I picked at random one name on the "purged" list and googled his name. Captain Klein of the USS Columbia. There is an extensive discussion among active and retired submariners as to the reason for his "purge". They focus on an operational readiness failure of the boat. During my service 67-71 I saw two full bird colonels canned...........they were both drunks. One was the base commander. Some in this nation seem to elevate military officers to a "god-like" status. They are not deserving. We have 4 times as many flag level officers per 10,000 service members as we did in WWII. Originally Posted by lostincypressWell, they're only awarded "god-like" status by the mouth-breathers if they happen to share the same political philosophy.....if you serve, and actually happen to have heard shots fired in anger, and been awarded a Silver Star, like John Kerry, or gotten most of your limbs blown off, like Max Baucus....and then become a democrat....you don't get god-like status. You get a campaign of lies, innuendo and misinformation that dishonors everyone who ever served.
some old General
Think about what you wrote above and be ashamed. They did something that you would not or could not do as did every other member of our armed forces.
As for purges, go back and compare to Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan. Maybe we should confine this to only members or ex members of the military since they have a knowledge base to operate from.
Drunken officers in peace time can sometimes make excellent generals in wartime;
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
some old GeneralI couldn't do it because the Army doesn't really care to promote more than a few token black folks to Generals, so to hell with them. I have to hand it to you on Useless, though. Somehow, a guy who failed at everything in life including the Presidency certainly had the stomach for killing thousands of people. He was good at that.
Think about what you wrote above and be ashamed. They did something that you would not or could not do as did every other member of our armed forces.
As for purges, go back and compare to Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan. Maybe we should confine this to only members or ex members of the military since they have a knowledge base to operate from.
Drunken officers in peace time can sometimes make excellent generals in wartime;
I couldn't do it because the Army doesn't really care to promote more than a few token black folks to Generals, so to hell with them. I have to hand it to you on Useless, though. Somehow, a guy who failed at everything in life including the Presidency certainly had the stomach for killing thousands of people. He was good at that. Originally Posted by Bert JonesHe was good at it because, unlike so many other Union commanders before him, he was willing to accept enormous numbers of casualties to achieve results. Given the Union's huge advantages in terms of numbers of troops and supplies, it was a given that they would eventually prevail. Grant possessed no particular tactical or strategic genius: he was simply willing to accept extraordinarily high casualty levels in exchange for tactical and strategic success. Maybe that's why he stayed drunk all the time....in order to live with it.
He was good at it because, unlike so many other Union commanders before him, he was willing to accept enormous numbers of casualties to achieve results. Given the Union's huge advantages in terms of numbers of troops and supplies, it was a given that they would eventually prevail. Grant possessed no particular tactical or strategic genius: he was simply willing to accept extraordinarily high casualty levels in exchange for tactical and strategic success. Maybe that's why he stayed drunk all the time....in order to live with it. Originally Posted by timpageGotta disagree with you on some of this Little Timmy-tard. Grant was a tenacious bulldog, but he admitted Cold Harbor was a terrible blunder, and he didn't stay drunk "all of the time." There was only the one occasion outside Vicksburg that he may have been drunk, and it wasn't during the course of the battle. Further, his decision to cut Sherman loose from a logistical base and let him march to the sea across Georgia was a brilliant strategic move.
Token black generals??? Did I want to be an admiral? Yes, when I was a child. When I enlisted it was not to become an admiral. Truth be told, I would have loved to have become a Captain and a ship commander. I figured that out long before they put the words into the mouth of Captain Kirk.You're so fucking stupid and your posts are so obtuse that it's difficult to respond.
Timmie, Lee was beaten by Grant. Lee did beat the whoremongers (Hooker), the political generals (too many to name), the old line, and the lawyers. He couldn't beat the drunkard and his friend the bi-polar general Sherman. Also Burnside, Hooker and many of the Union generals had the same advantage in man power, equipment, and supplies that Grant had. They just didn't use it. Grant did away with parole and Grant would pursue his enemy even after success. The elegant bunch would stop after a victory and allow both sides to recompose themselves. For Lee, that meant withdrawing with his forces intact for another day. Grant and Sherman didn't see it that way. By the way, Grant was not so drunk when he was in the field.
Timmie pick up a book and stop posting in ignorance. I recommend McPherson. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
He was good at it because, unlike so many other Union commanders before him, he was willing to accept enormous numbers of casualties to achieve results. Given the Union's huge advantages in terms of numbers of troops and supplies, it was a given that they would eventually prevail. Grant possessed no particular tactical or strategic genius: he was simply willing to accept extraordinarily high casualty levels in exchange for tactical and strategic success. Maybe that's why he stayed drunk all the time....in order to live with it. Originally Posted by timpageMakes sense
There seems to be some sort of idolization of Robert E Lee, and many Confederate and Union Generals.I've walked that ground at Gettysburg several times and, standing there looking at that field between Missionary and Cemetery Ridge.... it is very difficult to understand why Lee thought a frontal assault was the way to go. Longstreet clearly disagreed and wanted to move east, get in between the Union troops and Washington DC and force them to attack..... I dunno.....read The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara. Maybe that will help you understand it. Shaara advances the position that Lee had so much confidence in his troops that he thought they could accomplish anything...and, quite frankly they had....the Confederacy produced utterly superb infantry...and very good cavalry as well....that confidence, coupled with his belief that a victory at Gettysburg would force the Union to sue for peace...caused him to order the attack. In retrospect, a catastrophe....but, you know what? It nearly worked....they actually breached the union lines and were only repulsed after reinforcements arrived.
The fact is, many were inept to a degree that was borderline criminal.
Most took their military training in the 1820-1840 era, when Nepoleonic Warfare was taught at most a military academy's. This meant huge formations matching straight into each other, hoping the other side would run.
The problem was that right about the time the American Civil War started, the MiniBall Rifled Musket had been perfected. This gave even the lowest infantryman the capability to lay down devastating controlled fire clear out to 300 yards.
The Generals were too Fukin stupid to realize that marching into such devastating carnage was suicidal. Add cannon cannister fire to the mix, and you can see the utter futility of such tactics.
All the way up to Gettysburg, Lee was still doing this, as was proved when he ordered 15,000 men to march straight into a protective embankment, with artillery support, of two divisions armed with rifled muskets.
The results of "Pickett's Charge" proves the point.
How many brave men died needlessly because these "Generals" were too damned ignorant of modern weaponry that they would order men into such situations.
Lee should have been tried as a war criminal, not idolized as a military hero. Originally Posted by Jackie S
The Constitution provides the means of which a President can be removed. Period.Let me guess ... "And the Nigger Failed."
Any other action is breaking our Laws. Period.
Demonstrations and discourse are part of our normal political proccess, guaranteed by the Constitution. These are suppose to influence elections, not directly remove a person from office by a illegal manner.
A great movie on this very subject was " Seven Days In May", staring Burt Lancaster and Kurt Douglas. The last line in the movie sums it up. Originally Posted by Jackie S
