Wasn't fighting fascism and hitler's attempt at global domination more important that acting in dumb movies?
The official reason he didn't join was due to supposed extreme nearsightedness, but you rarely ever saw him wear glasses. Hmmmm....
2007-05-26 08:14:46 · 28 answers · asked by Jason 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
How is this worse than dissing Clinton for his lack of military service?
2007-05-26 08:51:24 · update #1
LIke most politicians who preach "toughness" (Cheney, Bush, Rumsfield, Nixon, and many more) he found a way to either evade it all together or joined one of the services and then connived his way out of the danger zones.
At least Clinton was publicly against the war in Vietnam from the beginning.
2007-05-26 08:46:37 · answer #1 · answered by golfer7 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Ronald Reagan Ww2
2016-11-12 05:40:20 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ronald Reagan served in teh Officers Reserve Corp Troop B 322 Cavalry but was prevented from serving oversees because he as nearsighted. He wasnt all that famous yet so I assume the army put him where they wanted to.
2007-05-26 09:31:34 · answer #3 · answered by elaeblue 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Reagan held the rank of captain in the US Army. he was assigned to create training films designed to instruct raw recruits in dozens of specilties. While he never saw combat, neither did General Eisenhower. In fact, many people served in many ways. My mom helped build B-29s.....during the war people did what they were assigned to do and we all contributed in some way...unlike this current 'war' that involve on the 'volunteers'. I never did care for Reagan, but dissing the man's service sucks.
2007-05-26 08:37:50 · answer #4 · answered by Noah H 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Way to go Poppawick!
FYI...Reagan was
a) almost too old (he turned 31 the February after Pearl Harbor)
b) nearsighted since a young man, he was also very vain and wore glasses only when no cameras were around
c) deemed far more valuable to the war effort as a maker of films to bolster war bond sales. It is argued by some that Reagan cost himself leading man status in Hollywood by focusing on the war effort instead of his career.
2007-05-26 08:31:39 · answer #5 · answered by Gary E 3 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Get a good book on the biography of Ronald Reagan. Don't be hypercritical. What did Clinton do? He not only did NOT join, he illegally fled the United States to not join. Clinton is not the friend of the free; he is one of the usurpers. No one in modern times has ever done more to promote freedom than Reagan. Reagan is the only one to help the poor (I mean people who work but are poor, NOT the "welfare cadilac people").
2007-05-26 08:21:59 · answer #6 · answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7 · 8⤊ 5⤋
He did serve in WWII, as I recall he was a little too old for overseas assignments, so he did war training films in Hollywood. So your question is incorrect. I am NOT a Reagan lover by a long shot, but fair is fair.
2007-05-26 08:21:18 · answer #7 · answered by poppawick 4 · 8⤊ 4⤋
I just love the way you bias your question in the hopes that it will influence the answers. In reality Reagan did serve in the manner that he was called to serve. Now lets come off the Joe McCarthy tactics and move on to intelligent discussions.
2007-05-26 08:39:33 · answer #8 · answered by Orv 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
He did serve, just not in a combat role. Reagan joined the Army Air Corps at the beginning of WWII, and though he wanted to see combat, his eyesight kept him out of the fighting. He spent the war narrating military training films.
2007-05-26 08:20:32 · answer #9 · answered by AngelaTC 6 · 11⤊ 2⤋
He was busy making movies with monkeys out in Hollywood. He missed the Korea conflict as well. You do remember the Movie Bedtime for Bonzo don't you? Here is a source to roust the discerning memories: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043325/
2007-05-26 08:36:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋