RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,165560,00.html

In the long bloody autumn of 1944, no congressional committee chairman challenged Dwight Eisenhower to set a "reasonable timetable for a change of mission and redeployment of our troops" from Europe. Nor did any member of Congress summon Admiral Chester Nimitz in the aftermath of the battle for Iwo Jima to answer inane questions like: "Can you give us any idea as to how long it will take," to defeat Imperial Japan? Such timorous bleating would have been unthinkable then, and it should be today.
Cute, Ollie. Other than America at war and Generals vs Congress there's absolutely nothing valid in your comparison. We are not dealing with a global-power nation who had invaded Poland, annexed Austria, bombed Brittain and allied with another global-power nation who bombed Pearl Harbor and who had invaded China a decade earlier. We are not dealing with a clear response to a nation who is clearly identified as an attacker. Unless you can prove Hussein had the power, the influence, and military "successes" of Hitler and Hirohito, this op-ed is just another exercise in jingoistic sophistry. Shame on you for exploiting the event of the MOH. Shame on you for shamelessly plugging your employer... again. [for some reason... I'm starting to feel the need to apologize to Oliver Hardy. OK. I apologize. O.H., you were never trying to change the world into your image of it. And your comedy actually brought a laugh.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bwf27,

bwf27,

You obviously are an unhappy person.
The ONLY time you seem happy is when people are bashing the war and it's leaders.
I've heard several of the young troopers over there say that they feel like some people back here are calling what they are doing "worthless" or "stupid". They say that bothers them since they joined because it was their duty.
You can get on this site and run-down anything that has to do with this war but just remember, they also access this site.
I'm sure you'll make some cute remark about me and what I've written. But that will never erase the fact that you (and others) have hurt our young troopers with your comments.
Your response will show what type of person with whom we are dealing.

Been a while since I have posted in here. New job so I have been a little on the busy side. CorporalMcInture one of the things about bwf27 we all try to ignore is that he is an Ollie hater not to mention anything else. I have read so much of his posts and personnally I honestly wonder if he considers anyone that has protected/defended his him a military/veteran right to free speech about of ignoramuses. There are times that I see his point whether or not I agree with it.

However, anytime Oliver North puts in an article it's hate time. I happen to agree with what Oliver North wrote across the board.

Congress is doing nothing but setting themselves up with headlines and one upmanship. I personnally believe that field commanders should not be sitting there in Congress answering questions about how and when they are going to do operations.

Ok, they have problem? No they don't so far as I have seen. The President has made mistakes yes, but we have a military chain of command (by law I might add) and congress has done everything they can to abrogate that chain to run things to suit themselves.


I read bwf's posts but most of the time I try to ignore his ranting because frankly he is a know it all about the military. And bwf just because you were a service brat does not meen that you have the same experiences a vet. I am a service brat (my father was retired AF) and I am retired Navy.

So seriously quit with the BS about your "Understanding" of the military because frankly you don't have a clue.

And yeah I think that you are what many of us call and "Academic REMF"

Nothing personal.



Pls excuse the spelling a little tire.

quote:

Originally posted by CorporalMcIntyre:
bwf27,

You obviously are an unhappy person.
The ONLY time you seem happy is when people are bashing the war and it's leaders.
I've heard several of the young troopers over there say that they feel like some people back here are calling what they are doing "worthless" or "stupid". They say that bothers them since they joined because it was their duty.
You can get on this site and run-down anything that has to do with this war but just remember, they also access this site.
I'm sure you'll make some cute remark about me and what I've written. But that will never erase the fact that you (and others) have hurt our young troopers with your comments.
Your response will show what type of person with whom we are dealing.

To MIKE:

SEMPER FI AND GOD BLESS AMERICA

quote:

Originally posted by CorporalMcIntyre:
bwf27,

You obviously are an unhappy person.
The ONLY time you seem happy is when people are bashing the war and it's leaders.
I've heard several of the young troopers over there say that they feel like some people back here are calling what they are doing "worthless" or "stupid". They say that bothers them since they joined because it was their duty.
You can get on this site and run-down anything that has to do with this war but just remember, they also access this site.
I'm sure you'll make some cute remark about me and what I've written. But that will never erase the fact that you (and others) have hurt our young troopers with your comments.
Your response will show what type of person with whom we are dealing.

1)Whenever I do a first post I usually just like to try to "get things going."
2) Never met O.N. But I do take issue with his POVs. Whenever he writes strictly in support of troops I believe I am consistent in posting agreement. I take issue in general with anyone who seems to believe "might is right" or "shoot first, ask questions later" when it comes to international relations. I especially take issue if the writer's POV seems to advocate imperialism (e.g. O.N.s advocating rimming the Pacific if not the planet with missiles). I believe in a "keep the gun in sight" approach while making it clear diplomacy and negotiations will be exhausted before the gun gets picked up, but it will get picked up if needed. I also take issue with subverting the will of Congress. In the mid-80's the "will of Congress" was clear... stay out of South America militarily. I believe O.N. was a "fall guy" rescued by immunity and pardon and I fault the Reagan/Bush(1) Administration. If O.N. wants to keep beating that same drum, then why shouldn't I offer counterpoint? as a citizen, of course.
3) I have never claimed special knowledge of military matters. Feel free to point out any past posts on my part that would suggest such and I'll gladly clarify or correct or delete as needed.
4) POVs are just that. Few of us have time or opportunity to become expert on all things noted. All of us have time to state our POVs and should. These boards do not affect policy or swing votes. They do,however, give all of us opportunity to bounce our ideas off of others.
5) ad hominem about my moods, "Brat" background, or claims that I am hurting anyone, especially troops, or whatever say more about you than about me. If your motivation is support of the troops, feel free to call me every name in the book.
6) There is no evidence that my posts or my POVs in any way affect any troop in the ME.
7) I challenge you to find any post of mine that criticizes troops or even "the Military" in general. I believe my comments are directed at the politics or ideologies of the writers or of this Administration.
8) Sometimes it's good to poke fun. Sometimes it's necessary. I honestly believe O.N. has never read any of my posts. Something tells me if he did, he'd laugh.

Take care, Gents.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bwf27,

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson did not have any military experience. These "founding fathers" were focused on the human rights issues of their day. And because of their points of view we live in a country which -until recently- insisted that even Presidents obeyed the laws and lived within the "prescribed" limits imposed upon them by our Constitution.

Ollie doesn't see it this way; but to others, who value ethical conduct and moral courage quite highly, Ollie is part of a neo-fascist element which is bullying the rest of the country to go along with torture and detention, and wars of conquest and imperialism. My greatest problem with the hearings, during which Petraeus and Crocker "stonewalled" the Senate, is that our Senators displayed very little of that moral courage which was sorely needed.

bwf27,

So I guess your defense is that you don't directly insult the troops.
Well...I see your point.
However. When you insult the very idea of what they are fighting for then you still insult them. As a civilian you can't possibly understand that. You only understand what you hear and what others tell you.
The Vietnam Vets that were not drafted should understand this. If they have forgotten, then they need to think back. Back to the day they volunteered and the reasons why.
As stated above, being an Army brat doesn't qualify you as any type of expert. You are still a civilian. Just like Bret Favre's wife can't be the new quarterback because she was his wife while he was. She doesn't understand what it's like to be out there on the team.
Like her, all you did or can do is cheer or jeer from the sidelines.
Where were you in any of the last wars/conflicts?
Were you protesting then too?
You still hurt the troops and the effort.

Cpl, thanks for your service. And yes, some of us Vietnam Vets remember quite well what it was like back then. And have never forgiven those who took our sacrifice and turned it into shame and dishonor. Those who dealt this country defeat then, as they are trying today. I get sick of the socalled people who are associated some way with the miliary to come on these boards and spout their hate for someone, or the soldiers who gave so much, while they set at home in the comfort of their home and never gave a thing for this country. They could not make a pimple on Ollies butt, let alone have the right to come on this board an spout hate. I think that to be a member here, you should have a DD214, after all, this is Military.com, not my dad, my son, my nephew served.

ROGER THAT!
Men like you paved the way for the rest of us.

Thank you.

quote:

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson did not have any military experience. These "founding fathers" were focused on the human rights issues of their day. And because of their points of view we live in a country which...

...Still required a military man to ensure their marvelous philosophies took root and co-existed.

Historically the last president as unpopular as this one was lampooned as an ape, suspended Habeas Corpus, and preserved the Union by engaging in a war that began with one purpose and ended accomplishing one much greater.

quote:

Originally posted by SheepdogA39:
Historically the last president as unpopular as this one was lampooned as an ape, suspended Habeas Corpus, and preserved the Union by engaging in a war that began with one purpose and ended accomplishing one much greater.

Very flawed comparison between a President who openly ran with an agenda of preserving the nation and abolishing slavery to one who repudiated "nation building" and will leave office having burdoned this country with just that. Lincoln could hear the guns. Lincoln was surrounded by threats. Our country was on the brink of dissolution. Slavery was very real. As tragic as 9-11 remains, the perpetrators were not in Iraq, not from Iraq. The U.S. is not on the brink of dissolution. In fact, the mastermind behind the perpetrators was left alive and continuing operations in Afghanistan and the country from which most of the 9-11 participants came remains a "vital U.S. ally." It would be as if Lincoln responded to Ft. Sumpter by invading Puerto Rico and keeping the slave-holding South Carolina of 1861 as "a partner" in the war against attacking forts. Just my POV.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bwf27,

quote:

Originally posted by CorporalMcIntyre:
bwf27,

So I guess your defense is that you don't directly insult the troops.No "defense" as there is nothing to defend against except your personal accusation. Challenging the preachings or politics of any pundit, even if that pundit is a Veteran, is in no reasonable or logical or sensible manner an insult to troops or the Military. O.N. has not been beatified to my knowledge. If he has been, I apologize.
Well...I see your point.Sorry, you don't seem to see my point at all. But that's OK.
However. When you insult the very idea of what they are fighting for then you still insult them. Disagreement with policy is in no way, shape or form disagreement with the notion of "duty, honor, country." As a civilian you can't possibly understand that. This has nothing to do with "civilian" vs "military." It has everything to do with "reason" vs "emotion." You only understand what you hear and what others tell you.To be honest... much of what I hear or others tell me I don't understand. But that's OK. I just nod and smile a lot.
The Vietnam Vets that were not drafted should understand this. If they have forgotten, then they need to think back. Back to the day they volunteered and the reasons why. I believe you will find many Viet Nam Vets on these pages who don't hold much regard for O.N. or the neoconservative movement.

... nuff said. Let's leave NFL QB's wives out of this debate, OK?

Don't pick and chose what to answer.
Answer otwo of the most important questions I asked.
Where were you during the last wars/conflicts?
Were you protesting then?
Just stand on the sidelines and cheer or jeer. That's all you've ever done.
You have a good day.
I'll continue to honorably serve in defending your right to run us down.

quote:

Originally posted by CorporalMcIntyre:
Don't pick and chose what to answer.
Answer otwo of the most important questions I asked.
Where were you during the last wars/conflicts?
Were you protesting then?
Just stand on the sidelines and cheer or jeer. That's all you've ever done.
You have a good day.
I'll continue to honorably serve in defending your right to run us down.

As an old instructor used to say, "No need to get your bowels in an uproar." I believe I shared enough in my bio to address your questions. Right of free speech is not much of a right if one does not exercise it. The Founders clearly had criticism of the Government in mind with this right. Likewise, if our Government is serving us well, we should openly acknowledge that also. You, too, have a good day.

I agree with O.N. that no one would have questioned Eisenhower or Nimitz. However, when we first engaged in battle with Germany and Japan those countries were world powers, not a 4th rate backwater like Iraq. As the case was, it took us 3 years and 10 months to achieve total victory. We have puked away five years and 4000 lives in Iraq and still don't have a solution in hand or in sight. Dubya et al never had a phase IV plan to handle Iraq after Saddam fell and they still don't. They had it wrong from the start. This operation should have been called Operation Iraqi Butt-Kicking and should have been an occupation with 400,000 troops. With luck, the Iraqis might grasp the concept of a pluralistic democracy in 500 years. Right now they are just barbarians with automatic weapons.

Shame on me. I quit reading the discussion on Ollie's editorials because the hate and vitriol from the left was horrific. This is most refreshing to hear. Men who feel as I do the LtCol North is a brave patriot and decorated veteran.
Semper Fidelis
Stop Jihad!

quote:

Shame on me. I quit reading the discussion on Ollie's editorials because the hate and vitriol from the left was horrific. This is most refreshing to hear. Men who feel as I do the LtCol North is a brave patriot and decorated veteran.
Semper Fidelis
Stop Jihad!

Hey, men who feel like you do? They usually have their hand on their gland.

Check it out dude ... might just be you don't even like North. (I mean, shame on you.)

You know, the real vitriol, whoever started it...?

It has nothing to do with a brave soldier, one who shrugged off his very life to save others, a guy who earned The Medal of Honor.

Something nobody in here can say, and something Ollie seems to have forgotten as well, in favor of another example of his own personal type of political tripe.

I think you guys are missing the boat as far as the point of this piece is concerned. If you take this piece by itself you'd see that the point he is trying to make is that Congress is still trying to politicize the war, still trying to run the war when it is not in their power to do so, and STILL ignoring the sacrafices of those serving IN PARTICULAR a Medal of Honor winner!

If members of Congress want to end the war, they need to excercise their ONLY option, power of the purse. Stop funding it. Period. And all this nonsense about the CiC abusing Executive Powers, why hasn't he been brought in front of the Supreme Court whose duty is to determine all things Constitutional? WHy are they afraid to play by the rules?

Isn't it telling that Congress has only awarded the Medal of Honor to those that have died? There are plenty of examples of those that have lived that would be deserving. Or has the criteria changed?