Greetings,

I hope that everyone was lucky enough to hear the address that G.W. gave to the Nation last night, regarding Sadaam's 48 hour deadline or military action will take place.

Obviously Wayne would be in complete support of President Bush and the use of force, but I just wish we could hear exactly what he would have to say. Because no one can put across an opinion as powerfully and simply eloquently as the Duke could.

What do you think he might be saying, and how actively do you think he would be vocalizing his opinion?

God Bless Pres. George W. Bush,

Idaho

Idaho,

The reference I can go by is what he felt about the Vietnam War back in the 60's. Duke was not big with politicians, but with the poeple who served. He'd be very angry with anyone who gave soldiers any problem, he'd be mad as hell with anyone who stood up for their country and be put down for doing their duty. My God, how can anyone be against a person who wants to defend your rights and thiers.

Back in August 1965, Duke went to USC for a visit, and saw a protest table with students. Walking by the table was a marine who was heckled by the protesters. The marine kept his composure, and kept walking with diginity. When Duke came up to the young man, and talked to him, he discovered that the marine had a missing arm. While talking to him, Duke became enraged at the protester's behavior.

After the marine left, he turned around and went up to that table. He began to shout to the protesters, about how they could do that to him. He lost a limb, and gave his all for his country. Blame Johnson, blame Kennedy, blame Eisnehower or Truman or even Roosevelt, but don't blame that kid. Not any of the kids. They served! What is happening to this country? This is not a direct quote, but pretty close.

After that, he stood up for those who served, and rallyed for them, and of course made a movie in honor of them. Duke is always for the ones who make the sacrifice, and has no tolerence for idoits who has nothing better to do than make noise and complain. Wayne, who would be 95 today, would have an opinion, but would not do anything but have support for America. I think he would have said that, "Damn the UN, we should have gone after that SOB months ago, and his dad should have got bastard in the first place."

His patience would have worn thin. He didn't have too much tolerance for diplomats. The liberals commented about President Bush as a cowboy with no diplomacy, but there is a lot to be said about our American Cowboys.

His support is for the soldiers, and their dedication for thier country. That should be ours, and it is mine. Go get them joe!

Hondo

P.S. Presidnet Bush's speech was right on, and I am proud of what he's done for our country. Watch out Sadaam!

Well put, Hondo! I think Duke would say "All this talk is just burnin' daylight. Move 'um out, boys!" He believed the fighting man should be supported all the way. As for Bush, he would have said, "We elected this man, now let him do his job!" I am proud of how Bush is handling this situation. For those of you who missed his speech, here it is:

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

Hondo + Dukefan1,

Thank you for your intelligent and inciteful responses. The reason I asked such a speculative question is simple: I wasn't even born when the Duke passed away. John Wayne is my biggest hero and has been for years, but being only 18 I can only learn from reading accounts and watching his movies. I try to read as much as I can but there is just no substitute for a testimony of someone that might be able to remember Wayne in the flesh. ;)

I especially have been very interested in the Duke's politics lately. I am a student at a small junior college in the middle of Utah and I had a professor take a personal stab at Wayne when lecturing on "era's in politics" and the McCarthy era/Red Hunt came up. My professor claimed that when confronted about ties with the communists party in Hollywood Wayne denounced the party and all of his fellow actors just to promote himself to the public as a great patriotic hero. My professor claimed that the Duke had no right to make such a statement because he himself had never served his country in war. What really pissed me off was he even went as far as calling the duke's motives/actions "despicable!" Now, there is no way that this jerk could sway me to believe that the Duke's position during the red scare was for personal gain, he didn't need the help, he was America's hero anyway.

So a couple of questions from that little story:

First, I've heard different answers as to why he wasn't able to serve in the military- 1) A football injury made him ineligible, a shoulder I think. 2) Contract obligations with one of the studios at the time of war kept him out of uniform-- There is no doubt that he wanted to serve.

Second, Does anyone happen to know exactly what John Wayne said in front of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, did he even have to come before them? If so, does anyone have any clue where I could find the official testimony so I could print it out. If I could get together some good reliable research on those times and as many statements made by John Wayne as possible I could maybe confront him and see if I could maybe soften his opinion without getting a failing grade.

Thanks for the help,

Idaho

Hello Idaho. The reasons you stated are just a few of the reasons told as to why he didn't serve. He was over the age of the draft, he had a family of 5 to support (4 kids and a wife), an old football injury and the contract obligations with the studio, story has it he was told he would be sued if he broke it to join up. There has never been any one of them proven false but my take on it is that he had strived for so long to be a star, making "B" movies for over 12 years that when he finally made his break in Stagecoach, he wasn't going to look back. He was getting offers from all over to star in alot of pictures. When the war broke out, he had intentions to join but only after one more picture. Well, more offers came along and it was decided that he could do more for the country's morale in the theater then he could on the field. He visited the troops in WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. His patriotism can never be doubted. As for your Professor, I no doubt guess he is a Democrat. Duke and the Demo's were as far apart as you can get on the issues of the day. If you want to get the whole story of Duke's actions during the McCarthy Era, get the book "John Wayne: American" by Randy Roberts and James Olson. Most librarys have it. It has the most information in it then any other book I have read. I hope this helps. Dukefan1

Right On, Right On,
It's nice to hear from fellow Americans that AGREE with President Bush. I am so sick and tired of hearing so many complain. You know it seems that the news keeps showing so called Americans who are against it. I do think of John Wayne and what he would think. I know he would be so proud of our leaders and how they have handled everything. I guess the protesters have forgotten why and how they are able to live the way in which they do and why they live in freedom. It's sad when you think about it. No one likes to see innocent people killed. I guess they enjoyed watching the towers fall and the pentagon crashed into and the plane go down in Pennsylvania. Let's not do anything and let the same things happen again. It was real nice to see people hurt and people crying because they had lost a loved one. I guess we all should just sit down and watch a good ole John Wayne movie to make us feel better and to make us feel more like an American.
God Bless All of You and may He be with each and every service man or woman in combat.

Be Good,
Little Duke

Idaho, :D

Dukefan1 is right on. The only thing I diagree with Dukefan1 is his using the term Democrat. I would refer to that professor as a Liberal. There is a differenc, because there are Democrats (not many) who believe what Duke believes in, and have the same types of values.

I read John Wayne: America back in 1999, and it's the best book on Duke. I referred to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), and found no indication of Duke going before Congress. Could have missed it.

He tried to stay as neutral as possible, but did lean to the right. He was a member of "The Motion Picture Alliance for the Perservation of American Ideas" known as the Alliance. He didn't initally join. This group was made up for those who had conservative values and loved their country (United States). They were totally against communist ideas, and Hollywood had their bunch. Most were screenwrites, producers, and directors. There were actors involved. Some of the movies that had communist themes were; All the King's Men, Life (1949), Misson to Moscow, The North Star, Man on a Tightrope (1953), On the Waterfront, The Al Jolson Story (1946), Jolson Sings Again (1949), Small Wonder, and High Noon, just to name a few.

Idaho, read that book. It will give you plenty of ammunition to shoot back to your LIBERAL professor. If you want my opinion, don't waste your time, he's already brainwashed, and won't be open to anything you say, even if you had the proof. He's not worth it, and "you're just spitting in the wind."

By the way, Duke regretted not going to war during WWII, but if he did, there would be a great chance we never would have known Duke like we do, today. He could have been killed, and like Dukefan1 said, starting to make it big would have probably died if he went to war. He wasn't at the top yet, and people didn't know him. He had a lot to consider. I think he made the right decision. But you can bet that he was hounded by many for that choice for the rest of his life. And the one who gave him the worse harrassment was the one who gave him the break he needed, John Ford (director).

God Bless America & those who are serving to defend our way of life right now. The soldiers who are fighting the evil abroad!

:rolleyes:
Take Care
Hondo

hi to one and all,

it is good to see so much support for your defence personal in this conflict, though as an aussie i don't feel the same way about mr bush sorry. over here we have one family that i know off where BOTH parents are overseas doing there bit as members of our defence force what a lot of people haven't remembered it is not only those over there that are suffering but the families of those defence members as in the case two little children one 3yrs one 8 mths have their dad in the gulf and their mum in east timor doing ther duty. so please remember the families of those who serve as well as those over there.

thanks for your time and patience

cheers smokey

Everyone,

I am delighted to get these wonderful replies to the topic. Nothing makes me happier than to trade ideas with a bunch of fellow patriots. I think that if I have time in between studying for tests and classes I'll pick up that book, it sounds great. I loved your thinking on John Wayne's decision, you're right he probably wouldn't have been the star as we know him if he would have served.

Hondo: I think that you're right on, my professor isn't just a Democrat he's a liberal. There are lots of Democrats that are supporting Bush and his actions in Iraq its the real liberals that don't. Being an ultra-conservative Republican I can't possibly understand how they could oppose this use of force that will only keep their right to protest safe. It just show how short sided that Liberals think.

God Bless Bush and our soldiers,

Idaho