Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
on Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:58:59 -0500,
George Z. Bush am attempted to say .....

Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
on 21 Feb 2004 00:50:41 GMT,
ArtKramr attempted to say .....



He wasn't critisizing the guard for christsakes. He was critisizing those
weak bellied *******s who go there to hide. Y'know, the intellectually
bankrupt you are talking about.


So how about you stop characterizing anyone in the Guard that way ?

I don't think anyone is characterizing members of the Guard in that way these
days. They obviously are called upon and do their things quite often these
days right alongside and with their Reserve and Regular brethren.

However, things were a bit different 35 years ago, as those of us who are old
enough to have been around then can attest. Even then, it obviously would
not have been fair to paint the guys who volunteered to go to places where a
hot war was being fought with the same brush as those who signed up and said
they'd be available for crowd control duty if there was a riot in the state
capitol. Some members of the Guard, but certainly not all, used their Guard
membership as a means of trying to keep from being drafted for service in
those hot places. It wasn't rare, and it did happen.


I understand that, I wish Art could tell teh differance between the few
that used the Guard in that manner and those of the rest of us who serve
there out of the same sense of duty he had in the 1940's

I no longer share views with Art. I learned long ago that he had a streak of
intolerance in his makeup that interfered with most exchanges of logical thought
with just about anybody. I can read his war stories, which are usually well
done and interesting, but I can't discuss anything with him involving our
differing opinions. That's the way it is with him.

George Z.