[Rhodes22-list] Political/warin Iraq.

[Saroj]

Maybe we should return to the practice of the Civil War wherein the wealthy
bought out the obligation of their sons by sending someone of lesser class
to serve in their place in exchange for land.  Then Bush could have shirked
his duty "honorably" according to principles of the time.  Of course the
lesser man sent off to war would have been sucking on the tit of the
"better" class....

Saroj
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Effros" <bill at effros.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Political/warin Iraq.


No, the records do not indicate that at all.   Quite to the contrary.

His commanding officer, who his orders told him to report to, stated flatly
"I'm dead-certain he didn't show up."

No one has ever debunked that statement.

The White House stated that W. had reported for duty in Boston instead.  But
that turned out to be wrong, too.  He never showed up in Boston, either, and
nobody has ever produced records showing that he did show up.  The White
House admitted he never showed up in Boston months after making the
statement that he had served in Boston instead of Alabama.

It is virtually certain, and no one has ever disputed this, that George Bush
did not show up in Alabama as ordered.

What he did is no different from what these guys have done.

So, I ask you again, what makes these guys shirkers and cowards if they are
just doing the same thing the Commander-in-Chief did 30 years ago?  (Also
during wartime.)

Was he, too, "sucking on the tit..." how did that go, Brad?

Bill



To download a free copy of the electronic book "Quote Without Comment"

Click on or copy this address and load it into your web browser:
http://www.quotewithoutcomment.com/qwc.cgim?template=FreeBook

Want to see more quotes?
http://www.QuoteWithoutComment.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Herb Parsons
To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Political/warin Iraq.


Hmmm, I thought that "evidence" was debunked.

All records indicate that George W Bush fulfilled his military
requirements.

>>> bill at effros.com 9/29/2004 8:23:16 PM >>>
Herb,

Sorry I haven't been following this thread.  Did I miss the part where
someone explained why it was OK for W. to fail to show up during the
Vietnam war, and why that didn't make him a shirker and coward?

Bill Effros



To download a free copy of the electronic book "Quote Without Comment"

Click on or copy this address and load it into your web browser:
http://www.quotewithoutcomment.com/qwc.cgim?template=FreeBook

Want to see more quotes?
http://www.QuoteWithoutComment.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Herb Parsons
To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Political/warin Iraq.


I suggest it's a symptom of many things. A society that feels less and
less true responsibilty to live up to it's obligation. That would
account for the "I don't WANT to do what I said" part. A society that
has been very long living in relative peace. That would explain the
"But
I didn't think I'd have to FIGHT when I joined the military".

That fact is, there were plenty of AWOLs and deserters during WWII as
well. As a matter of fact, if memory serves me correctly, WWII was the
last war where we court-martialed and executed a deserter.

In any war, we'll have a number of shirkers and cowards.

>>> robert at squirrelhaven.com 9/29/2004 7:40:26 PM >>>
Herb Parsons wrote:
>
> So, you're advocating the idea that reservists should be free to go
AWOL
> or even desert if they don't agree with their commanders? I REALLY
try
> to stay out of the political discussions on here, but that one I
would
> take a BIG issue with.

Whoa, Herb - WAY not what I said!  Check it out.

I suggested that the AWOL figure (if accurate) is a
symptom of our country's polarization.  Like Viet
Nam...

/Bob Skinner

-----------------------------------------
What I said:

> Perhaps the message is not that desertion/AWOL is OK,
> but rather the fact that so many reservists (if the
> number is correct) are willing to risk so much in
> defiance of orders.
>
> A reserve army structure is naturally more influenced
> by civilian issues than the regular forces.  IMHO, it
> is very possible to overstress a reserve/volunteer
> military structure with a divisive or unpopular war.
>
> Perhaps that is what is going on...
>
> /Bob Skinner
__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list