Replies

I never said he was a traitorous wimp

As mentioned before, you don't have the ability to say that the only way you've advanced an accusation is if you typed the exact phrase I used to describe that accusation.

In other words, you lie:

If I remember, you were giving kudos to him for "serving". He was a pacifist, socialist-loving correspondent. Most pacifist, socialist-loving correspondents aren't exactly known for accurate reporting.

He said yes there were artillery but when the order to "move out" came, they moved back away from the action.

There are more, but that's enough for now. For those folloing along, note that the second one is a lie in and of itself, and I debunked it in that thread.

I never said he doesn't even get to be called a veteran.

This conversation with morping libertarian beginning in post 77 of this thread shows that you lie again:

You: I hope you are not referring to AR as a vet ...
Morphing: I guess I am. Unless you can explain how he is not.
” He was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1941, and began writing for the Stars and Stripes in London a year later. In 1943, he was one of seven correspondents who flew on the second American bombing raid over Germany, and later was one of the first American journalists to visit and write about the German concentration camps.”
You: He was an anti-war socialist correspondent. Tell it like it is.

As for the fact that you have said he was not a soldier, here's the proof of that:

Bless him for his service to socialism. He was a socialist anti-war propagandist, NOT a soldier.

In short, you lie.

For the life of me, I don't understand how you can say that my saying that AR was a draftee war correspondent dishonors veterans

If you had stopped at saying he was a draftee war correspondent, you would have been correct, honorable and not having this discussion with me. Instead, you portrayed the man as a traitor and denied he had been a soldier or deserved to be called a veteran. Dishonorable!

Moreover, you dishonor us all by portraying us as people who will reject proper and honorable service based on some irrelevant concern, or even based on lies. Real veterans (combat or otherwise) don't compare this sort of thing, they just realize that everybody who raised their right hand and took the oath offered their blood if necessary. One of my greatest honors was having a Pearl Harbor survivor thank me for my service. This was a guy who had, after pulling body parts out of the water at Pearl, gone on 8 war patrols in Gato class subs. If he honored me for turning wrenches on a flightline, what business would anyone have dishonoring Rooney for putting his life on the line over Germany in '43?

So you dishonor us. And you'd better have a fantastic war record before you get to take potshots.

Let's hear it: When and where did you serve combat time?

Let’s look at my posts that you recited one by one:

If I remember, you were giving kudos to him for “serving”. He was a pacifist, socialist-loving correspondent. Most pacifist, socialist-loving correspondents aren’t exactly known for accurate reporting. (True)

He said yes there were artillery but when the order to “move out” came, they moved back away from the action. (True)

I never said he doesn’t even get to be called a veteran. (True)

You: I hope you are not referring to AR as a vet ... (Context was that the other poster was putting AR in the same statement with Patton. AR hated Patton and wrote multiple times demeaning Pattons career. The poster also said we needed more people with the spirit (of AR) in DC. I don’t need anymore socialists in D.C.)

You: He was an anti-war socialist correspondent. (True)

Bless him for his service to socialism. He was a socialist anti-war propagandist, NOT a soldier. (True).