Comments on: Leave my grandparents out of it

By: mc

mc — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:38:04 +0000

harry: yes of course the two situations can’t be compared. I just thought I was reading in your words a note of scorn for “how easy we have it” compared to our grandparents under the war. If that’s not what you implied, then sorry for inferring too much.

By: harry

harry — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:39:29 +0000

mc, no I think its a good thing that we’re wealthy and relatively unaffected by terrorism. This makes our experience quite unlike that of the people who lived through WWII. No? Cheap rhetorical attempts to invoke their experience in defence of a presidential candidates are obnoxious. Narcissistic at best, as people have said. That’s all. And, as I said, I agreed with the central point.

By: mc

mc — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:15:34 +0000

I don’t understand what made you so angry. I think he has a point in saying what everyone did during the Vietnam period should not matter. Any comparison on “who sacrificed most”, or between WWII and terrorism, is very offputting. Besides, for the most part, earlier generations struck by war did not sacrifice anything by choice. They just had to suffer the consequences of war. yes, people overall are generally wealthier today – so what? But while my generation (W/X) cheerfully rides around in its SUVs, gorges itself on fast food Clichés… sweeping generalisations… sends a volunteer army to a war that has nothing to do with terrorism …arguable at the very least… and continues with life as normal (except in airports) Sorry, but isn’t that a good thing, that we’re relatively unaffected by terrorism so far? Isn’t it a good thing, for instance, that even in Jerusalem people go to work and to school like normal, and that in Tel Aviv kids keep going out clubbing and partying despite the even more constant threat of being blown up? Or…? it might do well to reflect on the real experience our grandparents faced in a society completely geared up to fight a war against the worst threat civilization has ever faced. And that reflection would bring to what conclusions exactly? the classic grandma’s line “you don’t know how good you have it”? which translates into what kind of political conclusions exactly? Sorry but I really don’t get it.

By: james

james — Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:16:50 +0000

doghouse riley – The French attempted to reassert colonial control over Vietnam after WWII. They started by using non-repatraited Japanesse soldiers. The US and Britian put a stop to that. French action in the area only worsend. The US actions in dividing Vietnam post WWII, represent a compromise between early US promisses and French colonial desires. The Vietnam war was a French creation, not a US one.

By: OdysseusInRTP

OdysseusInRTP — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:07:06 +0000

From the same article: Seems like Bush was very honest about his Vietname thought process… In discussing his own decision, he has always said his main consideration was that he wanted to be a pilot, and the National Guard gave him a chance to do that. In 1989 he tried to describe his own thought process to a Texas interviewer. “I’m saying to myself, ‘What do I want to do?’ I think I don’t want to be an infantry guy as a private in Vietnam. What I do decide to want to do is learn to fly.” Asked in a recent interview whether he was avoiding the draft, Bush said, “No, I was becoming a pilot.”

By: OdysseusInRTP

OdysseusInRTP — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:05:17 +0000

Just wrt… the daddys connection comments from a wapo article that isn’t pro-Bush: Retired Col. Rufus G. Martin, then personnel officer in charge of the 147th Fighter Group, said the unit was short of its authorized strength, but still had a long waiting list, because of the difficulty getting slots in basic training for recruits at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio. Martin said four openings for pilots were available in the 147th in 1968, and that Bush got the last one. Martin and others said Bush was quickly accepted because he was willing to sign up for the intensive training and six years of service required of fighter pilots. “It was very difficult to find someone who would commit himself to the rigorous training that was required,” says Martin.

By: OdysseusInRTP

OdysseusInRTP — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:53:03 +0000

Magpie, Don’t know why my response didn’t show up yesterday? Bush’s commander, Colonel “Buck” and other NG said their were no favortism involved. So I am going of the assumption that you assume they liars. So my first point would be that your question is unfair. But, to try and answer it. Maybe, it depends on what he thought about the war at the time. I didn’t know that joining the guard was a dishonarable thing to do. You can reply with your “Daddy” comment, but then you have to call Colonel “Buck” a liar also. And I do work for a living and can’t comment on everything… But, feel free to ask me any more direct questions and I will take the time to answer. But, please try to ask questions that aren’t already biased.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:58:19 +0000

Another damned… Two things: 1) Contrary to what you may believe, I am very familiar with Adam Smith. You are most likely referring to his famous book, The Wealth of Nations, which was published in 1776. As for your swipe at me, I have no problem with ‘society and the social obligations of being human’. I am not sure what you were getting at, but I think you are mistaken in your labeling. 2) Not exactly sure what point you are trying to get at with, ‘Everything has a price — it’s just that we as Americans have helped to create a world where, on a large scale, other countries often pay the price for our lifestyle, and on a small scale, people down the ladder do the same.’ What is your point? That we have a trade deficit? That we have a budget deficit? What? I am sure you will disagree, but neither of the two above are bad. The trade deficit simply means that we are a country that has relatively high labor rates for manufacturing related jobs (thank the Unions for that one) and a good amount of disposable income to spend on said items (obviouly I am dramatically oversimplifying for the sake of space and time). The budget deficit isn’t all that complicated either. During boom times (like those during the 90’s) we are able to pay down debt (if we can have Congress and the WH be fiscally responsible or gridlock) and during slower economic times we rack up big bills because we are unwilling to cut spending to certian social programs (again I am dramatically oversimplifying for the sake of space and time). Either way, folks who claim that the sky is falling due to either the trade or budget deficit are the same ones who said that during the Reagan years. Once we had the WH and Congress deadlock on spending (the Clinton years) we were able to actively reduce the deficit. It isn’t as though the deficit has a specific finite life. It isn’t a 30 year fixed rate mortgage! So, what is your point? One final point. Democrats (and specifically liberal Democrats) are always interested in root causes. Here is the root cause of my angst with your post (and others). I have a problem with ideologs (and academics) who not only don’t know what they are talking about, but seem to have such a warped (and out of touch) sense of reality – that they view all problems as hypothesis as opposed to real world problems that need to be solved using solutions based upon realities of the day. Arnold Kling has written two great articles that cover this area: http://www.techcentralstation.com/021704B.html http://www.techcentralstation.com/082903A.html Please read the Kling article. If you do, I will promise to go back and read Adam Smith extra slowly.

By: magpie mackerel

magpie mackerel — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:26:12 +0000

Odysseus: If I’m not mistaken, you’ve failed to respond to this argument, raised earlier: Should GWB have supported the war in Vietnam after using Daddy’s connections to get out of the draft?

By: magpie mackerel

magpie mackerel — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:26:00 +0000

Odysseus: If I’m not mistaken, you’ve failed to respond to this argument, raised earlier: Should GWB have supported the war in Vietnam after using Daddy’s connections to get out of the draft?

By: brian gue

brian gue — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:01:15 +0000

Wow! Seriously Chris I’d loosen up a little. I thought Harry’s “scornful” comments were sincere even if the ideas were a bit scattered- and a few well made points too. And it is different for GenXers than baby boomers in terms of WW2 v Vietnam v 9/11. Although I think its the generation after the Xers (what are they called Gen Y?) that will be affected as well in that when coming into adulthood 9/11 was a historical event, not to say others are unaffected.

By: Odysseus

Odysseus — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:00:52 +0000

Another, My point, which I thought was pretty clear is not the same as your point. I never even addressed your point, because I accepted it. (However, I will in a minute.) I only used the f-203 as a point that many people slam Bush without knowing all of the facts or doing the work to get all the facts. I still stand by that statement. As you can read in my post I am not particularly interested in what happened 30 years ago unless it is going to be distorted…which I thought was obvious and did not relate to your point about people attacking Clinton’s lack of military service which I thought was obvious. I will be the last to belittle duty in the Guard and the first to admit that Vietnam was an extremely dangerous place to go during the 60’s. I don’t think they are comparable, but I don’t think there is shame in either one. I personally never criticized Clinton for not serving in the military. Nor do I think that is a qualification for being a leader. Some of our greatest have had little on no military experience. So it seems we are in agreement about a few things. Now this is a nasty statement: As for the rest of your comments and Chris’s, I don’t really know what to say except that they are particularly nasty and don’t show a lot of thought or a broad understanding of US and/or Western Civ. And I would gladly debate history, politics U.S. and/or Western Civilization and for fun lets throw in the Crusades, Physics, Aeronautical Engieering, owning your own business and the impressionist movement. And their is no doubt that my hard work is paying for your SS/Medicare. But, that is another issue.

By: Another Damned Medievalist feeds the trolls

Another Damned Medievalist feeds the trolls — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:25:35 +0000

Odysseus, please note that my statement makes it very clear I was reaching for a plane number off the top of my head, which is why I made the more pertinent point that it was a plane being phased out. My point on the war records, which I thought was pretty damned clear, was that, if war records were fair game, then they were fair game. The right were happy to bring up Clinton’s war record and try to crucify him with it, although only a fool would think this was the first time that such records had been debated in either a positive or negative light—Teddy Roosevelt, Ike, JFK, Bush 41—all have used their service records. Don’t blame the voters for looking at a tried-and-true standard of judgement that is actually important to many citizens. It’s not their fault that Bush’s going into an NG unit pales next to the record of someone who actually fought in the same war. As for the rest of your comments and Chris’s, I don’t really know what to say except that they are particularly nasty and don’t show a lot of thought or a broad understanding of US and/or Western Civ. I’m aging, I suppose, but that’s generally considered to be a good thing, as it means I’ still alive. I am not now, nor have I ever been a hippie—my father was a fireman and my mother is a postal worker. One look at my home would tell you that I have no problem being a consumer, but that doesn’t mean that it’s inconsistent to say that I live in a country that could stand to go on a possessions diet. I never said I wasn’t willing to do my share, either. Sorry, but we can’t have it all. The world doesn’t work that way. Anyone who tells you different (and hence my complaint with Bush and the war bill) is lying. Everything has a price—it’s just that we as Americans have helped to create a world where, on a large scale, other countries often pay the price for our lifestyle, and on a small scale, people down the ladder do the same. I suppose it’s some consolation, though, that folks like you and chris will have to pay for my SSI and Medicaid. Oh—and Chris, try really reading Adam Smith sometime, rather than the Neocon abridged version. You’ll find that he believed very much in society and the social obligations of being human.

By: OdysseusInRTP

OdysseusInRTP — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:22:59 +0000

Phillip, The difference would be I admit when I misspoke. What I meant to say was: If you consider getting into a miliary aircraft and intercepting bombers and firing air to air missles as a safe way to live. So, yes my eyes are fine… Thanks for helping me to get the facts straight. I guess I just typed a little to fast for myself.

By: Phillip J. Birmingham

Phillip J. Birmingham — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:48:40 +0000

When someone says he flew and f-203, when he flew and f-102 it just seems that people need to think before they have an opinion. Says the guy who seems to think the F-102 was designed to intercept missiles: Yes, the F-102 was safer than some other planes to fly. If you consider getting into a miliary aircraft and intercepting missles a safe way to live. That beam in your eye—does it hurt?