John Wayne's War Record (or lack therof)

[marky]

[:D]

i didnt start this thread now did i [;)]

yes i injected my thoughts but most everyone did too [;)]

[marky]

EDIT:

bah this is just a waste of my time im done, got better things ta do

[miral]

Marky, 'dont think the topic....is inappropriate' means I thought it was. From the response I was wrong. Sorry, I will go no where near anything anyone might construe as political in future. Thanks.

[John 3rd]

I emphatically concur with Canoerebel and Hans...
 

[rogue]

[/quote]

how is that?

Mccain was asked, "you know most americans dont want us in Iraq anymore"

his reply was: "So?"

he will clearly continue Bush's moronic policies, or be even worse

prince harry was on the frontline until exposed by the moronic media, which as you may know also published info on PacFlts movements and deployments before Pearl Harbor
[/quote]


I know you guys have are having a debate, but this statement was made by Dick Cheney and not McCain. It was made while Cheney was having an interview. I saw the statement on TV, but I can't remember who was doing the interview, if I can find it I will post it.

[mlees]

ORIGINAL: rogue

ORIGINAL: marky

how is that?

Mccain was asked, "you know most americans dont want us in Iraq anymore"

his reply was: "So?"

he will clearly continue Bush's moronic policies, or be even worse

prince harry was on the frontline until exposed by the moronic media, which as you may know also published info on PacFlts movements and deployments before Pearl Harbor

I know you guys have are having a debate, but this statement was made by Dick Cheney and not McCain. It was made while Cheney was having an interview. I saw the statement on TV, but I can't remember who was doing the interview, if I can find it I will post it.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4481249

It's what I deleted. I didn't want to carry the discussion forward, as Matrix has asked us repeatedly NOT to discuss politics here.

I didn't insult marky in my deleted post.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: marky

[:D]

i didnt start this thread now did i [;)]

yes i injected my thoughts but most everyone did too [;)]

What I mean is that the original post was (as miral said) sociological but not political. He mentioned comparative service records of both major parties as being way out of balance in terms of served versus (some manner of) deferred. Your post (and others since - not just you) definitely went to the politics. I too have my own political opinions on the matter but I am withholding them.

I wanted to explain so you didn't think I was swiping at you.

[TulliusDetritus]

Mless, yes, that's what you wrote before you edit your post (I mean the Cheney thing and the ABC link). NO insults at all on your original post.

[wdolson]

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 will not comment on recent politics. However, rather than a trend of cowardice on the part of the well off in recent times, World War II is more of an exception when seen in the context of all of American history. During the Civil War, the north instituted a draft, but people could buy their way out of it, and most of the well off did. Most of the wars of the 19th century were avoided by the wealthy.

In the Spanish American War, Teddy Roosevelt put together his rough riders, who were a bunch of rich society boys. However, their real record is not as glamorous as the hype. Roosevelt's charge up San Juan Hill was a publicity stunt. The Spanish had already surrendered, but were put back in the fort so Roosevelt could retake it in front of the media. (My ex-brother-in-law's grand father had been in the regular army at San Juan Hill and was one of the ones who took it the first time. He said the Spanish were very demoralized and surrendered in droves.)

World War II and to a lesser degree World War I were the exceptions to the rules. From 1933 to Pearl Harbor, the consistent message from FDR was one of unity. Everyone pulling together to save the country. From 1939 to Pearl Harbor, there were constant streams of stories about the war in Europe and both England and the USSR on the ropes. Then Pearl Harbor happened, which was probably the biggest wake up call at all. A power most people thought was insignificant pulled off a surprise attack and crippled one of the strongest battleship fleets in the world at anchor.

All these factors generated a feeling of unified commitment up and down the social classes. The rich volunteered for service in that war because there was a sense of honor about that war that didn't exist before or since.

Some of this lingered in Korea, but the rich's commitment to Korea was much softer than for WW II. By Vietnam, it had pretty much dissipated. Many of those who were well off who got suckered into volunteering came back as anti war advocates.

Rather than a trend of apathy over the last 60 years, WW II is more of an anomally in US history.

Bill

[ChezDaJez]

Before we villify anyone's war record or lack thereof... I have one question for everyone here...

Did you serve?

Chez

[Splinterhead]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

In the Spanish American War, Teddy Roosevelt put together his rough riders, who were a bunch of rich society boys. However, their real record is not as glamorous as the hype. Roosevelt's charge up San Juan Hill was a publicity stunt. The Spanish had already surrendered, but were put back in the fort so Roosevelt could retake it in front of the media. (My ex-brother-in-law's grand father had been in the regular army at San Juan Hill and was one of the ones who took it the first time. He said the Spanish were very demoralized and surrendered in droves.)

Far be it for me to argue with your ex-brother-in-law's long dead grandfather's account (which differs from virtually all historical accounts), but you must admire the team spirit that led so many of those rich society boys (plus a good number of cowboys and Amerinds) to shoot themselves just to drive up the rough riders casualty lists in order to give TRs publicity stunt that little oomph of credibility.

[2ndACR]

OHHHHH.........so tempted to really respond, but will only say that this needs to be locked down tight. Marky you really need to go back and edit your post to remove the Mcain, Bush, Clinton and FDR parts. Stay on the topic at hand.

And yeah, I have served.........active duty 1987-1993 and then from 2004-2007 in the Texas Guard.

I have served in Panama, GW1, Somalia and OIF3.

Oh and my MOS is Infantry and Cavalry Scout, so those were all combat tours. Not that I count Panama really.

[ChezDaJez]

The point of my post above is not to glorify or denigrate anyone's decision to serve or not serve. That is a personal and individual decision that no one else has the right to criticize.

Many politicians today have never worn the uniform. That doesn't make them any better or worse than those who haven't. Doesn't matter whether they are liberal or conservative, democrat or republican. However to have anyone's physical and mental character tested to the extent McCain did demands at least a small measure of respect regardless of whether you agree with his politics. To characterize him as "scum" is not just offensive, it also shows the character of the man making the statement.

'nuff said.

Chez

[2ndACR]

I understand what you are saying and respect that. But I also have to say.........he has the right to his opinion, but not here in this forum. Wether he served or not. I will not bash anyone who has not served unless they truely cross certain lines.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: wdolson
In the Spanish American War, Teddy Roosevelt put together his rough riders, who were a bunch of rich society boys. However, their real record is not as glamorous as the hype. Roosevelt's charge up San Juan Hill was a publicity stunt. The Spanish had already surrendered, but were put back in the fort so Roosevelt could retake it in front of the media. (My ex-brother-in-law's grand father had been in the regular army at San Juan Hill and was one of the ones who took it the first time. He said the Spanish were very demoralized and surrendered in droves.)

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead
Far be it for me to argue with your ex-brother-in-law's long dead grandfather's account (which differs from virtually all historical accounts), but you must admire the team spirit that led so many of those rich society boys (plus a good number of cowboys and Amerinds) to shoot themselves just to drive up the rough riders casualty lists in order to give TRs publicity stunt that little oomph of credibility.

Even my BIL's parents were gone by the time I met him, so I can't verify it. Teddy Roosevelt was something of a media hound and that time was the early days of the big media we have today. There are many historical records that Hearst's newspapers exaggerated the situation in Cuba and the Philippines to sell newspapers.

Whatever actually happened, I'm sure that TR exaggerated his role to at least some degree.

Bill

[mlees]

Someone, a real life WW2 vet and working in hollywood after the war, commenting on John Wayne's decision not to fight his enlistment classification, said that Wayne did nothing wrong in accepting the status quo. (I forget who it was.)
 
I assume, that if Wayne had been drafted, he would have served, just as many others had. There is no reason to suspect Wayne would have been a failure in combat.
 
I served in the USN from 1983 to 1989. No combat service. My particular contribution was merely average. (Heh.) I was a much more high strung individual then, and every little discomfort that comes with service life was seen as somehow personally arranged to torture me. I had become disallusioned with some the ironic non-sensicalities of the entrenched beauracracy that you find in military life. (For example, some folks getting promoted who did not fit my ideal of an officer or chief. "Red tape" as a high art form.) I couldn't wait to serve my obligation, get out, and get a cushy high paying job.
 
Now, with a little more seasoning, I realise that I was naive. The same "unfairnesses" are found throughout life, and they are ambivalent in when, where, and who they happen to. In other words, I grew up, and realised how naive I was.
 
Never-the-less, I stood the watch. As did many others with me, and I feel no shame in my service. (Just a little for my "full of beans" attitudes.) I miss a lot of the fellas I knew back then.
 
I fully support the idea of an all volunteer service, and if an individual declines to serve, that is entirely their right. Our fathers and grandfathers, in WW2 and else-when, fought the good fight so that their children wouldn't have to.
 
There should be ZERO stigma attached to an individual who chose not to serve, at least in the US, IMO. They can "smoke dope, and bad mouth thier country", if they want to. That is also thier right. I will silently feel that they are naive in some areas, but at least we have, together, built a society that can afford to have so many different life style choices available, and I am proud of that. (Of course, we still have some work to do! [;)])

[mlees]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Mless, yes, that's what you wrote before you edit your post (I mean the Cheney thing and the ABC link). NO insults at all on your original post.

Thanks for the confirmation, sir. I was afraid marky assumed the worst of me after I deleted my comments.

[Splinterhead]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: wdolson
In the Spanish American War, Teddy Roosevelt put together his rough riders, who were a bunch of rich society boys. However, their real record is not as glamorous as the hype. Roosevelt's charge up San Juan Hill was a publicity stunt. The Spanish had already surrendered, but were put back in the fort so Roosevelt could retake it in front of the media. (My ex-brother-in-law's grand father had been in the regular army at San Juan Hill and was one of the ones who took it the first time. He said the Spanish were very demoralized and surrendered in droves.)

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead
Far be it for me to argue with your ex-brother-in-law's long dead grandfather's account (which differs from virtually all historical accounts), but you must admire the team spirit that led so many of those rich society boys (plus a good number of cowboys and Amerinds) to shoot themselves just to drive up the rough riders casualty lists in order to give TRs publicity stunt that little oomph of credibility.

Even my BIL's parents were gone by the time I met him, so I can't verify it. Teddy Roosevelt was something of a media hound and that time was the early days of the big media we have today. There are many historical records that Hearst's newspapers exaggerated the situation in Cuba and the Philippines to sell newspapers.

Whatever actually happened, I'm sure that TR exaggerated his role to at least some degree.

Bill

agreed.

[jwilkerson]

There are a number of things wrong with this thread

(A) It is OT (this forum is about WITP and the history behind it)

(B) The political aspects of the discussion are crossing the line (for some)

(C) But first and foremost, a surprising number of you are waaay across the line on personal attacks.

If you want to try to post such topics in the general forum - they might fly there - sans the personal attacks.


locked.