Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:10 pm
I hear that this story has set off such a firestorm that the university has issued a CYA letter that tries to point out that the views expressed are not that of the institution itself and they really do respect our veterans...........I think the sound of the donations to the school vaporizing from the alumni may have influenced this letter.
I am sickened that these rich kids who have sacrificed or risked nothing in their self important lives are in a position to judge the merit of other graduates. The ignorance of of some of these members of "higher" education is apalling.
GOD HELP US ALL
I am sickened that these rich kids who have sacrificed or risked nothing in their self important lives are in a position to judge the merit of other graduates. The ignorance of of some of these members of "higher" education is apalling.
GOD HELP US ALL
Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:38 pm
This came from a good friend of mine up in Washington State. Him and his lovely bride are big supporters of the Cascade Warbirds, thats where I was lucky enough to meet them. He owns and flys a beautiful T-28 but I try not to hold it against him. He also used to fly C-141s but we can't all be perfect. I've taken his name off of it due to the fact that I haven't asked his permission to post it. But, knowing him, he won't mind.
My friends words are in black, the guy's from Udub are in red.
******************************************************
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:05 PM
To: David Hodge
Subject: Students reject honor to WWII hero
Dr. David Hodge
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Universtiy of Washington
Dr. Hodge:
It is with astonishment and disgust when reading the article referring to the minutes of last week's student government meeting at the U.W., where one of our most revered true American heroes, Lt.Col. Gregory "Pappy" Boyington was trashed. The ignorance of these students in understanding what men like Lt.Col. Boyington sacrificed to preserve their freedom to write and to speak freely today is beyond belief! Boyington's upbringing from a struggling family, (with American Indian blood in his veins, no less), through his education, skills and dedication to his job in preserving our basic freedoms that we enjoy today certainly deserves recognition. His record speaks for itself. For an individual to offer his life in defense of his country is one thing, but to go above and beyond the call of duty, as Boyington did, speaks of the best that America has to offer. His duty was to destroy the enemy, and he did it well, and paid a high price for his ensuing capture at the hands of the Japanese. He never was one to seek notoriey, just to do his duty. He was nonetheless rewarded with the highest honor our country can bestow, the Medal of Honor, for his heroism and unflinching devotion to duty. He was just one of many flyboys who selflessly gave of himself to his country.
I feel that it would be appropriate for these students and perhaps yourself to go back in time and read a famous speech given by President Abraham Lincoln after one of the most tragic events in our history, The Battle of Gettysburg. It imparted then, as it does to this day, the dedication and strength of those who come forth to give their all in making the ultimate sacrifice for the preservation of our Nation. I sincerely feel that this imparts, even in today's world, in no better way than I can think of, the direction these students, instructors, and citizens of this great Nation should be going today. Anything less, and I feel they are not fit to partake of all the privileges our nation has to offer. I have included it below:
The Gettysburg Address
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
No one understands the horror of war better than the soldier. Death is necessary, it is a part of war, of anything worth fighting for. This war, as most do, had many heroes, some unsung and some not, but yet of all who persevered to win this fight, none deserves being disparaged. I question the education these students are getting today. Is it revisionist, and so liberal as to not realize what fate would have befallen our Republic had the enemy prevailed in this conflict? It is an insult of the highest degree, and demands an apology. It also begs the statement: Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
In addition, please do not send me a "canned" apology letter, the same one concerning this incident being sent by you to others. That is the easy way out.
Regards,
(Name Removed),
Lt. Col. USAFR/Retired
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:20 PM
Subject: RE: Students reject honor to WWII hero
Dear Colonel (Name Removed),
Thank you for sending me this note. I can understand your frustration and anger over this reported incident. However, you should know that the report is a very inaccurate representation of what happened during the student meeting. I have included an official summary of the meeting below. I hope, and trust, that you will find this reassuring. Students do sometimes say outrageous things, but the report of this incident misrepresents the goodwill and respect of the vast majority of the student body.
Let me be very clear. We are proud of our veterans and all of the sacrifices that have been made to keep us a strong and free nation. We are very deeply concerned that such a misrepresentation would give any other impression.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Hodge
PS. And I share your admiration of the Gettysburg Address.
It has recently come to our attention that the actions of the ASUW Student Senate last night have been greatly misrepresented to the student body and the general public. As such I wanted to clarify what actually occurred.
The Student Senate exists to create official student opinion by bringing together student representatives from all across campus. The resolution concerning Colonel Boyington (available online at
http://senate.asuw.org/legislation/12/R/R-12-18.html) cited the Colonel's exemplary service record, including the fact that he was awarded the Medal of Honor for service in World War II. The resolution called for the creation of a memorial in his honor. Passage of the resolution would not have necessarily resulted in the creation such a memorial, but would have recommended it to the University of Washington.
The debate within the Senate was fair, balanced, and respectful. Senators representing a diverse array of viewpoints spoke on the resolution, raising numerous points as to the merits and demerits of the resolution.
1.) The ASUW Student Senate declined to support the construction of a
memorial for an individual. This in no way indicates a lack of respect for the individual or the cause, merely that the Senate did not support the construction of a memorial. The Senate weighed factors such as financial viability, the logistics of implementation, which historical points are relevant, and the difficulty in assessing which veterans should be memorialized over others. Questions regarding these factors were not addressed in the legislation itself and thus became points of debate during the meeting.
2.) Senators speak on behalf of the opinions of their constituents.
This legislation has been posted publicly for nearly a month and senators have used that time to discuss the issues with their constituents. There is no way to distill a central argument of the Senate for or against any piece of legislation the Senate discusses. While the vote itself is a yes or no decision, the reasons senators choose to vote in a particular manner vary widely. Therefore, it is inappropriate to represent a decision by the Senate as resulting from any single statement or point-of-view.
3.) No senator speaking in opposition to the resolution suggested that
deaths in war are the equivalent of murder. One senator, in making a motion to remove references to the number of Japanese planes shot down, suggested the focus of the resolution should be on the man's service to his country.
The sponsor of the amendment suggested that death in war was sometimes a "necessary evil" and that the focus of the honor should not be on the necessary evil, but rather on the service. That motion passed overwhelmingly. A further amendment to remove the text of the inscription of the Medal of Honor from the legislation subsequently failed overwhelmingly.
4.) No senator stated that we should not pass the resolution on the
grounds that Colonel Boyington was a "white male." One senator stated that we have many monuments and memorials to white males, but did not suggest this was a reason to not support the resolution.
Throughout the debate in the Student Senate, the tone was very respectful.
If you have any additional questions, please contact:
ASUW President Lee Dunbar (asuwpres@u.washington.edu), Student Senate Chair Alex Kim (asuwssch@u.washington.edu), Student Senate Vice-Chair Erin Shields
(asuwssvc@u.washington.edu) or Director of Operations Karl Smith
(asuwbdop@u.washington.edu)
--
Alex Kim
Student Senate Chair
Associated Students of the University of Washington 206.543.1780 (office)
206.669.9562 (mobile)
http://senate.asuw.org/
=============================
David Hodge
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-3765
206-543-5340 Fax 206-543-5462
Professor, Department of Geography
http://www.artsci.washington.edu
"The principal goal of education in the schools should be creating men and women who are capable of doing new things, not simply repeating what other generations have done; men and women who are creative, inventive and discoverers, who can be critical and verify, and not accept, everything they are offered." Jean Piaget.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hodge--
You could at least display common courtesy to answer my letter directly and in your own words, instead of sending the same "canned" letter you have sent to several of my friends. You call yourself an institution of higher learning, but you refuse to learn. The tragedy is that the young people that attend your institution are not being educated in a fair, unbiased manner and unfortunately will be left with the legacy of being forced to repeat history.
(Name Removed),
Lt.Col. USAFR/Retired
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Colonel (Name Removed),
I have answered several emails about this today. I used the same general text to make sure that I didn't inadvertently make a mistake in responding. I meant no disrespect by it, quite the contrary. I wanted my message to be clean and clear and consistent. I am disappointed that some have chosen to label our institution this way because of a seriously biased and erroneous report. We work hard to create an environment that encourages divergent views, and will continue to endeavor to do so.
Again, I want to express my utter respect for Colonel Boyington and his distinguished service. And I am certain that I speak for the vast majority of students, faculty, and staff at the University of Washington.
Thank you.
David Hodge
=============================
David Hodge
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-3765
206-543-5340 Fax 206-543-5462
Professor, Department of Geography
http://www.artsci.washington.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My friends words are in black, the guy's from Udub are in red.
******************************************************
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:05 PM
To: David Hodge
Subject: Students reject honor to WWII hero
Dr. David Hodge
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Universtiy of Washington
Dr. Hodge:
It is with astonishment and disgust when reading the article referring to the minutes of last week's student government meeting at the U.W., where one of our most revered true American heroes, Lt.Col. Gregory "Pappy" Boyington was trashed. The ignorance of these students in understanding what men like Lt.Col. Boyington sacrificed to preserve their freedom to write and to speak freely today is beyond belief! Boyington's upbringing from a struggling family, (with American Indian blood in his veins, no less), through his education, skills and dedication to his job in preserving our basic freedoms that we enjoy today certainly deserves recognition. His record speaks for itself. For an individual to offer his life in defense of his country is one thing, but to go above and beyond the call of duty, as Boyington did, speaks of the best that America has to offer. His duty was to destroy the enemy, and he did it well, and paid a high price for his ensuing capture at the hands of the Japanese. He never was one to seek notoriey, just to do his duty. He was nonetheless rewarded with the highest honor our country can bestow, the Medal of Honor, for his heroism and unflinching devotion to duty. He was just one of many flyboys who selflessly gave of himself to his country.
I feel that it would be appropriate for these students and perhaps yourself to go back in time and read a famous speech given by President Abraham Lincoln after one of the most tragic events in our history, The Battle of Gettysburg. It imparted then, as it does to this day, the dedication and strength of those who come forth to give their all in making the ultimate sacrifice for the preservation of our Nation. I sincerely feel that this imparts, even in today's world, in no better way than I can think of, the direction these students, instructors, and citizens of this great Nation should be going today. Anything less, and I feel they are not fit to partake of all the privileges our nation has to offer. I have included it below:
The Gettysburg Address
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
No one understands the horror of war better than the soldier. Death is necessary, it is a part of war, of anything worth fighting for. This war, as most do, had many heroes, some unsung and some not, but yet of all who persevered to win this fight, none deserves being disparaged. I question the education these students are getting today. Is it revisionist, and so liberal as to not realize what fate would have befallen our Republic had the enemy prevailed in this conflict? It is an insult of the highest degree, and demands an apology. It also begs the statement: Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
In addition, please do not send me a "canned" apology letter, the same one concerning this incident being sent by you to others. That is the easy way out.
Regards,
(Name Removed),
Lt. Col. USAFR/Retired
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:20 PM
Subject: RE: Students reject honor to WWII hero
Dear Colonel (Name Removed),
Thank you for sending me this note. I can understand your frustration and anger over this reported incident. However, you should know that the report is a very inaccurate representation of what happened during the student meeting. I have included an official summary of the meeting below. I hope, and trust, that you will find this reassuring. Students do sometimes say outrageous things, but the report of this incident misrepresents the goodwill and respect of the vast majority of the student body.
Let me be very clear. We are proud of our veterans and all of the sacrifices that have been made to keep us a strong and free nation. We are very deeply concerned that such a misrepresentation would give any other impression.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Hodge
PS. And I share your admiration of the Gettysburg Address.
It has recently come to our attention that the actions of the ASUW Student Senate last night have been greatly misrepresented to the student body and the general public. As such I wanted to clarify what actually occurred.
The Student Senate exists to create official student opinion by bringing together student representatives from all across campus. The resolution concerning Colonel Boyington (available online at
http://senate.asuw.org/legislation/12/R/R-12-18.html) cited the Colonel's exemplary service record, including the fact that he was awarded the Medal of Honor for service in World War II. The resolution called for the creation of a memorial in his honor. Passage of the resolution would not have necessarily resulted in the creation such a memorial, but would have recommended it to the University of Washington.
The debate within the Senate was fair, balanced, and respectful. Senators representing a diverse array of viewpoints spoke on the resolution, raising numerous points as to the merits and demerits of the resolution.
1.) The ASUW Student Senate declined to support the construction of a
memorial for an individual. This in no way indicates a lack of respect for the individual or the cause, merely that the Senate did not support the construction of a memorial. The Senate weighed factors such as financial viability, the logistics of implementation, which historical points are relevant, and the difficulty in assessing which veterans should be memorialized over others. Questions regarding these factors were not addressed in the legislation itself and thus became points of debate during the meeting.
2.) Senators speak on behalf of the opinions of their constituents.
This legislation has been posted publicly for nearly a month and senators have used that time to discuss the issues with their constituents. There is no way to distill a central argument of the Senate for or against any piece of legislation the Senate discusses. While the vote itself is a yes or no decision, the reasons senators choose to vote in a particular manner vary widely. Therefore, it is inappropriate to represent a decision by the Senate as resulting from any single statement or point-of-view.
3.) No senator speaking in opposition to the resolution suggested that
deaths in war are the equivalent of murder. One senator, in making a motion to remove references to the number of Japanese planes shot down, suggested the focus of the resolution should be on the man's service to his country.
The sponsor of the amendment suggested that death in war was sometimes a "necessary evil" and that the focus of the honor should not be on the necessary evil, but rather on the service. That motion passed overwhelmingly. A further amendment to remove the text of the inscription of the Medal of Honor from the legislation subsequently failed overwhelmingly.
4.) No senator stated that we should not pass the resolution on the
grounds that Colonel Boyington was a "white male." One senator stated that we have many monuments and memorials to white males, but did not suggest this was a reason to not support the resolution.
Throughout the debate in the Student Senate, the tone was very respectful.
If you have any additional questions, please contact:
ASUW President Lee Dunbar (asuwpres@u.washington.edu), Student Senate Chair Alex Kim (asuwssch@u.washington.edu), Student Senate Vice-Chair Erin Shields
(asuwssvc@u.washington.edu) or Director of Operations Karl Smith
(asuwbdop@u.washington.edu)
--
Alex Kim
Student Senate Chair
Associated Students of the University of Washington 206.543.1780 (office)
206.669.9562 (mobile)
http://senate.asuw.org/
=============================
David Hodge
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-3765
206-543-5340 Fax 206-543-5462
Professor, Department of Geography
http://www.artsci.washington.edu
"The principal goal of education in the schools should be creating men and women who are capable of doing new things, not simply repeating what other generations have done; men and women who are creative, inventive and discoverers, who can be critical and verify, and not accept, everything they are offered." Jean Piaget.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hodge--
You could at least display common courtesy to answer my letter directly and in your own words, instead of sending the same "canned" letter you have sent to several of my friends. You call yourself an institution of higher learning, but you refuse to learn. The tragedy is that the young people that attend your institution are not being educated in a fair, unbiased manner and unfortunately will be left with the legacy of being forced to repeat history.
(Name Removed),
Lt.Col. USAFR/Retired
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Colonel (Name Removed),
I have answered several emails about this today. I used the same general text to make sure that I didn't inadvertently make a mistake in responding. I meant no disrespect by it, quite the contrary. I wanted my message to be clean and clear and consistent. I am disappointed that some have chosen to label our institution this way because of a seriously biased and erroneous report. We work hard to create an environment that encourages divergent views, and will continue to endeavor to do so.
Again, I want to express my utter respect for Colonel Boyington and his distinguished service. And I am certain that I speak for the vast majority of students, faculty, and staff at the University of Washington.
Thank you.
David Hodge
=============================
David Hodge
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-3765
206-543-5340 Fax 206-543-5462
Professor, Department of Geography
http://www.artsci.washington.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:47 am
Some of these left wing wacko liberals are so nuts they won't honor any kind of military veteran like Boyington......and their blindness won't allow the Iowa to be birthed in their town. Can't stand it. I don't like the war in Iraq but that has nothing to do with WWII heroes and icons.
John
John
Last edited by JohnH on Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:00 am
Tigercat wrote:Personally, I have had it with political correctness and will fight it ANY time I have an opportunity to engage such idiocy.
Me TOO LET's get E'm. I like to be a bully any chance I get to Crush the weak minded libreals! When I was in the midwest they were going to bring that gay blanket thing that was going around in the 80's to the Campus untill someone terrorized school administrators " The Night of the Broken Glass!"
and then it didn't come? I guess it's just the German blood 
Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:28 pm
Pappy Boyington, some insight from a former Marine.
I met him twice, the first time when I was twelve at Oshkosh 75, and the second time was at Oshkosh 87 selling books, the year they had the AVG reunion. (Virginia Bader took great joy in specifically excluding him from those activities.)
First - he was a WAR hero, and the war ended in 1945. He was not a winner in the civilian world and never adapted. Did he really have a peacetime purpose?
Second- He was a POW, and his fame and notoriety brought him unspeakable torture. I think he came back alive and 86 pounds, but broken.
Third- He was an ALCOHOLIC, a "falling down drunk" okay, that can ruin your life. Do you think he enjoyed that life?
Fourth - is there any doubt he had PTSD? Do you think he ever got over his experiences? He was brutally honest in his book and his interviews about his alcohol hell, his "Big Mouth" that was constantly fragging him and his "nervousness" that he had before he started drinking at Pensacola.
He isn't a Life Hero, he is a war hero, and he fearlessly threw himself into battle against overwhelming odds time and time again. I dont know that he had 28 kills, and the Marine Corps always puts an asterisk by that claim. He no doubt was at least a triple or quadruple ace at least.
When Boyington died, I got a call from a Marine college friend and he said "We lost Pappy today." We went out and got a bucket of ice cold beers, not to celebrate his alcoholism but to celebrate a fierce Marine aviator and US/WWII war hero's passing and release from his tortured life.
I'm going to do the same when CHuck Yeager and Bob Hoover pass on too!
Semper Fi,
I met him twice, the first time when I was twelve at Oshkosh 75, and the second time was at Oshkosh 87 selling books, the year they had the AVG reunion. (Virginia Bader took great joy in specifically excluding him from those activities.)
First - he was a WAR hero, and the war ended in 1945. He was not a winner in the civilian world and never adapted. Did he really have a peacetime purpose?
Second- He was a POW, and his fame and notoriety brought him unspeakable torture. I think he came back alive and 86 pounds, but broken.
Third- He was an ALCOHOLIC, a "falling down drunk" okay, that can ruin your life. Do you think he enjoyed that life?
Fourth - is there any doubt he had PTSD? Do you think he ever got over his experiences? He was brutally honest in his book and his interviews about his alcohol hell, his "Big Mouth" that was constantly fragging him and his "nervousness" that he had before he started drinking at Pensacola.
He isn't a Life Hero, he is a war hero, and he fearlessly threw himself into battle against overwhelming odds time and time again. I dont know that he had 28 kills, and the Marine Corps always puts an asterisk by that claim. He no doubt was at least a triple or quadruple ace at least.
When Boyington died, I got a call from a Marine college friend and he said "We lost Pappy today." We went out and got a bucket of ice cold beers, not to celebrate his alcoholism but to celebrate a fierce Marine aviator and US/WWII war hero's passing and release from his tortured life.
I'm going to do the same when CHuck Yeager and Bob Hoover pass on too!
Semper Fi,
An update of sorts...
Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:52 pm
Click on the link and scroll down about 1/3 of the way...
http://boortz.com/nuze/200602/02162006.html
http://boortz.com/nuze/200602/02162006.html
????
Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:32 pm
the year they had the AVG reunion. (Virginia Bader took great joy in specifically excluding him from those activities.)
Having a DOD from the AVG meant the he is not a member of the Flying Tigers Assoc. and was excluded from any and all activities they participate in.
He was a POW, and his fame and notoriety brought him unspeakable torture. I think he came back alive and 86 pounds, but broken.
Wrong-Wrong-Wrong! While 99.99% of our aviators captured at or around Rabaul died horribly at the hands of the Kempei-Tai. Boyington and a few others escaped torture, starvation and death by being used has a means of escape from Rabual by a Japanese-American interogator named Honda. In POW camp in Japan, Boyington was friendly with his guards and eventually got a job in the camp kitchen. While his fellow POWs were freezing and starving to death Pappy was toasty warm and gorging himself on lard, table scraps and occasional Sake. Some have likened this to collaberation. At the end of the war while most POws were near death, Boyington actually passed a flight physicial and was told to lose some around the middle!
Once you separate the fact from fiction even his wartime activities aren't really to be proud of.
B/G Bob Galer USMC MOH awardee, double ace and UW grad is a much better choice for an honoree.
Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:32 pm
Jack,
In my opinion, the real issue here is not whether Greg Boyinton is a stellar example of a war hero and is the ultimate choice for who gets a memorial built in his honor.
The real issue is the left-wing snooty little politcally correct punks that led the charge against the memorial. You've got to understand that don't give shiat whether the person is Boyington or someone like General Galer or Hell------ Audie Murphy for that matter. They oppose anything military and their seething hatred of the military and patriotic Americans color all areas of their lives.
In one sense I feel sorry for them (just for a second) but actually I would like to see them transported through time and drop them off in front of Tojo's office in Tokyo, say about May 1942 and see how they talked their way out of that situation. I would like to see how their peacenik ways helped them from losing their heads or becoming a bayonet practice dummy!
In my opinion, the real issue here is not whether Greg Boyinton is a stellar example of a war hero and is the ultimate choice for who gets a memorial built in his honor.
The real issue is the left-wing snooty little politcally correct punks that led the charge against the memorial. You've got to understand that don't give shiat whether the person is Boyington or someone like General Galer or Hell------ Audie Murphy for that matter. They oppose anything military and their seething hatred of the military and patriotic Americans color all areas of their lives.
In one sense I feel sorry for them (just for a second) but actually I would like to see them transported through time and drop them off in front of Tojo's office in Tokyo, say about May 1942 and see how they talked their way out of that situation. I would like to see how their peacenik ways helped them from losing their heads or becoming a bayonet practice dummy!
???
Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:11 pm
AgreedT-C.
I hard to believe a college educated honor student could be so completely ignorant and unappreciative of the sacrifices made by so many so she could have all the opportunities and freedoms she enjoys.
I hard to believe a college educated honor student could be so completely ignorant and unappreciative of the sacrifices made by so many so she could have all the opportunities and freedoms she enjoys.
Pappy
Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:02 pm
Does anyone have concrete records of Boyington's actions as a POW or as an Ace? Just asking, seems there's a considerable amount of hatred for the guy.
Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:02 am
Jack,
Do you dispute that Boyington flew in combat, engaged the enemy, was a pow? The numbers are not of consequence. The sacrifice is, and should be honored.
We honor individuals in our current society for lesser accomplishments involving far less personal risk. Why do you feel it necessary to trash a dead marine aviator?
Gary
Do you dispute that Boyington flew in combat, engaged the enemy, was a pow? The numbers are not of consequence. The sacrifice is, and should be honored.
We honor individuals in our current society for lesser accomplishments involving far less personal risk. Why do you feel it necessary to trash a dead marine aviator?
Gary
???
Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:24 am
Why do you feel it necessary to trash a dead marine aviator?
Gary,
What history are you interested in? What really happened or the Black Sheep Squadron TV show version? You need to do some research and enlighten yourself to the real history. I would suggest starting with Bruce Gamble's excellent book "Black Sheep One". Maybe I'm a little more sensitive to all this "Pappy" hero worship business having a cousin who was a Marine Corsair ace KIA.
Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:47 am
Jack,
I guess we just disagree on what constitutes a "hero".
Gary
I guess we just disagree on what constitutes a "hero".
Gary
Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:49 am
Jack,
Let me add thanks for the book suggestion, it was a good read.
Gary
Let me add thanks for the book suggestion, it was a good read.
Gary
????
Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:54 am
I guess we just disagree on what constitutes a "hero".
I don't think so my friend. Everyone who served is a hero.
Some where just better people than others I guess.