On 9/10/13 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message
...

On Monday, September 9, 2013 7:19:40 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


Sorry, Tim, but I was never drafted and signing up just encourages
militarism.

Hmm, I wasn't either.
Really? I thought it was enlisting to defend your country.


Beside, I thought getting an education and starting a career
were more important than killing SE Asians who posed no threat to
the United States.

Not everyone who served during the 'Vietnam Era' went to Vietnam, Harry.
The Soviet Union was a real threat, though.

-------------------------------------------

Harry sometimes strikes me as a charter member of the "me, me, me"
generation, even though he was born and grew up before it really became
a prevalent philosophy. It is evidenced by his comment, "Besides, I
thought getting an education and starting a career were more important
....".

Many of us grew up in roughly the same time period but were influenced
by a broader range of values and mores. In those days devoting a
couple of years of your life to military service or finding other ways
to serve your country for a short period of time was an honorable thing
to do. It certainly wasn't for the pay or to receive a direct, personal
benefit ... the goals that influenced Harry. The concept of Patriotism
and service was more pure in those days.

When JFK introduced the concept of the Peace Corps in 1960, he described
it as an alternative way to "serve your country", an example of the
values of the time. The Peace Corps was officially incorporated the
following year and offered young people a means of fulfilling whatever
obligations they felt they had without military service. Most who have
served in the Peace Corps consider it as one of the most meaningful
experiences of their lives.

None of this is meant to say that everyone should feel a need to serve
their country or serve in the military. It's a personal thing, based on
how you were raised and influenced. However, the need for a military
exists in every generation and those who choose to serve (or those who
were called upon to serve and did) ... should not be vilified in the
manner that Harry engages in. This is the thing about Harry's attitude
that ****es me off sometimes.

Ironically, those who serve in the military, be it for only 2 years, 4
years, (9 years active duty and two reserve for me), or made it a
career, almost all realize later in life that the experience broadened
their lives and they likely received more personal benefit from the
experience than they gave.


And once again, you simply missed the point. As previously stated, of
all the young men I knew in my high school graduating class, and I knew
a lot of them, only one went directly from high school into the
military. Not everyone went to college, but most of the guys I know did.
This was in the early 1960s, and there simply wasn't much going on
militarily for us anywhere, at least not much that was talked about on
the Nightly News. But by 1963, after Thich Quang Duc set himself on fire
to protest the Diem dictatorship in South Vietnam, many of us knew that
doing anything to support that government was just prolonging its reign
of corruption, and we also knew by then that the corruption had a lot
more to do with and was a lot deeper than the simple prevention of the
spread of communism. We basically were screwing the people of Vietnam,
just as the French did. I saw no reason to participate in that fraud. It
wasn't as if the North Vietnamese had their eyes on Mississippi or
anything other than the long-promised reunification of *their* country.
Why would someone voluntarily drop out of college to participate in that
military and political fraud? Our military apparatus, the officer corps,
was part and parcel of corruption in Vietnam.

My issues generally aren't with the individuals who were drafted or
enlisted and sent over to Vietnam. I do have issues, though, with
right-wingers who think there was something wonderful and honorable
about going over there to kill SE Asians because they were somehow being
"patriotic." That's a nice rationalization, but Vietnam wasn't Germany,
Japan, or even Italy.

On 9/10/2013 6:58 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/10/13 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message
...

On Monday, September 9, 2013 7:19:40 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


Sorry, Tim, but I was never drafted and signing up just encourages
militarism.

Hmm, I wasn't either.
Really? I thought it was enlisting to defend your country.


Beside, I thought getting an education and starting a career
were more important than killing SE Asians who posed no threat to
the United States.

Not everyone who served during the 'Vietnam Era' went to Vietnam, Harry.
The Soviet Union was a real threat, though.

-------------------------------------------

Harry sometimes strikes me as a charter member of the "me, me, me"
generation, even though he was born and grew up before it really became
a prevalent philosophy. It is evidenced by his comment, "Besides, I
thought getting an education and starting a career were more important
....".

Many of us grew up in roughly the same time period but were influenced
by a broader range of values and mores. In those days devoting a
couple of years of your life to military service or finding other ways
to serve your country for a short period of time was an honorable thing
to do. It certainly wasn't for the pay or to receive a direct, personal
benefit ... the goals that influenced Harry. The concept of Patriotism
and service was more pure in those days.

When JFK introduced the concept of the Peace Corps in 1960, he described
it as an alternative way to "serve your country", an example of the
values of the time. The Peace Corps was officially incorporated the
following year and offered young people a means of fulfilling whatever
obligations they felt they had without military service. Most who have
served in the Peace Corps consider it as one of the most meaningful
experiences of their lives.

None of this is meant to say that everyone should feel a need to serve
their country or serve in the military. It's a personal thing, based on
how you were raised and influenced. However, the need for a military
exists in every generation and those who choose to serve (or those who
were called upon to serve and did) ... should not be vilified in the
manner that Harry engages in. This is the thing about Harry's attitude
that ****es me off sometimes.

Ironically, those who serve in the military, be it for only 2 years, 4
years, (9 years active duty and two reserve for me), or made it a
career, almost all realize later in life that the experience broadened
their lives and they likely received more personal benefit from the
experience than they gave.


And once again, you simply missed the point. As previously stated, of
all the young men I knew in my high school graduating class, and I knew
a lot of them, only one went directly from high school into the
military. Not everyone went to college, but most of the guys I know did.
This was in the early 1960s, and there simply wasn't much going on
militarily for us anywhere, at least not much that was talked about on
the Nightly News. But by 1963, after Thich Quang Duc set himself on fire
to protest the Diem dictatorship in South Vietnam, many of us knew that
doing anything to support that government was just prolonging its reign
of corruption, and we also knew by then that the corruption had a lot
more to do with and was a lot deeper than the simple prevention of the
spread of communism. We basically were screwing the people of Vietnam,
just as the French did. I saw no reason to participate in that fraud. It
wasn't as if the North Vietnamese had their eyes on Mississippi or
anything other than the long-promised reunification of *their* country.
Why would someone voluntarily drop out of college to participate in that
military and political fraud? Our military apparatus, the officer corps,
was part and parcel of corruption in Vietnam.

My issues generally aren't with the individuals who were drafted or
enlisted and sent over to Vietnam. I do have issues, though, with
right-wingers who think there was something wonderful and honorable
about going over there to kill SE Asians because they were somehow being
"patriotic." That's a nice rationalization, but Vietnam wasn't Germany,
Japan, or even Italy.

Harry, you are going to great lengths to TRY to convince us that your
cowardice and selfishness weren't the reasons you made the decisions you
did. Sorry little fella. Your rationalizations for your lack of spine
don't fly.

In article om,
says...

On 9/10/2013 6:58 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/10/13 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message
...

On Monday, September 9, 2013 7:19:40 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


Sorry, Tim, but I was never drafted and signing up just encourages
militarism.

Hmm, I wasn't either.
Really? I thought it was enlisting to defend your country.


Beside, I thought getting an education and starting a career
were more important than killing SE Asians who posed no threat to
the United States.

Not everyone who served during the 'Vietnam Era' went to Vietnam, Harry.
The Soviet Union was a real threat, though.

-------------------------------------------

Harry sometimes strikes me as a charter member of the "me, me, me"
generation, even though he was born and grew up before it really became
a prevalent philosophy. It is evidenced by his comment, "Besides, I
thought getting an education and starting a career were more important
....".

Many of us grew up in roughly the same time period but were influenced
by a broader range of values and mores. In those days devoting a
couple of years of your life to military service or finding other ways
to serve your country for a short period of time was an honorable thing
to do. It certainly wasn't for the pay or to receive a direct, personal
benefit ... the goals that influenced Harry. The concept of Patriotism
and service was more pure in those days.

When JFK introduced the concept of the Peace Corps in 1960, he described
it as an alternative way to "serve your country", an example of the
values of the time. The Peace Corps was officially incorporated the
following year and offered young people a means of fulfilling whatever
obligations they felt they had without military service. Most who have
served in the Peace Corps consider it as one of the most meaningful
experiences of their lives.

None of this is meant to say that everyone should feel a need to serve
their country or serve in the military. It's a personal thing, based on
how you were raised and influenced. However, the need for a military
exists in every generation and those who choose to serve (or those who
were called upon to serve and did) ... should not be vilified in the
manner that Harry engages in. This is the thing about Harry's attitude
that ****es me off sometimes.

Ironically, those who serve in the military, be it for only 2 years, 4
years, (9 years active duty and two reserve for me), or made it a
career, almost all realize later in life that the experience broadened
their lives and they likely received more personal benefit from the
experience than they gave.


And once again, you simply missed the point. As previously stated, of
all the young men I knew in my high school graduating class, and I knew
a lot of them, only one went directly from high school into the
military. Not everyone went to college, but most of the guys I know did.
This was in the early 1960s, and there simply wasn't much going on
militarily for us anywhere, at least not much that was talked about on
the Nightly News. But by 1963, after Thich Quang Duc set himself on fire
to protest the Diem dictatorship in South Vietnam, many of us knew that
doing anything to support that government was just prolonging its reign
of corruption, and we also knew by then that the corruption had a lot
more to do with and was a lot deeper than the simple prevention of the
spread of communism. We basically were screwing the people of Vietnam,
just as the French did. I saw no reason to participate in that fraud. It
wasn't as if the North Vietnamese had their eyes on Mississippi or
anything other than the long-promised reunification of *their* country.
Why would someone voluntarily drop out of college to participate in that
military and political fraud? Our military apparatus, the officer corps,
was part and parcel of corruption in Vietnam.

My issues generally aren't with the individuals who were drafted or
enlisted and sent over to Vietnam. I do have issues, though, with
right-wingers who think there was something wonderful and honorable
about going over there to kill SE Asians because they were somehow being
"patriotic." That's a nice rationalization, but Vietnam wasn't Germany,
Japan, or even Italy.

Harry, you are going to great lengths to TRY to convince us that your
cowardice and selfishness weren't the reasons you made the decisions you
did. Sorry little fella. Your rationalizations for your lack of spine
don't fly.

It appears that Harry lives the typical liberal life, do as I say and not as I do.

In article om,
says...

On 9/10/2013 6:58 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/10/13 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message
...

On Monday, September 9, 2013 7:19:40 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


Sorry, Tim, but I was never drafted and signing up just encourages
militarism.

Hmm, I wasn't either.
Really? I thought it was enlisting to defend your country.


Beside, I thought getting an education and starting a career
were more important than killing SE Asians who posed no threat to
the United States.

Not everyone who served during the 'Vietnam Era' went to Vietnam, Harry.
The Soviet Union was a real threat, though.

-------------------------------------------

Harry sometimes strikes me as a charter member of the "me, me, me"
generation, even though he was born and grew up before it really became
a prevalent philosophy. It is evidenced by his comment, "Besides, I
thought getting an education and starting a career were more important
....".

Many of us grew up in roughly the same time period but were influenced
by a broader range of values and mores. In those days devoting a
couple of years of your life to military service or finding other ways
to serve your country for a short period of time was an honorable thing
to do. It certainly wasn't for the pay or to receive a direct, personal
benefit ... the goals that influenced Harry. The concept of Patriotism
and service was more pure in those days.

When JFK introduced the concept of the Peace Corps in 1960, he described
it as an alternative way to "serve your country", an example of the
values of the time. The Peace Corps was officially incorporated the
following year and offered young people a means of fulfilling whatever
obligations they felt they had without military service. Most who have
served in the Peace Corps consider it as one of the most meaningful
experiences of their lives.

None of this is meant to say that everyone should feel a need to serve
their country or serve in the military. It's a personal thing, based on
how you were raised and influenced. However, the need for a military
exists in every generation and those who choose to serve (or those who
were called upon to serve and did) ... should not be vilified in the
manner that Harry engages in. This is the thing about Harry's attitude
that ****es me off sometimes.

Ironically, those who serve in the military, be it for only 2 years, 4
years, (9 years active duty and two reserve for me), or made it a
career, almost all realize later in life that the experience broadened
their lives and they likely received more personal benefit from the
experience than they gave.


And once again, you simply missed the point. As previously stated, of
all the young men I knew in my high school graduating class, and I knew
a lot of them, only one went directly from high school into the
military. Not everyone went to college, but most of the guys I know did.
This was in the early 1960s, and there simply wasn't much going on
militarily for us anywhere, at least not much that was talked about on
the Nightly News. But by 1963, after Thich Quang Duc set himself on fire
to protest the Diem dictatorship in South Vietnam, many of us knew that
doing anything to support that government was just prolonging its reign
of corruption, and we also knew by then that the corruption had a lot
more to do with and was a lot deeper than the simple prevention of the
spread of communism. We basically were screwing the people of Vietnam,
just as the French did. I saw no reason to participate in that fraud. It
wasn't as if the North Vietnamese had their eyes on Mississippi or
anything other than the long-promised reunification of *their* country.
Why would someone voluntarily drop out of college to participate in that
military and political fraud? Our military apparatus, the officer corps,
was part and parcel of corruption in Vietnam.

My issues generally aren't with the individuals who were drafted or
enlisted and sent over to Vietnam. I do have issues, though, with
right-wingers who think there was something wonderful and honorable
about going over there to kill SE Asians because they were somehow being
"patriotic." That's a nice rationalization, but Vietnam wasn't Germany,
Japan, or even Italy.

Harry, you are going to great lengths to TRY to convince us that your
cowardice and selfishness weren't the reasons you made the decisions you
did. Sorry little fella. Your rationalizations for your lack of spine
don't fly.

I can't speak for Harry, but not everyone who decided not to serve was a
coward.

On 9/10/13 8:30 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 9/10/2013 6:58 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/10/13 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message
...

On Monday, September 9, 2013 7:19:40 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


Sorry, Tim, but I was never drafted and signing up just encourages
militarism.

Hmm, I wasn't either.
Really? I thought it was enlisting to defend your country.


Beside, I thought getting an education and starting a career
were more important than killing SE Asians who posed no threat to
the United States.

Not everyone who served during the 'Vietnam Era' went to Vietnam, Harry.
The Soviet Union was a real threat, though.

-------------------------------------------

Harry sometimes strikes me as a charter member of the "me, me, me"
generation, even though he was born and grew up before it really became
a prevalent philosophy. It is evidenced by his comment, "Besides, I
thought getting an education and starting a career were more important
....".

Many of us grew up in roughly the same time period but were influenced
by a broader range of values and mores. In those days devoting a
couple of years of your life to military service or finding other ways
to serve your country for a short period of time was an honorable thing
to do. It certainly wasn't for the pay or to receive a direct, personal
benefit ... the goals that influenced Harry. The concept of Patriotism
and service was more pure in those days.

When JFK introduced the concept of the Peace Corps in 1960, he described
it as an alternative way to "serve your country", an example of the
values of the time. The Peace Corps was officially incorporated the
following year and offered young people a means of fulfilling whatever
obligations they felt they had without military service. Most who have
served in the Peace Corps consider it as one of the most meaningful
experiences of their lives.

None of this is meant to say that everyone should feel a need to serve
their country or serve in the military. It's a personal thing, based on
how you were raised and influenced. However, the need for a military
exists in every generation and those who choose to serve (or those who
were called upon to serve and did) ... should not be vilified in the
manner that Harry engages in. This is the thing about Harry's attitude
that ****es me off sometimes.

Ironically, those who serve in the military, be it for only 2 years, 4
years, (9 years active duty and two reserve for me), or made it a
career, almost all realize later in life that the experience broadened
their lives and they likely received more personal benefit from the
experience than they gave.


And once again, you simply missed the point. As previously stated, of
all the young men I knew in my high school graduating class, and I knew
a lot of them, only one went directly from high school into the
military. Not everyone went to college, but most of the guys I know did.
This was in the early 1960s, and there simply wasn't much going on
militarily for us anywhere, at least not much that was talked about on
the Nightly News. But by 1963, after Thich Quang Duc set himself on fire
to protest the Diem dictatorship in South Vietnam, many of us knew that
doing anything to support that government was just prolonging its reign
of corruption, and we also knew by then that the corruption had a lot
more to do with and was a lot deeper than the simple prevention of the
spread of communism. We basically were screwing the people of Vietnam,
just as the French did. I saw no reason to participate in that fraud. It
wasn't as if the North Vietnamese had their eyes on Mississippi or
anything other than the long-promised reunification of *their* country.
Why would someone voluntarily drop out of college to participate in that
military and political fraud? Our military apparatus, the officer corps,
was part and parcel of corruption in Vietnam.

My issues generally aren't with the individuals who were drafted or
enlisted and sent over to Vietnam. I do have issues, though, with
right-wingers who think there was something wonderful and honorable
about going over there to kill SE Asians because they were somehow being
"patriotic." That's a nice rationalization, but Vietnam wasn't Germany,
Japan, or even Italy.

Harry, you are going to great lengths to TRY to convince us that your
cowardice and selfishness weren't the reasons you made the decisions you
did. Sorry little fella. Your rationalizations for your lack of spine
don't fly.

I can't speak for Harry, but not everyone who decided not to serve was a
coward.


As if I were interested in what passes for the thoughts of right-wing
retards like FlaJim...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


I can't speak for Harry, but not everyone who decided not to serve was
a
coward.

------------------------------------

I don't consider people who did not serve in the military as being
cowards. Other than in world wars, a very small percentage of the
population serves in the military, Peace Corps or other service
capacities.

What I don't appreciate about Harry's comments (although he always
deflects criticism by qualifying his statements, then repeating the
same ones over and over again) is that those who *did* serve are
somehow the dregs of society who lack in intelligence, education or
ability to make their way in civilian life. It simply isn't true.
The vast majority of veterans served either two or four years and then
returned to civilian life to pursue successful careers. Harry also
often repeats his claim that those who served in Vietnam were
motivated by a desire to "slaughter" defenseless people.

What Harry represents is someone who worshipped the world of academia,
as if the number of degrees you earn is an indicator of your success,
intelligence and social stature. His circle of "close friends" is
made up of like-minded people, and it becomes somewhat of a mutual
admiration society.

It's not uncommon. I've seen it represented many times in my life
experiences. My only gripe is for those who think they are somehow
superior to the rest of the people in the world.

On 9/10/2013 9:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


I can't speak for Harry, but not everyone who decided not to serve was a
coward.

------------------------------------

I don't consider people who did not serve in the military as being
cowards. Other than in world wars, a very small percentage of the
population serves in the military, Peace Corps or other service capacities.

What I don't appreciate about Harry's comments (although he always
deflects criticism by qualifying his statements, then repeating the same
ones over and over again) is that those who *did* serve are somehow the
dregs of society who lack in intelligence, education or ability to make
their way in civilian life. It simply isn't true. The vast majority of
veterans served either two or four years and then returned to civilian
life to pursue successful careers. Harry also often repeats his claim
that those who served in Vietnam were motivated by a desire to
"slaughter" defenseless people.

What Harry represents is someone who worshipped the world of academia,
as if the number of degrees you earn is an indicator of your success,
intelligence and social stature. His circle of "close friends" is made
up of like-minded people, and it becomes somewhat of a mutual admiration
society.

It's not uncommon. I've seen it represented many times in my life
experiences. My only gripe is for those who think they are somehow
superior to the rest of the people in the world.






harry only says what he feels will get a response out of you. You could
stop it in one post if you wanted...

"skin a cat" wrote in message ...


harry only says what he feels will get a response out of you. You
could
stop it in one post if you wanted...

---------------------------

Why? It's a civil discussion or debate, representing different
points of view. It's not like either of us are exchanging vile,
vulgar comments about wives or family members in an attempt to score
"points".

On 9/10/13 9:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"skin a cat" wrote in message ...


harry only says what he feels will get a response out of you. You could
stop it in one post if you wanted...

---------------------------

Why? It's a civil discussion or debate, representing different points
of view. It's not like either of us are exchanging vile, vulgar
comments about wives or family members in an attempt to score "points".


Must be because I misspent a lot of my teen youth chasing down those
Amity chicks...

On 9/10/2013 9:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"skin a cat" wrote in message ...


harry only says what he feels will get a response out of you. You could
stop it in one post if you wanted...

---------------------------

Why? It's a civil discussion or debate, representing different points
of view. It's not like either of us are exchanging vile, vulgar
comments about wives or family members in an attempt to score "points".

I guess you get to set your bars where you like... The way harry, kevin,
and don talk about military service and veterans is as vulgar to me as
anything I have ever said.. Quite frankly, I find your repeated response
to such nonsense, repulsive...But like I said, you get to set your own
bars...