control and more of a puppet.

[SniprKlr 0]

Also he never claimed you were "we did NOT need be compared to hordes" Listen to the speech he gave.. He never was talking about u in the first place! He was talking about events amd crimes that happened.. And yes they happened wether you want to admit to it or not.. He didnt shame the vets.. he shamed those who committed crimes..Rape,Snipers cutting of ears as trophies,villiges be napalmed..it happens in war and there is nothing you can do about it..Crimes were committed and bad things happened in vietnam..Just simply admitt it and stop acting like every vet was an angel. If you havent committed these crimes you have nothing to be mad about..You should be proud and not condone hiding such things to paint a pretty picture that doesnt exist in war.

[Skater 0]

I honestly don't care what Kerry did in Vietnam. It is fact that he was there and anyone that set foot in that hellhole deserves medals. I thank all veterans for their service. The issues in this campaign are what are going on at home. The goal of the war on terror should be preventing terror attacks from happening here at home. I went to Tijuana Mexico two weeks ago and the only security check I was given was a two-second glance at my Drivers license and an x-ray of my stuff. Any Middle eastern terrorist could walk across the border with a fake Id and not even be asked a question. We need fences with sentry posts and armed men prepared to shoot anyone making a run at the border. We certainly need to have further background checks at the border checkpoints. All of us are unprotected from terror attacks at this moment. Most of the national guard units are deployed in Iraq right now so we are extremely vulnurable.

 

The other thing that the Bush supporters are touting is his aggressive stance toward North Korea and Iran as well as Iraq previously. As the President said, the war on terror is not winnable. That is true with the half-assed pussy way he has gone about it. Think about it, how do you win a war? You kill more of them than they kill of us. They have killed around 4,000 total including the 9/11 attacks. how many of them have we killed? 500? maybe 2,000 total. They are winning my friends. You may ask my solution to the problem. There are no "popular"  solutions to the problem. You have two options. Option number 1: Annihilate the entire middle east as well as exterminate all people of middle eastern descent in other countries around the world. The enemy muslims dress just like the friendly muslims so how can you be sure. Option number 2: Completely withdraw from the rest of the world. Pull all troops and financial aid from other nations......including Israel. Why do you think Canada is never threatened by anyone? They stay neutral. I would be willing to bet that if we exercised option number two, we would not experience another terrorist attack on our nation.

 

So who do we vote for? Not an easy choice. Neither candidate will support my position in the war on terror. I will vote on what affects me the most and that is what happens here. I don't support a president that is willing to force freedoms on other nations and take away my freedoms here. This A-hole we have in office now doesn't want to allow me to listen to what I want, watch what I want, or believe what I want. He makes decisions based upon what his RELIGION and his GOD tells him to decide. The Taliban did the same thing in Afganistan. We have some veterans on this forum here and it's a shame that your president would like to take away freedoms that your brothers died for. That is what will motivate my decision to vote for John Kerry. Kerry testified on veteran's behalf to motivate the government to bring you guys home. He had to say a lot of horrible things for that to happen. The next generation of veterans are being used in Iraq right now for selfish purposes. They are guarding Dick Cheney's oil. They are dying for a guy that recieved five service deferments to avoid going to Vietnam.

 

 

Long enough for everyone? Hopefully you enjoy reading it.

Ummm... I don't know what war on terror you have been following, but we've killed a whole lot more than 2000 in Afghanistan alone. Kill totals however, are not an indicator of "winning" the war.

 

Kill totals in Iraq are already over 20,000, just so you know. In afghanistan, it is somewhere around the 8,000 mark.

 

It's a pretty macabre stat, but if that's how you view winning, then we are definitely winning.

 

In 1993, in Somalia, we killed more than 1500 in 30 hours (Blackhawk Down). This was with a force of just over 100 men with no tank or air, or Apache support. Do you really think we would not be DECIMATING the enemy with all of our assets committed? Do you think the Iraqi Army would have been defeated so quickly with only 2000 casualties? Be realistic!

 

In short, when it comes to killing the enemy, we are KICKING ASS!

 

-Skater

[SniprKlr 0]

kicking ass doesnt excuse the use of service mens lives as a political stand! Bush has really pissed me off when he stood on that carrier while 3 fellow minnesotans died! Read the casualties we have taken sense his litte carrier claim of victory to boast his ratings!

[SniprKlr 0]

actually option #2 is flawed.. US is primary target becuase its the strongest in ability to defend and finance. THe Islamic idiology is to make a perfect ilsamic world.. US got hit because if they can take out the top dog the rest will be far easier to manage.. Thier stategy to encomically run down the us..populate countries with terror networks wich include entire family lines.. Its a sneaky way to take control of a country..populate and minipulate the governing laws..Use terrorism to force political agendas..much like the case here in the states where they tried to make it legal for musslims to wear head scarves on their drivers license by claiming they are being treated wrongly or discriminated against..Now this doesnt include all muslims..So dont go picking on someone just cause they are!

 

Option #1 is a bit extreeme although the concept is correct..Only a WWII style defense will over come and Idiology such as terrorism.. But going out to kill them all is not a kewl thing to sujest..They need a wake up call Im sure..Massive attack for evey terrorist attack would in fact lead to far less terrorism..

 

option #3..If you wanted to fight terrorism the easy way..this may sound insensitive..but if people were to carry small bottles of pigs blood on them at all times the terrorists very reason for committing suicide bombs would go out the window..As if it gets on them they dont go to paradise... Find ways to prevent them from going to paradise with what ever is left of them they probably wouldnt be willing to doit as much..barrie their remains in pig skin or whatever... make it world news and a policy..Only ppl that this would tipically offend would more or less likely be a sypathizer for terrorism or a human rights extreemist group who would protect hitler if they had a chance.

[Weasel Keeper 0]

That reminds me of the foreign policy of the US pre WWI and II. Non interference. This is the only way to stay out of wars. Be on Defense, not offence. If it wasn't for our countries meddling in foreign affairs such as the Israeli-palestinian conflict, or the Soviet-afganistan conflict, or the Iran-Iraq war, we wouldn't be the target of terrorists, and ~ 3,000 people would still be alive.

I've stayed out of this for now, and appreciate the civil discussions and POVs so far. Definately good reading from all sides.

 

I don't understand how if we (the US) remained a neutral and uncommited country as pre WWI and half way through WWII that terrorism would pass us by. As I recall, both of my great grandfathers served in WW1 in the trenches of France and Germany in the US infantry helping to make France a free country at the time.

 

Perhaps not going into bragging on the US, but if we had remained neutral, would England still be under British rule? Britain might have hung on and overcome German aggression. However, would Germany have been pushed out of France, Netherlands, Italy and eventually defeated? Maybe in time. Would all of Germany be a free democratic society in the 80s-90s without an Iron Curtain in the east? Doubtful.

 

 

I suppose if we in the US built walls and remained uncommitted to the world's problems, we'd be free of the world's aggression. No I don't. We'd be an island with no trade, no support, and end up another third or second world country struggling to survive.

 

As far as Kerry in Nam...kudos and a salute for even being there. I'm not satisfied with a simple 4 month tour equalling "3" Purple Hearts...with two of them being questionable (read self inflicted and questioned by his own crew). My dad alone for an example served a year tour in the USN on the USS Bon Homme Richard (65) and another year in the USAF at Bien Hoa (67) without forging/writing his own performance records or asking for medals not entitled to him.

 

Non vets may not totally understand, but being a vet is being included in a special brotherhood. Vets are the most honorable people you could imagine...to other vets. I can't expect you to understand if you never served, and I don't put you down for not being one if you're not.

 

If I were to lie and say I received a Purple Heart in say Panama (which I most certainly did NOT) you all would discredit me in a heartbeat and never respect another word I uttered on these boards (look as far as the old Ranger332 posts here). Now look at it in a countrywide venue. And if I were to come in here and speak of attrocities committed that aren't alltogether true in a war that I was only a small part of? IMO, Sen (Lt) Kerry wasn't around nearly long enough to see anything even close to a war crime while cruising the rivers on his little boat facing some "small arms fire" from the shore. The same has been said from his "mates".

 

Sure W was "only" in the ANG during Vietnam. To be honest, there was only one F-102 squadron called to Nam and they did fighter intercept with perhaps 12 aircraft (one squadron) to protect the bombers. The fact that he didn't go to Nam wasn't because he didn't want to, it was because the aircraft that he piloted wasn't required at the time. The Duece and Six were needed for high altitude interception of strategic bombers...something not required during the Nam conflict. I suppose if I were to run for office in the future I'd be critisized for being in the ANG during GW1 because there were already plenty of F-16 squadrons there and the war ended before we shipped. Not that I didn't want to go, just that I couldn't because orders were cancelled due to air dominance and lack of targets. ;)

 

Disclaimer: I'm a flight sim junkie who gets along in life like in virtual flight...on a wing and a prayer. I'm not here to piss anyone off, just tossing out my POV. :D

Edited September 4, 2004 by Weasel_87FIS

[SniprKlr 0]

"attrocities committed that aren't alltogether true "

 

Umm yes they were.. Just look in the video recoreds of nam itself.. bombers even carpet bombed viliges.. farms..women and children. Alot of crimes took place in nam.. go to vietnam and read their records and videos and accounts..Alot of vets know what I speak of. Some may never have seen it..Some may never know.. I like to point out that they couldnt prove Kerry had self inflicted wounds.. Remember this was comming from a guy that couldnt prove much of anything.. And comming under small arms fire wasnt exactly small arms..Not like they had pistal battle there with little 22's.. And being there at all makes Kerry far more qualified even he were to have only earned in your eyes 1 purple heart! And doestn matter if Bush would have wanted to go or not..He wasnt there at all..He has no idea of how to be a commander and chief.. His actions over Iraq and lack there of in afganistan show his weakness. Do ya think Kerry would sit on the deck of a Aircraft Carrier and announce Victory for political gain while servicemen continue to die? I think not! Face it bush has no clue in economics or millitary command..The pentagon and national advisors doit for him at best.

[SniprKlr 0]

btw what was the life expectancy for vet in vietnam? I beleive it was under a month! Another note wanst the same guy that claimed there was now small arms fire also claim Kerry had self inflicted wounds ? And now he was proven a lier on there being small arms fire? I dont really trust his account of things that happened..

[Scout_51 0]

think this kid has no idea what he speaks of.. If you really wanna know what war is my friend go to Iraq and serve under fire

what kid?.....

[Scout_51 0]

When you stand on a Aircraft Carrier and claim a victory to America and the world while your men are still dying in combat is so extreemely idiotic

gee did I miss that? I have NOT heard the man in his OWN voice say that...he did say MAJOR combat,he was right,whats been going on is called Low Intensity Combat,mind you folks still die but its NOT major ops where whole units,division go forward..t

[Scout_51 0]

He didnt shame the vets.. he shamed those who committed crimes..

ohhhkkkkk if you say so.....