At the beginning of boht the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, there was a draft, and members of Congress may have had draft-age sons. At the beginning of WWII and the two Gulf wars, there was no draft and members of Congress therefore did not need to worry about their own sons.
It seems to have made little difference. At 12:08 20/03/03 -0800, you wrote: >I don't know what the situation was during the Korean police action. It >was close in time to WWII when romantic patriotism still ran high. > > And it was a time when the draft was scooping up in ways less >preferential (though still preferential) than during Vietnam. > > And this is just a feeling, but it seems Congress itself was more like >the US, i. e. some real people and fewer blow-dried creatures of polls >and corporate money. > >Gene Coyle > >Robert Scott Gassler wrote: >> Point taken. What about Korea? >> >> At 10:20 19/03/03 -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote: >> >>>Isn't it the point that BOTH in Vietnam and now, the Congress didn't >>>have family and friends in the enlisted ranks? >>> >>>Gene Coyle >>> >>>Robert Scott Gassler wrote: >>> >>>>I'm sorry but I cannot make too much of that. I remember the Gulf of Tonkin >>>>Resolution. How many had sons or daughters in the armed forces then? >>>> >>>>I know Senator Al Gore would have, eventually, but then so would Rep. >>>>George H.W. Bush. >>>> >>>>Scott Gassler >>>> >>>>At 19:40 18/03/03 -0500, Paul Zarembka wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only one (Sen. Johnson of South >>>>>Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces!..." >>>>> >>>>>[Michael Moore at www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15406 ] >>>>> >>>>>Paul Z. >>>>> >>>>>*********************************************************************** >>>>>"Confronting 9-11, Ideologies of Race, and Eminent Economists", Vol. 20 >>>>>RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science >>>>>******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > >
