Not a rant or a complaint, just a question. They took the shilling, they take the risk of being deployed, shot at, or put in otherwise less than tidy circumstances. They are willing to stand between us and the "them" of the moment. We recognize them for what they do and are willing to do.
A fair number of MLU'ers were in; some I'd wager under less than tidy circumstances. I was in between 1975 and 1977, did not get shot at, and was generally bored to tears (except the night one of my less than stellar types came at me with a broken beer bottle). I was in because I was brought up that way, because every generation of my family back to 1638 (and probably back farther in the Warwickshire militia and fyrds) saw service as their responsibility. My father got shot at in Italy, but he also kept a surfboard on Waikiki Beach in the 1930's while on duty in Hawaii.
My Ontario great-great-grandfather crossed from Bridgewater to Buffalo to enlist in the Union Army in 1861. In 1865, he returned home to his "regular" job as the caretaker of the Drummond Hill cemetery at Lundy's Lane.
Bless 'em all.
Thanks again to Jon Skagfeld for sending me two of your Canadian poppies awhile back.
Bob
07-11-06, 02:03
Why do they have to be "under arms and under fire"?
Hybrid Mode
