"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

Understandable. But I doubt you'd be so crass as to make the statement
that
Art did. Art likes to play up the "look at the noble sacrifices we (I)
made,

Art was right on the money as to how the Guard one time was as
far as I can tell.

You like blanket statements, huh? When I went into the Guard after my active
duty tour was over, there were still a few of the guys around who had joined
up during the early and mid-fities. Rememebr that during the early fifties
Guard units *were* being called up and sent to Korea. Some of them had
expereinced activation during the Berlin Crisis. They stayed in the Guard
throughout the Vietnam War. Some went full-time and manned the Nike Hercules
batteries we had in our state. They were joined sometimes by guys like my
brother, who came home from Vieetnam and went straight into the Guard. Or my
former teacher (and part-time boss), who volunteered for active duty, went
through jump school, completed the special forces qualification course,
served with the 7th SFG, and when offered an early-out (because they were
already ramping down the SF organization as Vietnam petered out), found
himself serving out the remainder of his obligated service in the Guard. But
under your definition they were all dodging the draft, right? Blanket
statements are dangerous, aren't they?


My father always said if he had gone into the Mass Air Guard
after retirement from the USAF, he'd have left it a General.
This would have been mid 60's through early 70's. Vietnam War
period. He regarded it merely as a "boys club" where most
effort made was sharpening your drinking skills. Correct or
not, that was his view at that time.

OK. Did he have any thoughts about the ANG fighter groups from Colorado,
Iowa, New mexico, etc., that got activated and sent over to Vietnam in 1968,
and of which the following has been noted:
"The Air Force commander in Vietnam, testifying before a Senate committee,
summed up the combat record of these five squadrons:

"I had ... five F-100 Air National Guard squadrons ... Those were the five
best F-100 squadrons in the field. The aircrews were a little older, but
they were more experienced, and the maintenance people were also more
experienced than the regular units. They had done the same work on the
weapon system for years, and they had stability that a regular unit doesn't
have." "

www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/sidebar600.asp

Hell of a "drinking club", huh?



I deserve special accolades and reverence" crap; OTOH, he chooses to
cast
slurs upon the dedication of those who are serving, and indeed those who
have actually shed more blood than he did. Even worse, he does this
despite
repeated corrections from a number of people, you included. I know, it's

Everyone here plays this game to varying degree. There's a NG
hierarchy. At the bottom, are the types with no personal
military experience beyond bratdom. At the top are the combat
flyers, of which Art is one.

One group can always shut down the group below him by demanding
"what's your experience?" For Art trashing you, it might be
"How many bullets have whizzed by your head?" For you to trash
the level below you, mere ask "Tell us exactly what your military
experience might be?"

Excuse me, but this is a case of Art claiming *his* combat experience
somehow merits swooning and adulation from all, while the combat experience
of these Guardsmen, about fifty of whom have been *killed* during this most
recent deployment, is of no import. Big difference from the usual "mine is
bigger than yours" arguments you reference.


just another case of Art being the asshole he really is--but that does
not
mean he gets to take free potshots at those who are demonstrating every
bit
as much dedication to duty that he did, if not more (some of these guys
have
been serving a lot longer years, with less appreciation demonstrated,
than
Art ever experienced). Sorry if my "calling a spade a spade" in the case
of
Art upsets you, Ed, but IMO he is reaping what he sows.

Well I think it does give him the right. And of course, you
have the right to correct or update him. If he doesn't take
to the correction, it's just a loss of some keystrokes.

Yeah he's a crotchety, cantankerous type. No use getting bent
out of shape over it. You're not the defender of the Guard,
called to do battle over its honor when maligned.

We all should be the defender of those who are currently serving and
suffering the sacrifices.


Quite frankly, I admire Art's no nonsense, no compromise
attitudes.

My opinion of your judgement just went down correspondingly.

Could probably exercise it in a less argumentative
way, but that's just a matter of style. As I've said before,
Art's a "time capsule" of a period of American history now
seemingly gone, where a nation was united as never before, and
accepted no mitigation of its fury toward an enemy. Todays
more mild or PC or outright revisionism doesn't go over well.

If Art is a time capsule, and his opinions of inestimable worth, then what
does that say about someone like my father, another WWII bomber crew combat
vet? I relayed a couple of Art's "opinions" regarding the service of those
vets from WWII who did not fly into combat, like the ground crews, the mess
personnel, the guys stuck guarding the ammo dumps, etc., to him. He turned
eighty today, and I do believe that given half a chance he'd knock Art on
his kiester for mouthing such horsecrap. You have your "hero" in Art; I'll
stick with the rest of the guys who did their duty and have not repeatedly
asked for fawning adulation.

Brooks


Doesn't mean he's correct in what he says all time, or even
most of the time. Keep him in context and keep your Me 109
well away from his B-26, even in todays skies!


SMH