The Wandering Minstrel

Posted by Minstrel on 25 Jan 2010

UPDATE: Linoge points out that the expression “damn sight” is perhaps a bit too anachronistic for younger readers (see his comment below). In the context above, it means there is a significant effort remaining.

I got this poster today in an email from a former colleague, who correctly observes:

These were [created by] our parents. What in God’s name have we let happen?

I guess we are the last generation to see, or even remember anything like these [posters]? Whatever happened? Political correctness (or “re-education”) happened, lack of God’s name happened, lack of personal responsibility happened, lack of personal integrity and honesty happened, lack of respect and loyalty to our country happened, lack of being an American happened.

The Obamination and many in power in both houses of Congress seem to want the “Fight for America” and “Fight the Enemy” spirit to disappear. They demonstrate this by reading Miranda to terrorists, prosecuting men and women in the armed forces for “crimes,” and staging massive terror “circus trials” in order to demean the War on Terror.

Much of the WWII “get behind the troops” spirit seems to be gone.

(As an aside, note the venerable 1911 pistol the soldier in the poster is holding.)

7 Responses to “This War’s Not Won by a Damn Sight”

Linoge on 25 Jan 2010 at 1807 #

Minor… quibble, for lack of a better word: On first reading, by this 27-year-old brain, I took that poster as a complaint concerning the GI-issue 1911’s sights… or lack thereof.

Not making any sense of that, I reconsidered, and then rewound 50 years - “damn sight” is a colloquialism that may fly right over a lot of people’s heads (did mine, at least for a second)… along with the concepts of supporting our servicemen and women.

Just a thought :).

Minstrel on 25 Jan 2010 at 1828 #

I see the ambiguity - it made me chuckle when I read your comment.

For those of us born during that war, it’s meaning was perfectly clear.

Thanks for pointing it out.

drjim on 25 Jan 2010 at 2112 #

I spotted the 1911 right away. My Dad carried one through the Pacific Theater in WWII, and it kept him alive. It’s one of the main reasons I have several….if they were good enough for Dad, they’re plenty good enough for me.
I do wonder, though, what he’d think of my Kimber compared to the one he carried….

Minstrel on 26 Jan 2010 at 0750 #

My Dad was in the Navy in WWII. He usually didn’t carry a pistol on board the U.S.S. Brooklyn, but was issued one when the vessel crossed the equator. Dad was participating in an equator-crossing ceremony in which he was dressed up as Neptune’s daughter. The pistol was to protect him from the advances of a large number of very horny sailors, should it become necessary.

We never discussed if it was a 1911, but it would be a good guess to assume so.

drjim on 26 Jan 2010 at 1553 #

Dad was actually in the SeaBees, which probably explain why he had a pistol issued to him.
He also had an M1 carbine, but never brought that one home with him, that I know of.

Minstrel on 26 Jan 2010 at 1735 #

I imagine your Dad might have deployed from Port Hueneme, right next door to the Point Mugu Naval Air Station where I served in the early 1960’s.

When I first got to Mugu, I was assigned to the “Security Infantry” detail, whose responsibility was to act as an auxiliary to the Base Security Department. For those several months before I reported to flightline avionics maintenance, I had an M1 and sometimes a 1911 sidearm while patrolling or on sentry duty.

Attitudes toward the military decayed after those days as LBJ escalated his unpopular war. Too bad the media also turned sour during that time to wind up as the left wing’s ’state media.’

drjim on 27 Jan 2010 at 1733 #

Yep, he talked about Port Hueneme many times. IIRC, it was the West Coast “home” of the SeaBees back then.