John Wayne's War Record (or lack therof)

[miral]

I was wrong. Wayne did not try to enlist and was refused for past injuries. The Wikipoedia has an excellent summary of the controversy. Wayne did not have to enlist. He was exempt because of his age, 34, and other things. But neither did he try to get this changed and he probably could have. But he was not, technically at least, a 'draft-dodger'.

But the threads on Heston and Wayne do point out a most important thing, and this applies not just to movie starts but to most well off people in America; the rich as well as the poor and middle classes used to have the guts and patriotism to fight when war came (one of FDR's sons was a Marine and almost captured in the raid on Maikin). Since Vietnam the rich and well off, in most if not all cases, have stopped putting themselves in danger for the country. Let someone else die to keep you making money. I am not left wing; just angered at this use of money and power to avoid war. After all, this evasion has been by politicians of both major parties for the last forty years. For every John McCain there have been dozens of Bushs and Clintons.

[Terminus]

So what else is new...? This is a politically explosive issue, and probably a bad idea to put on this forum.

[marky]

^_^

[Canoerebel]

[8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|]
 
Marky's statements don't deserve comment.
 
Miral's statement is simply wrong.  Throughout history a share of the "rich and famous" have avoided combat (as have a share of the "down and out"), but many, many of the rich and famous serve, no less today than in the past.  Prince Harry, anyone?

[marky]

^_^

[Canoerebel]

'Nuff said.

[marky]

^_^

[miral]

I dont see that my post was particularly political; sociological if anything. Armed forces and their composition reflect the makeup and attitudes of the nations they come from and I think this is a legitimate topic. You may not agree with me - I see most here dont. That's fine. But I don't think the topic of the social makeup of a great nation's armed forces is inappropriate in a wargame forum.

[marky]

ORIGINAL: miral

I dont see that my post was particularly political; sociological if anything. Armed forces and their composition reflect the makeup and attitudes of the nations they come from and I think this is a legitimate topic. You may not agree with me - I see most here dont. That's fine. But I don't think the topic of the social makeup of a great nation's armed forces is inappropriate in a wargame forum.

indeed, not really political but u ended it that way [;)]

and if u dont think it belongs here, whyd ya post sumthing u knew would arrive at that point? [:D]

jk [:D]

[marky]

any mods around lol? id suggest locking asap

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: miral

I was wrong. Wayne did not try to enlist and was refused for past injuries. The Wikipoedia has an excellent summary of the controversy. Wayne did not have to enlist. He was exempt because of his age, 34, and other things. But neither did he try to get this changed and he probably could have. But he was not, technically at least, a 'draft-dodger'.

But the threads on Heston and Wayne do point out a most important thing, and this applies not just to movie starts but to most well off people in America; the rich as well as the poor and middle classes used to have the guts and patriotism to fight when war came (one of FDR's sons was a Marine and almost captured in the raid on Maikin). Since Vietnam the rich and well off, in most if not all cases, have stopped putting themselves in danger for the country. Let someone else die to keep you making money. I am not left wing; just angered at this use of money and power to avoid war. After all, this evasion has been by politicians of both major parties for the last forty years. For every John McCain there have been dozens of Bushs and Clintons.

I don't know that this second paragraph belongs in this forum, but all I will say is that all wars are not the same. Wars start for different reasons and thus the level of support at home will vary. There was a big difference between Vietnam and World War II.

[marky]

indeed, it doesnt

and indeed theres vast differences between WW2 and Nam and even WW1

[TulliusDetritus]

"Marky's statements don't deserve comment" -- Canoerebel

Marky, because political issues must be avoided per rule of these forums [:)]

These stars may have an alibi. Argument of the cynical people: "we already have a lot of cannon fodder, don't worry; you are more useful doing movies". But of course this does not explain why some stars did go to war (i.e. James Stewart).

From what I saw on a documentary about Mr Wayne, the following might explain why he didn't go to war: becoming a star was a lot of hard work (on the 30's). He finally managed to become a some sort of star, er... just when the war started. The dilemma he had to face: "years of bloody sacrifices for nothing? Now that I finally succeed I should enlist, what the ****...??". True or false, I don't know. The reportage was quite serious though.

[marky]

indeed

then theres clark gable, he was in the AAF wasnt he? i know he did sum kinda film on the war

[HansBolter]

The thread was fine before Marky interjected the village idiot liberal tripe!

[marky]

^_^

[mlees]

Edit: Deleted.

Must not let anyone get under my skin.

[Nemo121]

Hmm, could we just stick to labelling Marky's contribution as "tripe" and not "liberal tripe". I'm a liberal and what distinguishes Marky's comments is not his liberalism but his overly simplistic worldview.
 
Ps. Guys, really, the guy can't even capitalise or punctuate properly. This is a measure of the weighing of facts he does before giving his "opinions".

[marky]

^_^

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: marky

yeah sure its all markys fault[:D]

In this particular case it is. [8D]