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


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.