Second try of 40's and 50's era Hollywood stars and what they did

[GScholz]

Somewhere along the way you seem to have imagined that the OP (and everyone else in the thread but you) thinks no celeb volunteered for military service since WWII when, in fact, this thread is acknowledging and honoring the fact that so many did DURING World War II. You've gone off on your own imagined tangent and are trying to take the thread with you.

This is the post I take exception to. Not the original post or the thread in general:

The difference between yesterday's and today's hollywood.

I though it was pretty obvious since I quoted it in my post. Apparently not... 

[Arlo]

This is the post I take exception to. Not the original post or the thread in general:

I though it was pretty obvious since I quoted it in my post. Apparently not... 

You went beyond when you attempted to downplay the OP with the draft and 'forced upon pain of death' rhetoric. This thread was a reboot to avoid politics. If you can't manage to retract your false assertion you could at least just stop repeating yourself to the point of nuisance.

[cpxxx]

Somewhere along the way you seem to have imagined that the OP (and everyone else in the thread but you) thinks no celeb volunteered for military service since WWII when, in fact, this thread is acknowledging and honoring the fact that so many did DURING World War II. You've gone off on your own imagined tangent and are trying to take the thread with you.

In the original locked thread the OP did in fact effectively criticise the current generation of celebrities for not going to war in the same way as the WW2 generation. But because he drifted into political comment it was locked, quite rightly. So it's not GScholz's imagination. The thread is still there if you want to look.

However the comparisons are unfair and invalid in my opinion. First off WW2 was a World War. Everyone was in it effectively even if you stayed at home. In some countries the war came to you whether you liked it or not and for the most part most believed believed in the war. You cannot say the same for recent conflicts  Secondly there simply isn't the need for the manpower needed in WW2. Not only that the modern soldier requires a lot more training than the WW2 soldier. So even if Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp felt the need to serve. They would probably be told, thanks but no thanks. Certainly anyone above a certain age would not be considered. Also having a celebrity in a unit would single it out for special attention from unfriendlies. Which is exactly the reason Britain's Prince Harry was brought home.

There's also another point which seems to have been missed. Not everyone on that list was famous at the time of enlistment or draft. Most of them would be ordinary Joe Schmos at the time, completely unknown simply doing their duty. You can be there are current and former military who are even now on the road to fame and fortune. Not as many as WW2 that's for sure. But WW2 was a one off. It's also worth pointing out that there was a general reluctance to let the famous actors anywhere near the front line.

It's perfectly legitimate to honour those who served in WW2 but the OP originally used that to denigrate the current generation and make a political point. As Skuzzy put it:

Well, it would have been a fine post had you not mentioned politics.

[GScholz]

Excellent post. My thoughts exactly.

[Shifty]

And that's my point, regardless of your attacks on my person. Many of today's generations of actors and entertainers have also served in the military. Of the handful I posted most served in combat, and at least two of them were wounded. I don't have a problem with honoring your WWII veterans. However when you use them to attack the current generations who also serve your country, I find it reprehensible. I bet none of those WWII veterans would agree to do them such a disservice.

If you feel this is "pissing on the ankle of America" then so be it. That's your problem.

Pointing out your behavior is not a personal attack. If you think it is.. Well, that is your problem. Nobody least of all Arlo or myself attacked today's generation of our military. One person made a remark comparing the two generations. As usual you jump on your soapbox and paint with a broad brush. Since when do you give a damn about our military? Your normal course of action is to belittle them saying things like they can only do battle with sheep herders. As the father of two Iraq combat vets I find your remarks in multiple threads about our military way more reprehensible than anything anybody else has said in here. Yet here you are trying to act like a champion of our military? I don't buy it, you don't care about this generation or the ones that proceed them. You just like to instigate and troll and you'll jump on either side of the fence to do it. That's fine, play the game. If you want go girlie and act like a victim when you get called on it. That's your problem too.

[Arlo]

In the original locked thread the OP did in fact effectively criticise the current generation of celebrities for not going to war in the same way as the WW2 generation. But because he drifted into political comment it was locked, quite rightly. So it's not GScholz's imagination. The thread is still there if you want to look.

However the comparisons are unfair and invalid in my opinion. First off WW2 was a World War. Everyone was in it effectively even if you stayed at home. In some countries the war came to you whether you liked it or not and for the most part most believed believed in the war. You cannot say the same for recent conflicts  Secondly there simply isn't the need for the manpower needed in WW2. Not only that the modern soldier requires a lot more training than the WW2 soldier. So even if Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp felt the need to serve. They would probably be told, thanks but no thanks. Certainly anyone above a certain age would not be considered. Also having a celebrity in a unit would single it out for special attention from unfriendlies. Which is exactly the reason Britain Prince Harry was brought home.

There's also another point which seems to have been missed. Not everyone on that list was famous at the time of enlistment or draft. Most of them would be ordinary Joe Schmos at the time, completely unknown simply doing their duty. You can be there are current and former military who are even now on the road to fame and fortune. Not as many as WW2 that's for sure. But WW2 was a one off. It's also worth pointing out that there was a general reluctance to let the famous actors anywhere near the front line.

It's perfectly legitimate to honour those who served in WW2 but the OP originally used that to denigrate the current generation and make a political point. As Skuzzy put it:

1. This is a new thread and was adjusted to be more fitting. As such, it is indeed perfectly legitimate to honor those who served in WW2 (and other wars) which is what THIS thread represents.

2. GScholz appears to feel compelled to downplay it (inferring the list misrepresents volunteer service by a large margin) for reasons known but to him (though it's an established trend). The existence of the prior thread does not legitimize GScholz's issues in this one.

[Widewing]

Not so sure about John Wayne. I don't think he was ever designated 4F. One thing for sure a lot of servicemen at the time thought he dodged the service. On a visit to hospital he was booed by the wounded Marines there. So the jury is still out on his motivations.

Perforated eardrums.....  Declared 4F.

[guncrasher]

Not so much his problem as your fixation. You made your 'observation' and gave your unqualified opinion.

when did you become such and expert so as to called somebody else's "unqualified opinion".



semp

[Arlo]

(W)hen did you become such (an) expert so as to (call) somebody else's (opinion "unqualified")(?)

Expertise. Huh. Feel free to take over for him and qualify his assertion since you're eager to step in (it). How many on the OP's list did not volunteer for service?

[guncrasher]

Expertise. Huh. Feel free to take over for him and qualify his assertion since you're eager to step in (it). How many on the OP's list did not volunteer for service?

well I'll tell you what.  since the information you requested is not available.  but what is available is when each of those became famous.  and most became famous after the war.  there were a few who were famous actors before the war.  some served to entertain the troops, some did radio and some never left the united states.  and some never saw  combat.  I dont think it takes away from how honorable they served. 

look up mickey rooney, robert mitchum, telly savalas, robert stack.  and those are only the ones I recognize.  and again their contribution to the war effort was not any less.  and I am not saying anything other than they served honorably and i am proud of them.

but if you go down the list of every single one and you will see that most were not famous when they went to war.  they became famous after the war but not because of what they did in the war.  for example ed macmahon and johny carson.  they were not famous actors who joined the war.  they were war veterans who became famous actors.

20 or 30 years from now we gonna have a good portion of actors, actresses and and even some politicians who will be famous after the war is over.  perhaps will have some "band of brothers" series about our boys who fought in the middle east.

semp

[Arlo]

well I'll tell you what.  since the information you requested is not available.  but what is available is when each of those became famous.  and most became famous after the war.  there were a few who were famous actors before the war.  some served to entertain the troops, some did radio and some never left the united states.  and some never saw  combat.  I dont think it takes away from how honorable they served. 

look up mickey rooney, robert mitchum, telly savalas, robert stack.  and those are only the ones I recognize.  and again their contribution to the war effort was not any less.  and I am not saying anything other than they served honorably and i am proud of them.

but if you go down the list of every single one and you will see that most were not famous when they went to war.  they became famous after the war but not because of what they did in the war.  for example ed macmahon and johny carson.  they were not famous actors who joined the war.  they were war veterans who became famous actors.

20 or 30 years from now we gonna have a good portion of actors, actresses and and even some politicians who will be famous after the war is over.  perhaps will have some "band of brothers" series about our boys who fought in the middle east.

semp

 

This is what you've decided to defend:

... is conscription.

Without the draft and a world war I bet that list would be quite a lot shorter.

Not at all. More like ragging on their current generation for not doing voluntarily what their forebears was forced to do under pain of death.

Feel free to give it another go.

[GScholz]

And I stand by what I said. Using the merits of WWII veterans to discredit the current generation is ugly, and not something I expect those veterans would consent to. As for the situational differences between WWII and the present Cpxxx described it much better, and more positive than I.

[guncrasher]

This is what you've decided to defend:

Feel free to give it another go.

nope, i was questioning your expertise when you made this statement.

Not so much his problem as your fixation. You made your 'observation' and gave your unqualified opinion.

I just posted information not that famous stars who went to war, but on war veterans who became famous stars.  feel free to contradict my post.


semp

[Arlo]

nope, i was questioning your expertise when you made this statement.

I just posted information not that famous stars who went to war, but on war veterans who became famous stars.  feel free to contradict my post.


semp

You posted something that had nothing to do with what I'm challenging GScholz to qualify.

You don't understand what 'qualifying an assertion' means, do you? 

[Arlo]

And I stand by what I said. Using the merits of WWII veterans to discredit the current generation is ugly, and not something I expect those veterans would consent to. As for the situational differences between WWII and the present Cpxxx described it much better, and more positive than I.

You are tap-dancing after making a questionable assertion. And you're apparently emotionally stuck in a previous thread.