| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
....other fellow veterans.
I especially appreciate #11 http://www.upworthy.com/hahaha-so-tr...red-of-hearing |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On Sunday, September 8, 2013 9:42:12 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote:
...other fellow veterans. I especially appreciate #11 http://www.upworthy.com/hahaha-so-tr...red-of-hearing #5's reply isn't bad either... |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On 9/8/13 10:42 PM, Tim wrote:
...other fellow veterans. I especially appreciate #11 http://www.upworthy.com/hahaha-so-tr...red-of-hearing Yeah, because U.S. military adventurism has turned out so well for us since the end of World War II, eh? |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On Monday, September 9, 2013 5:48:24 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/8/13 10:42 PM, Tim wrote: ...other fellow veterans. I especially appreciate #11 http://www.upworthy.com/hahaha-so-tr...red-of-hearing Yeah, because U.S. military adventurism has turned out so well for us since the end of World War II, eh? Harry, you should have taken advantage of it while you could have. I enjoyed my stint. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On 9/9/13 7:38 AM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, September 9, 2013 5:48:24 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 9/8/13 10:42 PM, Tim wrote: ...other fellow veterans. I especially appreciate #11 http://www.upworthy.com/hahaha-so-tr...red-of-hearing Yeah, because U.S. military adventurism has turned out so well for us since the end of World War II, eh? Harry, you should have taken advantage of it while you could have. I enjoyed my stint. Sorry, Tim, but I was never drafted and signing up just encourages militarism. 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. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 09:47:45 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
Taking sides in civil wars when the new guys are as bad as the old guys doesn't seem to work out for us. === He's your president. Let him know. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... I think we *win* when we sent our military forces into underdeveloped countries to provide disaster relief, food, medical care, potable water, repairing of light infrastructure, et cetera, with everything marked as "A Gift from the People of the United States," or when we align with other major powers to serve as peacekeepers. Taking sides in civil wars when the new guys are as bad as the old guys doesn't seem to work out for us. ------------------------------ Those goals are not ... and have never been ... the purpose of our military. The military is for fighting and winning wars or major military conflicts. Peacemaking, disaster relief, medical care, etc., is best performed by other organizations. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On 9/9/13 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... I think we *win* when we sent our military forces into underdeveloped countries to provide disaster relief, food, medical care, potable water, repairing of light infrastructure, et cetera, with everything marked as "A Gift from the People of the United States," or when we align with other major powers to serve as peacekeepers. Taking sides in civil wars when the new guys are as bad as the old guys doesn't seem to work out for us. ------------------------------ Those goals are not ... and have never been ... the purpose of our military. The military is for fighting and winning wars or major military conflicts. Peacemaking, disaster relief, medical care, etc., is best performed by other organizations. We don't have major military conflicts or wars anymore, unless we create them, and history the last 70 years pretty much shows we shouldn't be fighting wars or major military conflicts. Working in the ways I've described will increase the prestige and esteem of this nation around the world, and it will give the military something actually *useful and helpful* to do. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 9/9/13 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... I think we *win* when we sent our military forces into underdeveloped countries to provide disaster relief, food, medical care, potable water, repairing of light infrastructure, et cetera, with everything marked as "A Gift from the People of the United States," or when we align with other major powers to serve as peacekeepers. Taking sides in civil wars when the new guys are as bad as the old guys doesn't seem to work out for us. ------------------------------ Those goals are not ... and have never been ... the purpose of our military. The military is for fighting and winning wars or major military conflicts. Peacemaking, disaster relief, medical care, etc., is best performed by other organizations. We don't have major military conflicts or wars anymore, unless we create them, and history the last 70 years pretty much shows we shouldn't be fighting wars or major military conflicts. Working in the ways I've described will increase the prestige and esteem of this nation around the world, and it will give the military something actually *useful and helpful* to do. ------------------------ Again, that's not the purpose of the military. The military forces are trained and maintained to deal with threats to our national interests and to maintain a strong deterrent to foreign aggression . The National Guard (mostly reservists) are occasionally called upon to help with domestic natural disasters or civil unrest that threaten civilians, however their role is usually secondary to local law enforcement. Sometimes you appear to have an unrealistic, utopian view of the world. Without the strong military capability that we have, we probably wouldn't be the USA today. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On 9/9/13 10:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 9/9/13 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... I think we *win* when we sent our military forces into underdeveloped countries to provide disaster relief, food, medical care, potable water, repairing of light infrastructure, et cetera, with everything marked as "A Gift from the People of the United States," or when we align with other major powers to serve as peacekeepers. Taking sides in civil wars when the new guys are as bad as the old guys doesn't seem to work out for us. ------------------------------ Those goals are not ... and have never been ... the purpose of our military. The military is for fighting and winning wars or major military conflicts. Peacemaking, disaster relief, medical care, etc., is best performed by other organizations. We don't have major military conflicts or wars anymore, unless we create them, and history the last 70 years pretty much shows we shouldn't be fighting wars or major military conflicts. Working in the ways I've described will increase the prestige and esteem of this nation around the world, and it will give the military something actually *useful and helpful* to do. ------------------------ Again, that's not the purpose of the military. The military forces are trained and maintained to deal with threats to our national interests and to maintain a strong deterrent to foreign aggression . The National Guard (mostly reservists) are occasionally called upon to help with domestic natural disasters or civil unrest that threaten civilians, however their role is usually secondary to local law enforcement. Sometimes you appear to have an unrealistic, utopian view of the world. Without the strong military capability that we have, we probably wouldn't be the USA today. I understand what the purpose of the military is. The problems seem to arise when the military is used actively as the military. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 19:42:12 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
...other fellow veterans. I especially appreciate #11 http://www.upworthy.com/hahaha-so-tr...red-of-hearing Love 'em all, but #11 is a true winner. John (Gun Nut) H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 9/9/13 10:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 9/9/13 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... I think we *win* when we sent our military forces into underdeveloped countries to provide disaster relief, food, medical care, potable water, repairing of light infrastructure, et cetera, with everything marked as "A Gift from the People of the United States," or when we align with other major powers to serve as peacekeepers. Taking sides in civil wars when the new guys are as bad as the old guys doesn't seem to work out for us. ------------------------------ Those goals are not ... and have never been ... the purpose of our military. The military is for fighting and winning wars or major military conflicts. Peacemaking, disaster relief, medical care, etc., is best performed by other organizations. We don't have major military conflicts or wars anymore, unless we create them, and history the last 70 years pretty much shows we shouldn't be fighting wars or major military conflicts. Working in the ways I've described will increase the prestige and esteem of this nation around the world, and it will give the military something actually *useful and helpful* to do. ------------------------ Again, that's not the purpose of the military. The military forces are trained and maintained to deal with threats to our national interests and to maintain a strong deterrent to foreign aggression . The National Guard (mostly reservists) are occasionally called upon to help with domestic natural disasters or civil unrest that threaten civilians, however their role is usually secondary to local law enforcement. Sometimes you appear to have an unrealistic, utopian view of the world. Without the strong military capability that we have, we probably wouldn't be the USA today. I understand what the purpose of the military is. The problems seem to arise when the military is used actively as the military. --------------------------- I disagree. The problems arise when the military is actively used for purposes it is not intended and politicians try to rely on it to solve diplomatic or foreign policy issues like nation building. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:48:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 9/9/13 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... I think we *win* when we sent our military forces into underdeveloped countries to provide disaster relief, food, medical care, potable water, repairing of light infrastructure, et cetera, with everything marked as "A Gift from the People of the United States," or when we align with other major powers to serve as peacekeepers. Taking sides in civil wars when the new guys are as bad as the old guys doesn't seem to work out for us. ------------------------------ Those goals are not ... and have never been ... the purpose of our military. The military is for fighting and winning wars or major military conflicts. Peacemaking, disaster relief, medical care, etc., is best performed by other organizations. We don't have major military conflicts or wars anymore, unless we create them, and history the last 70 years pretty much shows we shouldn't be fighting wars or major military conflicts. Working in the ways I've described will increase the prestige and esteem of this nation around the world, and it will give the military something actually *useful and helpful* to do. ------------------------ Again, that's not the purpose of the military. The military forces are trained and maintained to deal with threats to our national interests and to maintain a strong deterrent to foreign aggression . The National Guard (mostly reservists) are occasionally called upon to help with domestic natural disasters or civil unrest that threaten civilians, however their role is usually secondary to local law enforcement. Sometimes you appear to have an unrealistic, utopian view of the world. Without the strong military capability that we have, we probably wouldn't be the USA today. You're doing a pretty good job, definitely devoting a lot more time to FQAD then he deserves. However, members of the National Guard are not called 'reservists'. Members of the US Army Reserve are called Reservists. Both organizations are part of the Reserve components, but they're quite different. John (Gun Nut) H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:58:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 9/9/13 10:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 9/9/13 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... I think we *win* when we sent our military forces into underdeveloped countries to provide disaster relief, food, medical care, potable water, repairing of light infrastructure, et cetera, with everything marked as "A Gift from the People of the United States," or when we align with other major powers to serve as peacekeepers. Taking sides in civil wars when the new guys are as bad as the old guys doesn't seem to work out for us. ------------------------------ Those goals are not ... and have never been ... the purpose of our military. The military is for fighting and winning wars or major military conflicts. Peacemaking, disaster relief, medical care, etc., is best performed by other organizations. We don't have major military conflicts or wars anymore, unless we create them, and history the last 70 years pretty much shows we shouldn't be fighting wars or major military conflicts. Working in the ways I've described will increase the prestige and esteem of this nation around the world, and it will give the military something actually *useful and helpful* to do. ------------------------ Again, that's not the purpose of the military. The military forces are trained and maintained to deal with threats to our national interests and to maintain a strong deterrent to foreign aggression . The National Guard (mostly reservists) are occasionally called upon to help with domestic natural disasters or civil unrest that threaten civilians, however their role is usually secondary to local law enforcement. Sometimes you appear to have an unrealistic, utopian view of the world. Without the strong military capability that we have, we probably wouldn't be the USA today. I understand what the purpose of the military is. The problems seem to arise when the military is used actively as the military. ....which is a political call. Liberal politicians tend to screw it up a lot. John (Gun Nut) H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On 9/9/13 11:24 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 9/9/13 10:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 9/9/13 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... I think we *win* when we sent our military forces into underdeveloped countries to provide disaster relief, food, medical care, potable water, repairing of light infrastructure, et cetera, with everything marked as "A Gift from the People of the United States," or when we align with other major powers to serve as peacekeepers. Taking sides in civil wars when the new guys are as bad as the old guys doesn't seem to work out for us. ------------------------------ Those goals are not ... and have never been ... the purpose of our military. The military is for fighting and winning wars or major military conflicts. Peacemaking, disaster relief, medical care, etc., is best performed by other organizations. We don't have major military conflicts or wars anymore, unless we create them, and history the last 70 years pretty much shows we shouldn't be fighting wars or major military conflicts. Working in the ways I've described will increase the prestige and esteem of this nation around the world, and it will give the military something actually *useful and helpful* to do. ------------------------ Again, that's not the purpose of the military. The military forces are trained and maintained to deal with threats to our national interests and to maintain a strong deterrent to foreign aggression . The National Guard (mostly reservists) are occasionally called upon to help with domestic natural disasters or civil unrest that threaten civilians, however their role is usually secondary to local law enforcement. Sometimes you appear to have an unrealistic, utopian view of the world. Without the strong military capability that we have, we probably wouldn't be the USA today. I understand what the purpose of the military is. The problems seem to arise when the military is used actively as the military. --------------------------- I disagree. The problems arise when the military is actively used for purposes it is not intended and politicians try to rely on it to solve diplomatic or foreign policy issues like nation building. Use of the military is almost always a political call. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
|
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
|
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On 9/9/2013 8:19 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/9/13 7:38 AM, Tim wrote: On Monday, September 9, 2013 5:48:24 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 9/8/13 10:42 PM, Tim wrote: ...other fellow veterans. I especially appreciate #11 http://www.upworthy.com/hahaha-so-tr...red-of-hearing Yeah, because U.S. military adventurism has turned out so well for us since the end of World War II, eh? Harry, you should have taken advantage of it while you could have. I enjoyed my stint. Sorry, Tim, but I was never drafted and signing up just encourages militarism. 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. We understand. You getting accepted into any college was a minor miracle. That's probably why you think so highly of that feat. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
|
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
In article , says...
On 9/9/13 7:38 AM, Tim wrote: On Monday, September 9, 2013 5:48:24 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 9/8/13 10:42 PM, Tim wrote: ...other fellow veterans. I especially appreciate #11 http://www.upworthy.com/hahaha-so-tr...red-of-hearing Yeah, because U.S. military adventurism has turned out so well for us since the end of World War II, eh? Harry, you should have taken advantage of it while you could have. I enjoyed my stint. Sorry, Tim, but I was never drafted and signing up just encourages militarism. 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. It is a good thing that Harry was born and lived the majority of his life in the 20th century. If he had lived in any previous century he would have starved to death. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On Monday, September 9, 2013 7:19:40 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/9/13 7:38 AM, Tim wrote: On Monday, September 9, 2013 5:48:24 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 9/8/13 10:42 PM, Tim wrote: ...other fellow veterans. I especially appreciate #11 http://www.upworthy.com/hahaha-so-tr...red-of-hearing Yeah, because U.S. military adventurism has turned out so well for us since the end of World War II, eh? Harry, you should have taken advantage of it while you could have. I enjoyed my stint. Sorry, Tim, but I was never drafted Hmm, I wasn't either. and signing up just encourages militarism. 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. Speaking of... I had a cousin who was stationed in Germany and his job was to keep an eye on Brezhnev and the Roo-ski's. Another found himself in Hawaii, spookin' on Che Mong Shin[sp?], and Chairman Mao. Oh yeah. in the late 60's, the cousin in Hawaii, well... his brother-in-law served on the U.S.S Skate. They served with pride and not a one of them touched shore inSE Asia. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On Monday, September 9, 2013 7:45:53 PM UTC-5, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Sunday, September 8, 2013 9:42:12 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote: ...other fellow veterans. I especially appreciate #11 http://www.upworthy.com/hahaha-so-tr...red-of-hearing #5's reply isn't bad either... Tim, the movie is Full Metal Jacket!!! Yeah, I thought about that this afternoon. LOL! |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On Monday, September 9, 2013 10:17:56 PM UTC-5, wrote:
The Godless Communists never got past the Wilson Bridge on my watch. (except for the ones the public elected). ;-) "THEY DID NOT PASS" |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
"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. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
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. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
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. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
|
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
And once again you made an issue out of something humorously simple that posted.
|
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
|
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
|
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... 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. ------------------------------- I don't know a single person .... veteran or non veteran .... right-winger or left-winger who thinks is was something wonderful and honorable about killing anyone period. If you served in a war zone, it was a question of kill or be killed. Your views and claims on the subject are typical of someone who has little knowledge or experience with what the military is all about, other than what you read in books. And again, you demonstrate *my* point that you continue to miss. You said this: " 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." Harry, deciding to serve your country has little to do with "what's in it for me?" |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 17:59:54 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
On Monday, September 9, 2013 7:19:40 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 9/9/13 7:38 AM, Tim wrote: On Monday, September 9, 2013 5:48:24 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 9/8/13 10:42 PM, Tim wrote: ...other fellow veterans. I especially appreciate #11 http://www.upworthy.com/hahaha-so-tr...red-of-hearing Yeah, because U.S. military adventurism has turned out so well for us since the end of World War II, eh? Harry, you should have taken advantage of it while you could have. I enjoyed my stint. Sorry, Tim, but I was never drafted Hmm, I wasn't either. and signing up just encourages militarism. 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. Speaking of... I had a cousin who was stationed in Germany and his job was to keep an eye on Brezhnev and the Roo-ski's. Another found himself in Hawaii, spookin' on Che Mong Shin[sp?], and Chairman Mao. Oh yeah. in the late 60's, the cousin in Hawaii, well... his brother-in-law served on the U.S.S Skate. They served with pride and not a one of them touched shore inSE Asia. We spent a lot of time in Germany practicing a defense for a Soviet attack through the Fulda Gap. Took it pretty seriously too. John (Gun Nut) H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
"Hank©" wrote in message eb.com... 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. ---------------------------- Maybe he has flat feet. Even the military doesn't take *everyone*. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On 9/10/13 8:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... 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. ------------------------------- I don't know a single person .... veteran or non veteran .... right-winger or left-winger who thinks is was something wonderful and honorable about killing anyone period. If you served in a war zone, it was a question of kill or be killed. Your views and claims on the subject are typical of someone who has little knowledge or experience with what the military is all about, other than what you read in books. And again, you demonstrate *my* point that you continue to miss. You said this: " 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." Harry, deciding to serve your country has little to do with "what's in it for me?" Draftees "served" because they were drafted. Many but not all of those who enlisted signed up because they had nothing else to do. That was the case of the one guy I knew from high school who enlisted. He spent his three years of high school fooling around and I suppose decided he couldn't make it at college or in a disciplined apprenticeship program to learn a skilled trade. So he joined the army. There was a lot of the "my country right or wrong" bull**** in the mid to late 1960's...I think Vietnam helped most thinking Americans get over that kind of absurdity. I volunteered to be a program officer for an agricultural program in Vietnam and trained for it and when I got there, I found out the program had been cancelled. So I was given an opportunity to volunteer for other civilian duty over there and I took it. There are many ways to "serve" one's country without wearing a uniform and patting yourself on the back for the rest of your life because you did so. These days, and for decades, I have been more impressed with the service of teachers, nurses, social workers, anti-poverty workers, firemen, et cetera, than I have been by the service of soldiers, because the civilians are working every day to improve the lives of Americans who need help. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On 9/10/13 8:49 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"Hank©" wrote in message eb.com... 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. ---------------------------- Maybe he has flat feet. Even the military doesn't take *everyone*. Apparently Lieutenant William Calley didn't have flat feet, so he was qualified to be an officer. Ergo, the military did take just about anybody who enlisted or who it drafted. D'oh. I don't have flat feet and I was never ordered to report for a pre-induction physical. I kept my draft board informed of my status and whereabouts, as I was supposed to do. I never did write to my draft board and demand that I be drafted. I suppose if I were an imbecile, I might have done that. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 04:53:50 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com 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. Very broadening...but it sure didn't make for a good deal financially! I began my military service in Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. From there I made the following moves: To Ft Sill,OK - Ft Devens, MA - Ft Belvoir, VA - Dexheim, Germany - Cu Chi, Vietnam - Ft Benning, GA - Tampa, FL - Ft Belvoir, VA - Ft MacArthur (San Pedro), CA - Bethesda, MD - Norfolk, VA - Seoul, Korea - Alexandria, VA - Stuttgart, Germany - Arlington, VA - Alexandria, VA Doesn't do well for long-term real estate investing. John (Gun Nut) H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
"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. |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
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... |
To John, BAR, Greg, Richard, FlaJim, and ....
"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". |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:53 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com