← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · JoseyWales
Thread ID: 19114 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2005-07-12
2005-07-12 17:05 | User Profile
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm[/url]
Jewish father and argued in favor of letting gays serve in the military, yet somehow most of todays generation would label him as a "conservative icon".
2005-07-12 17:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=JoseyWales][Jewish father and argued in favor of letting gays serve in the military, yet somehow most of todays generation would label him as a "[B][I]conservative icon[/I][/B]".[/QUOTE]Unfortunately many in this country satisfy themselves with rhetoric only. Many, if not most, posturing macho men were not to be found when it counted. This most certainly does include noted conservatives. From my book:[QUOTE]Mr. Conservative, Barry Goldwater, in his autobiography ranted about the draftdodgers in Washington, but could not bring himself to admit his sons took deferments to avoid military service in Vietnam[B].[1][/B] Goldwater like his coeval, Ronald Reagan, never saw day one of combat during the Second World War. The pansy right in American politics has always been much larger than one might expect. The impression gained by listening to the bloodthirsty rhetoric of the American conservatives who professed to be for the rollback of godless communism would lead to the contrived notion that these men had exposed themselves to danger. Almost without exception these men had turned their back when asked to bear arms...
Another such letter was written by Goldwater's contemporary, the Governor of California, Ronald Reagan, who like Goldwater managed to avoid combat in his days in military service. Mr. Reagan wrote of making it clear to the American people that it was in our national interest to be in Vietnam and that it was vital to our national security[B].[2] [/B] A year earlier Michael, son of the governor, had taken his draft physical. Manfully admitting that he was afraid of going to Vietnam and being killed, young Reagan was sure if he did go and did die, he would die a hero's death. Michael knew his father would be proud of him. The notion of going into the army disturbed him as it would closet him with strange men in a barracks. Young Michael fortuitously had a pilonidal cyst discovered which prevented his induction. Though he was sure Dad and Nancy were disappointed he did not enter the army, young Michael celebrated for days. Michael went so far as to think it may have turned his life around[B].[3] [/B] That Michael did have a biography written has shown how far he must have progressed, but what did it say about a father who wished to demonstrate his courage with the blood of his neighbor's sons when his son had avoided danger.
2005-07-12 17:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE]"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay," he said. "You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."[/QUOTE]
Where in the Constitution does it say that fags have a right to be gay? The old man must have been senile and neocons were using him as a mouthpiece.
2005-07-12 18:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The only real aristocracy the United States ever had was the Southern planters who were defeated in the Civil War. The ruling class since that time was initially made up of greedy thugs who stole the country blind during the war between the states. Now they have been joined or supplanted by greedy cowardly Jews.[/QUOTE]
American history in a nutshell. Excellent, Gibbon.
2005-07-12 18:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]Where in the Constitution does it say that fags have a right to be gay? The old man must have been senile and neocons were using him as a mouthpiece.[/QUOTE]
He was old and sick and wanted attention. When was it ever otherwise?
2005-07-12 18:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]He was old and sick and wanted attention. When was it ever otherwise?[/QUOTE]
True. Anything to be in front of a camera.
2005-07-12 20:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon] Goldwater like his coeval, Ronald Reagan, never saw day one of combat during the Second World War. [/QUOTE] Ed:
Your being a historian and all, may I point out that most of the 12 million Americans under arms did not see combat in WW II? The "rear" echelon was immense. ETO tooth to tail was something like 1 to 12, though that depends on who you read, of course, and how you count combat arms: it is dominated by infantry, artillery, armor/cav, aviation (guys in planes in combat) and combat engineers for pracitcal purposes. (Probably missing a few MOS's, like MI.) Then there were folks who stumbled into combat, like some of the thousands in the Ardenes in the winter of 1944.
Then lets take it a step further. A lot of the guys in combat did not come back. The casualty rates in some infantry regiments were as high as 100 percent over the course of the European Campaign, what with the replacements filling in for dead and wounded. So, plenty of Garret Troopers running about after the war . . .
I don't begrudge a hawk his attitude, but I do find galling the "Senator's Son" complex. While the all volunteer force sidesteps the political face of who goes, it raises a very troubling political and social question regarding the citizen soldier concept.
How do the privileged counsel their children regarding the profession of arms? How many Ivy League grads earn a commission? How many wealthy folk have sons and daughters who enlist? I see a lot of "we support our troops, but I don't want my son to serve" sentiment these days. Indeed, I have been seeing that for a rather long time.
Has the all volunteer force acted to isolate the military from "the rest of society?" Is the Army now "They" and not "We" ? How does this potential social balkanization play out as the Korea and Viet Nam era vets go to their rest?
FWIW