turtlespeed 212
Recommended Posts
Guest
I think the point you're trying to make is whether there is service-related applicability.
Kerry was a Riverine, well and good. But that doesn't qualify him to make decisions about Air Force policy, does it? That's not just apples and organges, IMHO, it's apples and GIRAFFES.
Applying your skydiver analogy in its (more proper) context, what makes a skydiver qualified to make at-large FAA policy outside the narrow band of his (marginal) experience? Kerry is a child of privelege, but just because he served in Vietnam (and the military is a very different place these days, as compared to when he was in it), it doesn't make him more qualified (or less qualified, for that matter) to make policy.
Although I don't think I'd want H. Norman Schwartzkopf as a president, I think he'd be an excellent choice for making policy (e.g., SecDef), due to his experience, and because he stayed with the Army after Vietnam and worked to make it a better place, rather than tell lies about it in front of Congress for his personal political gain like Kerry did.
mh
.
Kerry was a Riverine, well and good. But that doesn't qualify him to make decisions about Air Force policy, does it? That's not just apples and organges, IMHO, it's apples and GIRAFFES.
Applying your skydiver analogy in its (more proper) context, what makes a skydiver qualified to make at-large FAA policy outside the narrow band of his (marginal) experience? Kerry is a child of privelege, but just because he served in Vietnam (and the military is a very different place these days, as compared to when he was in it), it doesn't make him more qualified (or less qualified, for that matter) to make policy.
Although I don't think I'd want H. Norman Schwartzkopf as a president, I think he'd be an excellent choice for making policy (e.g., SecDef), due to his experience, and because he stayed with the Army after Vietnam and worked to make it a better place, rather than tell lies about it in front of Congress for his personal political gain like Kerry did.
mh
.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
benny 0
The issue of voting against increased defense spending is not really a question which gives any insight into the actual support of our troups. As we know, or as we should know, the Pentagon is not exactly what we would call "frugal" and often cares more for spending money on new "toys" then paying the men and women who put their lives on the line.
Defense Dpt. Supports cut in hazard pay to troops stationed in Iraq
More on that from Veterans for common sense
At the same time they don't mind breaking treaties and spending billions in order to develop systems which would most likely only serve to spark another nuclear (nukular for you Bushies) global dick measuring contest.
The question is not whether Kerry voted to increase or decrease defense spending. The question is whether or not we can trust any of these schmoes to make wise choices in their defense spending or if they're just choosing to increase said spending for projects which will do little to increase our safety but much to fatten the wallets of their buddies.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Defense Dpt. Supports cut in hazard pay to troops stationed in Iraq
More on that from Veterans for common sense
At the same time they don't mind breaking treaties and spending billions in order to develop systems which would most likely only serve to spark another nuclear (nukular for you Bushies) global dick measuring contest.
The question is not whether Kerry voted to increase or decrease defense spending. The question is whether or not we can trust any of these schmoes to make wise choices in their defense spending or if they're just choosing to increase said spending for projects which will do little to increase our safety but much to fatten the wallets of their buddies.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
rehmwa 2
QuoteAlthough I don't think I'd want H. Norman Schwartzkopf as a president, I think he'd be an excellent choice for making policy (e.g., SecDef), due to his experience, and because he stayed with the Army after Vietnam and worked to make it a better place, rather than tell lies about it in front of Congress for his personal political gain like Kerry did.
Interesting/excellent argument - but you could argue that Kerry did try to address the issue by going to Congress (eventually) rather than running away and throwing rocks from a distance (figuratively) as you are implying. (note, I don't like Kerry, we'd have a more productive election with either Lieberman or Edwards, they might've even stayed on a gentlemanly debate of pertinent issues rather than just mudslinging. I believe Bush would have and his campaign will retaliate only if the Dems set the wrong tone - which they have for some time now. But it doesn't matter until we are down to one candidate for each party. Then we'll see what tone each takes.)
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
billvon 2,435
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Again - I say to you that that is like a Tandem student making the
>same policies.
No, it's like someone who has jumped intensively for a few years, and has been through malfunctions and fatalities, making the rules for us. That's who I would want representing us to the FAA. BJ Worth is a better representative than a tandem student.
>Just because you jumped once does not makle you the worlds
>athority -
No, but if you jump a lot over the course of a year, you become a pretty good authority. If you just do it occasionally, and never do any 'real' skydiving (i.e. you only do wind tunnel and tandems) you're not as good an authority.
So to extend your analogy, someone who has fought in actual combat is a better authority on warfare than someone who just shows up occasionally at a national guard unit and never sees combat. Doesn't make either one better or worse, but one has more combat experience than the other, and that makes him more of an authority as to what war is 'really' about.
>Being IN a war doesn't give you the experiance to know when to Fight
>them. That is common sense. That is what Kerry lacks.
That's a load of crap. People who fight for our country don't know when to fight them? Ask some veterans; see if they agree with you on that.
>same policies.
No, it's like someone who has jumped intensively for a few years, and has been through malfunctions and fatalities, making the rules for us. That's who I would want representing us to the FAA. BJ Worth is a better representative than a tandem student.
>Just because you jumped once does not makle you the worlds
>athority -
No, but if you jump a lot over the course of a year, you become a pretty good authority. If you just do it occasionally, and never do any 'real' skydiving (i.e. you only do wind tunnel and tandems) you're not as good an authority.
So to extend your analogy, someone who has fought in actual combat is a better authority on warfare than someone who just shows up occasionally at a national guard unit and never sees combat. Doesn't make either one better or worse, but one has more combat experience than the other, and that makes him more of an authority as to what war is 'really' about.
>Being IN a war doesn't give you the experiance to know when to Fight
>them. That is common sense. That is what Kerry lacks.
That's a load of crap. People who fight for our country don't know when to fight them? Ask some veterans; see if they agree with you on that.
turtlespeed 212
Quote
That's a load of crap. People who fight for our country don't know when to fight them? Ask some veterans; see if they agree with you on that.
Ok, Hey Clint, wht do you think, well, Clint I agree with you.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
benny 0
QuoteI believe Bush would have and his campaign will retaliate only if the Dems set the wrong tone
I typically find your posts to be insightful and respectful but with this you've got to be kidding. Bush has based his entire reelection campaign (which I would argue started on 9/12/2001) on the premise that "you'll die unless you keep us in office". He and his supporters have basically claimed ever since 9/11 that they are the only people who could possibly keep us safe, how is that for a "tone"?
Never go to a DZ strip show.
That's a load of crap. People who fight for our country don't know when to fight them? Ask some veterans; see if they agree with you on that.
I know people that have served in the military that don't know crap about politics. Should some knucklehead in the motor pool help with policy decisions?
never pull low......unless you are
QuoteQuoteI believe Bush would have and his campaign will retaliate only if the Dems set the wrong tone
I typically find your posts to be insightful and respectful but with this you've got to be kidding. Bush has based his entire reelection campaign (which I would argue started on 9/12/2001) on the premise that "you'll die unless you keep us in office". He and his supporters have basically claimed ever since 9/11 that they are the only people who could possibly keep us safe, how is that for a "tone"?
I'm glad that it wasn't Gore. I'm sure the libs will remind me how hawkish Gore is, but that's a load of crap. I don't want Kerry, a war protester, in charge of my safety.
never pull low......unless you are
rehmwa 2
QuoteI typically find your posts to be insightful and respectful but with this you've got to be kidding. Bush has based his entire reelection campaign (which I would argue started on 9/12/2001) on the premise that "you'll die unless you keep us in office". He and his supporters have basically claimed ever since 9/11 that they are the only people who could possibly keep us safe, how is that for a "tone"?
Wow, I didn't mean to put that in bold print.....
I'm not sure about that message you are inferring, but at least it's in the tone of 'here's what we will do in office' instead of 'here is how bad the other guy is'. So even this example, although you are still inferring much, is a good one of the point I'm making.
As far as my posts being 'insightful and respectful', that's just funny, I'm pretty well out to mock whoever is taking themselves too seriously. I like your passion on the subject but I'd rather see how you develop over the next year before being too playful in the mockery. I worry that you are too into it to have fun with it. I'll vote seriously, but internet discussions are purely for entertainment you know.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
billvon 2,435
>I know people that have served in the military that don't know crap about politics.
I agree, just like the people who fly EF-111's don't know as much about the design of the CDU as I do. But they know how to use it, and that puts them at an advantage when deciding whether to change it or not, or whether a different system would work better.
Likewise, fighting for your country doesn't teach you about politics, but it does (IMO) teach you about war. And if you have such an experience, and you come back and talk about how bad war is, you are doing that based on your own, real experiences, not from reading some TIME magazine article on it. And to me, that's more valid. It means they have a more real viewpoint as to what war involves than someone who has never left his office on the airbase. Does that mean he can successfully lobby a senator from Wisconsin to support the latest bomber project? Not neccessarily. But it does mean that he will have a better idea of what using that bomber against someone else will mean.
I agree, just like the people who fly EF-111's don't know as much about the design of the CDU as I do. But they know how to use it, and that puts them at an advantage when deciding whether to change it or not, or whether a different system would work better.
Likewise, fighting for your country doesn't teach you about politics, but it does (IMO) teach you about war. And if you have such an experience, and you come back and talk about how bad war is, you are doing that based on your own, real experiences, not from reading some TIME magazine article on it. And to me, that's more valid. It means they have a more real viewpoint as to what war involves than someone who has never left his office on the airbase. Does that mean he can successfully lobby a senator from Wisconsin to support the latest bomber project? Not neccessarily. But it does mean that he will have a better idea of what using that bomber against someone else will mean.
benny 0
Well Rick, I for one feel that my own safety is better promoted by a leader who doesn't take actions to provoke those who already are or are on the brink of hating us. "Bring it on" might be a good rallying cry for the troops themselves but said in front of the global media? Let's think about what he's saying: "Go ahead, attack us. Please attack us. We'll kick your ass, sure you may kill some of our citizens but in the end, we'll kick your ass." This president simply has a problem with, rather an absolute lack of diplomacy. "Speak softly and carry a big stick." GWB wasn't paying attention to the speak softly part.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
JohnRich 4
QuoteMy father got a Purple Heart in Vietnam when an RPG landed near him and detonated... Your associate who got the award because of a job-related injury... It should not have been awarded. The award has historically been misused from time to time...
I agree with everything you say. My comment was not intended to diminish the stature of the award for those who truly earned it.
Some military awards are written up as "favors", and other men who deserve medals, don't get them. My own uncle, a Lt. in WWII, basically got lost and ended up in a jeep behind German lines, and then high-tailed it back to his unit: he got a bronze star, for getting lost...
Purple Heart Award Criteria
turtlespeed 212
Quote>I know people that have served in the military that don't know crap about politics.
I agree, just like the people who fly EF-111's don't know as much about the design of the CDU as I do. But they know how to use it, and that puts them at an advantage when deciding whether to change it or not, or whether a different system would work better.
Likewise, fighting for your country doesn't teach you about politics, but it does (IMO) teach you about war. And if you have such an experience, and you come back and talk about how bad war is, you are doing that based on your own, real experiences, not from reading some TIME magazine article on it. And to me, that's more valid. It means they have a more real viewpoint as to what war involves than someone who has never left his office on the airbase. Does that mean he can successfully lobby a senator from Wisconsin to support the latest bomber project? Not neccessarily. But it does mean that he will have a better idea of what using that bomber against someone else will mean.
It seems to me that the reluctance to go to war to end alot of controversy. First of all I believe whol;eheartedly that it was a lack of "Finishing" the job from Bush Sr. that started the USA losing the respect of the Arab Nations. It was "Furthered" by Clintons "Geurilla" tactics. GWB, in trying to rebuild our integrity, has said tat we would do something and we are doing it. We are not stopping mid stream, we are not backing down and hiding. We are WILLING to fight for what is right. Kerry is against fighting, hands down. I don't want someone that will take extra chances with my safety just to promote peace because they don't have the stomache for it anymore. I like my way of life. I don't want that to change. Kerry would allow it to.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Ron 7
QuoteHe and his supporters have basically claimed ever since 9/11 that they are the only people who could possibly keep us safe, how is that for a "tone"?
Well Kerry voted to go to war...Then he slams Bush for actually doing it.
And he was a player in the Patriot act....And now he claims it a bad thing.
He fought in Vietnam. Which in '66 several folks though it was the right thing. And some of his own boys claimed him to be a medal hungry leader...He waives the whole "Im a war hero" thing around (and he IS)...But then joins Fonda slamming the war when he gets back.
Now he claims the war is wrong,and the patriot act is bad, Blames Bush for bringing up the past and keeping war wounds open...He testified to congress how we were killing just anyone over there..(But not him of course).
My biggest issue is he is two faced....His whole life he has wanted to be in politics.
He idolized JFK, and one of his proud monents in high school was when he was dating a cousin of JFK's...Another he went boating with JFK.
He is not a BAD man...And he IS a war hero...
But his whole life has been about doing things that look good on a resume...
In '66 all the "leaders" were going to fight...In '68 it was different.
He was medal hungry according to some of his men.
Guys with medals make good canidates...(JFK had 'em)
He testified to congress that the war was bad when it was no longer a cool war...Again a popularity making move.
He voted to cut welfare...I liked him for this. But it was the popular thing to do at the time.
He voted to cut military spending...Popular
He voted to use force against Iraq...Again popular.
He helped draft part of the Patriot act..Poplular when it was drafted.
But as soon as the tides change so does he...
As soon as the war was unpopluar he fought against it.
He voted to use force in Iraq...Then said that the war is bad.
He helped create the patriot act...Then said it was bad.
I wish the guy would stick to one side.
I liked Lieberman...He was easy to understand and didn't change sides with the popular vote...Kerry does.
His whole life he was trying to be president...And played whatever card made him popular.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
rehmwa 2
Well, there you have it. He's popular and doing what's most trendy. That does sound like a 'representative' leader for a people that flip flop.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
JohnRich 4
QuoteI for one feel that my own safety is better promoted by a leader who doesn't take actions to provoke those who already are or are on the brink of hating us.
Ah yes, the Neville Chamberlain "appeasement" strategy of avoiding war.
We all know how well that one worked...
benny 0
Quote
Wow, I didn't mean to put that in bold print.....
I'm not sure about that message you are inferring, but at least it's in the tone of 'here's what we will do in office' instead of 'here is how bad the other guy is'. So even this example, although you are still inferring much, is a good one of the point I'm making.
As far as my posts being 'insightful and respectful', that's just funny, I'm pretty well out to mock whoever is taking themselves too seriously. I like your passion on the subject but I'd rather see how you develop over the next year before being too playful in the mockery. I worry that you are too into it to have fun with it. I'll vote seriously, but internet discussions are purely for entertainment you know.
For clarification sake, bold was added by me and any bold in this post has been added by me.
In response to the first bolded remark. Once again, are you kidding? I guess you answered that, you are kidding. Of course it's negativity to imply that if you weren't in power, if the other guy was, well, he'd just let you die. This is ludicrous. The fact of the matter is, and I think we all should realize it by now, the "war on terrorism" will never be won. Never. It's like the war on drugs, or the war on any non-specific entity. You just can't wipe it out. Maybe possibly there is a .00000000001% if we lock the borders and impose martial law and revoke all of the freedoms which we have ever enjoyed. Even then it's not likely. Bush has no real plans to end terrorism because it cannot be ended and the only purpose of his rhetoric is to further an atmosphere of fear in this nation which is solely self-serving.
In response to the second bold. I'm not quite sure what a year will change... maybe then I will be jaded by your mockery and will have ceased to even bother stating my views on the issues. Maybe more jumps will make me less afraid. Wait, I'm not all that afraid of terrorism as it is. Maybe it's from having lived in a nation where terrorism is truly a daily threat. Maybe that's why I think people who believe Bush is the only one who could keep them safe are just being silly. Maybe that's why I think there are much more important issues in this election. Who knows?
Never go to a DZ strip show.
benny 0
QuoteQuoteI for one feel that my own safety is better promoted by a leader who doesn't take actions to provoke those who already are or are on the brink of hating us.
Ah yes, the Neville Chamberlain "appeasement" strategy of avoiding war.
We all know how well that one worked...
Hmm, I happen to think there are areas in between saying "no don't worry, we won't bother you, what your doing is fine" and "let's rumble". I realize that it may be difficult for some to recognize gray areas, or steps in between but they do exist. It's like, to use another skydiving analogy, my hard-deck, as an unlicensed student was explained to me to be 2500 ft. Now if I see cutting away under 2500 to be "wrong" in black and white terms, what happens to me when I have unlandable line twists occurs at 2000 feet? I digress though, apparently you didn't see the rest of my post about "speak softly...." I see Bush as having the personality of the yippy little dog whose bark is larger than their bite with the dumb luck(?) to actually have the means to destroy the entire world.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Michele 1
QuoteWell Kerry voted to go to war...Then he slams Bush for actually doing it.
I'll repeat what I said above, since no one seems to want to address, but rather throw out the same one liners.
A little simplistic, don't you think? He voted to allow the president to use the military against Iraq as a last resort if UN inspections failed. Unfortunately, he, and the rest of those who voted for that (all but 2) believed Bush would actually live up to his end of the agreement and allow the UN to do its job.
QuoteAnd he was a player in the Patriot act....And now he claims it a bad thing.
Possibly because it was approved as a measure to fight terrorist, but is being abused. Just the first example I found, there are plenty more:
Quotethe Patriot Act was used in a corruption probe in Las Vegas that was unrelated in any way to terrorism, the supposed focus of the law, which was passed shortly after 9/11.
Federal officials in Vegas used the law to obtain financial records of politicians on the Clark County Commission and the Las Vegas City Council. The case involves a strip club owner’s alleged attempts to improperly influence officials to loosen laws that restrict whether patrons may touch nude dancers.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/18/102118.shtml
QuoteHe waives the whole "Im a war hero" thing around
No, as Bill asked, where's the example of this. I haven't heard anyone call him a war hero except Bush supporters who only say it followed by "but..."
turtlespeed 212
Bottom line, then: Is Kerry for or against the Patriot Act? Absolutely.
LOLOOL
YEP.
LOLOOL
YEP.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Again - I say to you that that is like a Tandem student making the same policies.
Just because you jumped once does not makle you the worlds athority -
There are Tandem students out there that swear that they will never do a tandem again, and even advocate against them.
Being IN a war doesn't give you the experiance to know when to Fight them. That is common sense. That is what Kerry lacks.
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites