As General Petreaus is pilloried in the papers...

[Okla-homey]

Keep these words in mind, penned by an American general in 1863.


It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials. – Robert E. Lee, 1863

[limey_sooner]

Remind me again, how did things work out for Lee?

[Okla-homey]

Remind me again, how did things work out for Lee?

He lost. But it wasn't really his fault. He was outnumbered about 2 to 5 and the blue guys had much better gear than his guys had. That said, he gave 'em hell for about four years.

[limey_sooner]

He lost. But it wasn't really his fault. He was outnumbered about 2 to 5 and the blue guys had much better gear than his guys had. That said, he gave 'em hell for about four years.



So, is what you are saying is that although Lee was a good general, due to the circumstances he really had very little chance of success? Is that about right? OK, you've convinced me, he is just like Petraeus.

[1stTimeCaller]

Limey must be an editor of a newspaper

[Okieflyer]

Limey must be an editor of a newspaper

No doubt. As I recall we won the Iraq war. We just haven't rolled into Syria and Iran yet to kill off the insurgents.

[crawfish]

So, is what you are saying is that although Lee was a good general, due to the circumstances he really had very little chance of success? Is that about right? OK, you've convinced me, he is just like Petraeus.

That's the problem with message boards. Even when you successfully deflect the conversation, your previous stupidity is left for the world to see. :D

[usmc-sooner]

So, is what you are saying is that although Lee was a good general, due to the circumstances he really had very little chance of success? Is that about right? OK, you've convinced me, he is just like Petraeus.

http://www.joelogon.com/images_temp/successoryinternet400.jpg

[VeeJay]

I'm on moveon.org's e-mail list. Been on it for a couple of years. Initially signed up out of curiosity, and to see how far left their little neighborhood really was. I still get their horsesh*t and it provides for laughs.

Yesterday, moveon.org was bitching and whining about the "Republican legislation" to condemn them for the "General Betray Us" schtick - even though 75 senators voted to. Note Hillary and Christopher Dodd were two of the 25 who opposed the resolution.

Hillary as Commander in Chief. Heh.

I fully expect the executives from MoveOn to roll out the red carpet for Achmed From Iran when he comes-a-calling.

[picasso]

I liked moveon's retort of what Bush said yesterday. Talk about your average dodge/response. Geez dude, get something original.:rolleyes:

Say what you will about Bushie but when you dog the guy who's supposed to be leading our troops in a time of war then you most certainly need to be kicked in the nuts. The girls too.

[OKC-SLC]

Thanks for the original post, Homey. I had not read that quote before. Entertaining, and prudent to this day.

[Sooner in Tampa]

So, is what you are saying is that although Lee was a good general, due to the circumstances he really had very little chance of success? Is that about right? OK, you've convinced me, he is just like Petraeus.NO...what he was saying is that Lee was outmanned and outgunned and STILL kicked the **** out the North for a few years.

For those of us with ANY military intellect, Lee is regarded as one of the BEST EVER!

[LosAngelesSooner]

So, is what you are saying is that although Lee was a good general, due to the circumstances he really had very little chance of success? Is that about right? OK, you've convinced me, he is just like Petraeus.
pwn3d

[1stTimeCaller]

limey did make himself look like a jackass, didn't he?

[LosAngelesSooner]

limey did make himself look like a jackass, didn't he?http://www.snpnet.com/morethantalk/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/head-in-sand.jpg

[Stoop Dawg]

He lost. But it wasn't really his fault. He was outnumbered about 2 to 5 and the blue guys had much better gear than his guys had. That said, he gave 'em hell for about four years.

I'm not up to speed on "Petreaus", I guess I need to go do some Googling.

But in response to this: Moral victories are for aggies. ;)

[1stTimeCaller]

http://www.snpnet.com/morethantalk/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/head-in-sand.jpg

http://www.nigelsmith.net/assets/images/head_up_arse.jpg

this is fun.

[StuIsTheMan]

Well Limey and my self are lucky I am in a good mood today...Cause otherwise I feel I would be banned for what I really want to say here...

http://www.pmthink.com/uploaded_images/quotestruth-701634.jpg

but all be what he did in the movie was WRONG...that speach pretty much somes it up...Man a post Dood!:mad: :pop:

[LosAngelesSooner]

http://www.nigelsmith.net/assets/images/head_up_arse.jpg

this is fun.I'm glad you agree with me.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Well Limey and my self are lucky I am in a good mood today...Cause otherwise I feel I would be banned for what I really want to say here...

http://www.pmthink.com/uploaded_images/quotestruth-701634.jpg

but all be what he did in the movie was WRONG...that speach pretty much somes it up...Man a post Dood!:mad: :pop:
Ah! It's so funny when people miss the entire point of that speech. :D

[StuIsTheMan]

Ah! It's so funny when people miss the entire point of that speech. :D

Oh please enlighten me with your military "knowledge":rolleyes:

[1stTimeCaller]

in order to get away from the productive posts that LAS and I have made I will say that all wars suck. There are going to be ups and downs. We are making great strides over there and our men and women are doing great things over there. I'm with JFK when he said that "we will bear any burden..."

[Okla-homey]

also, politicians worry about the next election. Statesmen worry about the next generation.

[Sooner in Tampa]

pwn3d:rolleyes: yeah...he compared apples to oranges. :rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Oh please enlighten me with your military "knowledge":rolleyes:
First off, you know nothing about my degree of military knowledge.

Secondly the point of the speech is anything but military. Remember...it's a MOVIE. Not a real life speech. It was intended for dramatic effect. And the point of the speech, within the framework of the film, is very clear.

[1stTimeCaller]

Stu knows nothing.

Which is excatly your knowledge level of what a Theater CINC, a Division Commander, all the way down to what a Battery/Company Commander does and is responsible for.

[Stoop Dawg]

I just wanted to point out that I know nothing as well.

Carry on.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Once again, off the point of what I was stating regarding the infamous "A Few Good Men" speech.

As for General P., the results speak for themself, regardless or responsibility or day to day operational knowledge.

[StuIsTheMan]

First off, you know nothing about my degree of military knowledge.

like I said please enlighten me...oh and thanks for letting me in on that secret, ya know, about it being a movie and all...:rolleyes:


Jessep:[/B] ]You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!


the highlighted parts are what I was refering to...Hollywood or not, most of the service men and women I talk to (on a daily basis) would still think that itis a pretty true statement. Everything else I'd say falls into your "Dramatic Effect":pop:

[LosAngelesSooner]

(((REGARDING THE MOVIE, A FEW GOOD MEN, NOT the REAL General Petreaus)))

You mean the fact that he was a criminal? A traitor? And that he was arrested by a military court? The fact that he was a megalomaniac and disregarded the Constitution of the United States?

To revere the fictional Colonel Jessup or what he said is to revere a traitor with traitorous thoughts.

He betrayed his command and the men under his command. And no true American would EVER want a man like him on a wall defending America, because a man like him is CONTRARY to the founding ideals of America.

And questioning the manner in which he defends that wall is PARAMOUNT to being a good American and a loyal citizen.

(((within the framework of a fictional movie)))

THAT is the point of that speech you so strongly endorse.

P.S. - Sorry for the threadjack.

[85Sooner]

You mean the fact that he was a criminal? A traitor? And that he was arrested by a military court? The fact that he was a megalomaniac and disregarded the Constitution of the United States?

To revere the fictional General Jessup or what he said is to revere a traitor with traitorous thoughts.

He betrayed his command and the men under his command. And no true American would EVER want a man like him on a wall defending America, because a man like him is CONTRARY to the founding ideals of America.

(within the framework of a fictional movie)

THAT is the point of that speech you so strongly endorse.


Jessup wasn't a general.

[StuIsTheMan]

You mean the fact that he was a criminal? A traitor? And that he was arrested by a military court? The fact that he was a megalomaniac and disregarded the Constitution of the United States?

To revere the fictional General Jessup or what he said is to revere a traitor with traitorous thoughts.

He betrayed his command and the men under his command.

(within the framework of a fictional movie)

THAT is the point of that speech you so strongly endorse.
Well obviously your missing the point here... maybe if ya take off your hollywood sunglasses for a moment you could see it.
I also feel that if someone real, like lets say Patton or Ike, were still alive they would agree with that portion of the speech...You saw the movies about them right...but as far as this little gem of yours...


megalomaniac and disregarded the Constitution of the United States


here's another quote from a movie for ya...


we are here to preserve democracy...not to practice it.

Ya know what general originally said that one? Oh and it's not a fictional one so...Hint, you'd be speaking German or Japanese right now if he didn't bend the Constitution alittle...

I do not think you could do the job they are tasked to do with being somewhat of a megalomaniac...but that is JMO...but what do I know:rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Not much, apparently.

[StuIsTheMan]

Not much, apparently.


Ohhh ya got me there...Nice one:rolleyes:

don't ya got to go hang out with true patriots like...
http://www.applesanity.com/fetish/jane_fonda/jane-fonda-traitor.jpg
and

http://www.starman417.com/penn2.gif

[LosAngelesSooner]

Ugh. What a tired...tired argument. I hoped for better.

[StuIsTheMan]

What can I say? "Vin Diesel is Ghey." Fixed:P

[StuIsTheMan]

oh and nice work on editing your post's there genious...Like I would'nt notice or something...what can't fight like a...oh wait:pop:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Fixed:P
Well...he IS gay...

At least we agree on SOMETHING. :D

[StuIsTheMan]

Ugh. What a tired...tired argument. I hoped for better.

Took the words right out of my mouth...

[Hamhock]

if i was a mod. i'd lock this thread.

but i'm not, so continue the slap fight.

[StuIsTheMan]

if i was a mod. i'd lock this thread.

but i'm not, so continue the slap fight.

Why...I think LAS and I are having a wunderfull conversation:D

and plus the mods love it when I get alittle fiesty...always an opportunity for a ban:D

And we all know how they love to do that...


that's a joke GHP...I just got back;)

[Sooner in Tampa]

LAS has brought sooooo much to the SO :rolleyes:

Just another reason the SO has declined so rapidly.

[Stoop Dawg]

Ugh. What a tired...tired argument. I hoped for better.

Liar. You've got almost 7k posts, most of them on the SO. You know exactly what you're gonna get here.

[StuIsTheMan]

Obviously she's not used to FACTS, and other peoples opinions;)

[Stoop Dawg]

Obviously she's not used to people confusing FACTS with opinions;)

Obviously not.

[1stTimeCaller]

I would just like to say that my weiner may not be as long as yours but it's certainly skinnier.

[StuIsTheMan]

I would just like to say that my weiner may not be as long as yours but it's certainly skinnier.


carefull now...:D

[LosAngelesSooner]

Liar. You've got almost 7k posts, most of them on the SO. You know exactly what you're gonna get here.
Heh. True dat.

[OCUDad]

Sorry... I've been away for a while. Looks like Stu and LAS are having a Stupid contest. Who's winning?

[Jerk]

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/root_for_us%20~1.JPG

[Okla-homey]

(((REGARDING THE MOVIE, A FEW GOOD MEN, NOT the REAL General Petreaus)))

To revere the fictional Colonel Jessup or what he said is to revere a person whom Hollywood elites would consider a traitor with traitorous thoughts.

He betrayed his command and the men under his command. And no true American filmmaker would EVER want a man like him on a wall defending America, because a man like him is CONTRARY to the political ideals of the motion picture elite.

And questioning the manner in which he defends that wall is PARAMOUNT to being a good member of the motion picture industry and a loyal citizen of Hollywoodland.



fixed it.:D

[Okla-homey]

So, is what you are saying is that although Lee was a good general, due to the circumstances he really had very little chance of success? Is that about right? OK, you've convinced me, he is just like Petraeus.

No. We can ultimately prevail in Iraq, but it is going to take a long-term presence there. Probably at least a generation. Further, in the Army/MC Counter-Insurgency Manual, for which Gen P was largely responsible, you will read we need about 1000 troops on the ground for every 20 insurgents operating in the area. Those odds seem crazily out of whack, but historically, they have been born out time and again. (See the Phillippines model. You can Google "Phillippine Insurrection" and learn more about it.)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I would just like to say that my weiner may not be as long as yours but it's certainly skinnier.

The ladies call me Captain Hook.









But I think it's because of this giant hook I have for a hand. Not my ginormous hook-shaped weiner.

[1stTimeCaller]

I don't even know what 'pilloried' means.

Law school kids are so cute with their fancy words. They're like a 5 year old with a new toy, they want to show it off to everyone.

[Okla-homey]

I don't even know what 'pilloried' means.

Law school kids are so cute with their fancy words. They're like a 5 year old with a new toy, they want to show it off to everyone.

For the record, as the beneficiary of a fine liberal arts educashun, I knew what the verb phrase "to pillory" meant in 1982. I can also conjugate it. So there.;)

[OCUDad]

Lawyers are so supercilious and pejorative. :rolleyes:

[Okla-homey]

Lawyers are so supercilious and pejorative. :rolleyes:

when you get paid to use words to advance someone's interests, it pays to know a lot of words.;)

[limey_sooner]

No. We can ultimately prevail in Iraq, but it is going to take a long-term presence there. Probably at least a generation. Further, in the Army/MC Counter-Insurgency Manual, for which Gen P was largely responsible, you will read we need about 1000 troops on the ground for every 20 insurgents operating in the area. Those odds seem crazily out of whack, but historically, they have been born out time and again. (See the Phillippines model. You can Google "Phillippine Insurrection" and learn more about it.)


Why the phillipines? I mean Bush has compared this to Vietnam, the Korean War and WWII. I guess its just take your damn pick with you people. My preference is compare it with one of the Right's favorites and one Bush so often cites, Churchill. See what Churchill got his country mired down in in iraq. I idolize churchill (seriously) and I figure if someone with the brain the size of Churchill couldn't understand this region, Bush and his cronies have no chance. Hell, even that right win God Reagan knew better than to get the u.s. involved in a quagmire in this part of the world.

[Preservation Parcels]

This is the pillory and whipping post from where I work. Public humiliation used to mean something. General Petraeus and our military do not deserve the pillory. Hmmm, what rhymes with "pillory?" ;)

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w129/preservationparcels/Enforcing20the20Law-Enforcing20t-1.jpg

"The whipping post and pillory have a long history in Delaware. Whipping was first sanctioned as a form of punishment in 1717. By the 1840s, there was some opposition to its use and many thought reforms were needed. The Legislature did revise the code and in 1852 there was a provision that no more than sixty lashes or more than one hour in the pillory would be executed for all sentences combined. The code also stated that whippings were to be well laid on the bare back and in public with the post and pillory near the jail of each county. The pillory was abolished in 1905, but the whipping post was law until 1972. The post was last used as a form of punishment in 1952."

http://archives.delaware.gov/100/other_stories/Enforcing%20the%20Law.shtml

[OCUDad]

Whichever side of this argument you're on, it would be nice if more than two people knew how to spell Petraeus. No wonder most Americans can't find "the Iraq" on a map. Apparently they no longer teach either English or Geography in our schools. :rolleyes:

[StuIsTheMan]

Sorry... I've been away for a while. Looks like Stu and LAS are having a Stupid contest. Who's winning?


Your are ****!

[OCUDad]

Your are ****!The prosecution rests.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

It may just be me but attacking a man who is a Patriot and is serving his country seems highly Un-American. I also have a problem with MoveOn.org because they are run by a socialist who keeps his money in the Cayman accounts so he doesn't have to pay taxes (I won't everyone to be equal but me theory I guess). Not to mention he is a foreigner that is attempting to slander and ridicule a man of service who is the commander of the theatre in Iraq. These are the same soldiers that are some of the most disciplined in the history of man. And to be fair I also thought the attacks on Kerry were also highly low brow. Let's leave the service men out of our political attacks.

[Chuck Bao]

Say what you will about Bushie but when you dog the guy who's supposed to be leading our troops in a time of war then you most certainly need to be kicked in the nuts. The girls too.

If this is a trap, it could be a little more cleverly disguised.

[StuIsTheMan]

The prosecution rests.


Good one Martha:D

[Vaevictis]

No. We can ultimately prevail in Iraq, but it is going to take a long-term presence there. Probably at least a generation. Further, in the Army/MC Counter-Insurgency Manual, for which Gen P was largely responsible, you will read we need about 1000 troops on the ground for every 20 insurgents operating in the area. Those odds seem crazily out of whack, but historically, they have been born out time and again.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but the figures I've seen from that manual are 20-25 troops per 1000 residents, and 10-15 troops to 1 insurgent.

(Either way, your point holds, I just think the figure is incorrect.)

[LosAngelesSooner]

And yet Bush, Petraeus' boss, won't authorize him to have that many troops.

And the military doesn't have that many troops, so they can't even do it if it was authorized.

And we won't institute a draft.

So essplain to me how his "plan" is going to work if his plan is impossible to execute?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Why would you state this...

And yet Bush, Petraeus' boss, won't authorize him to have that many troops.
If you know this:confused:

And the military doesn't have that many troops, so they can't even do it if it was authorized.

[Okla-homey]

And yet Bush, Petraeus' boss, won't authorize him to have that many troops.

And the military doesn't have that many troops, so they can't even do it if it was authorized.

And we won't institute a draft.

So essplain to me how his "plan" is going to work if his plan is impossible to execute?

You don't have to be strong everywhere, but its not "whack-a-mole" either. You need those force ratios in the areas where the insurgency is hot. You work hard to pacify those areas, as you do so, you force the surviving insurgents to refuge in new areas.

You then shift your operational focus as the principal situs of the insurgent stronghold shifts to new real estate. In other words, you keep up the pressure showing them that moving doesn't spell relief. In that way, you keep up the pressure and eventually, the insurgency is eviscerated. Elsewhere, you work hard to ensure your guys treat the populace with a modicum of respect and guard against doing things they deem as outrageous.

This takes time, disciplined troops led by experienced commanders, and a populace who are generally sick of the violence. I think we have everything in that list in the bag except the first item.

[Rogue]

Good points, Homey. But LAS has a point. If the number of troops is inadequate then time, discipline, competence of commanders, and the level of Iraqi native fedupedness could be squandered. I know that draft is a dirty word. Our administration and much of our citizenry is in favor of the war "whatever it takes." Well, according to the unscrubbed versions of requested troop levels it either takes a draft or sending all of the active duty, guard, and reserve troops for several years. We seem to be in the unsupportable position of doing this with a skeleton crew relative to what is needed or to alienate the citizens for good by instituting a draft. The proverbial rock and hard place it seems.

[Okla-homey]

Good points, Homey. But LAS has a point. If the number of troops is inadequate then time, discipline, competence of commanders, and the level of Iraqi native fedupedness could be squandered. I know that draft is a dirty word. Our administration and much of our citizenry is in favor of the war "whatever it takes." Well, according to the unscrubbed versions of requested troop levels it either takes a draft or sending all of the active duty, guard, and reserve troops for several years. We seem to be in the unsupportable position of doing this with a skeleton crew relative to what is needed or to alienate the citizens for good by instituting a draft. The proverbial rock and hard place it seems.

I don't think any commander has asked for more troops than we now have there. I also don't consider what we have there to be a "skeleton crew."

As a career military guy and a professional officer, I never wanted a draft ad I don't think any of my brethren now in uniform want one either. Draftees often cause more problems than they solve in modern war. For one thing, it takes at least a year to take a guy off the street and get him ready to deploy -- and that's if he's down with being in service. The other thing is, volunteers are more likely to re-up after their initial enlistment, and that saves time and treasure too, not to mention the fact that guy's experience is not lost.

Bottomline: the draft is wasteful, and should only be resorted to as a last resort. We aren't anywhere near that instance.

[Rogue]

Draftees often cause more problems than they solve in modern war.I'm not saying a draft is the way. Typing while watching "The War" on PBS you posted about so I was thinking in comparison to what "whatever it takes" used to mean. Multiple tours are taking a toll on the citizen-soldier types who are spending every other year in Iraq. In my Army, the reservists were usually as you describe the draftees, except their equipment was worse. I think their equipment is better now.


My "skeleton crew" comment was "relative to...". This "surge" is temporary and not projected at the levels or time described in Petraeus' model as I understand it. If the insurgency and geurillas are going to last for several years (and based on the training camps that's a safe bet) then I'm not sure it's going to be enough troops based on Gen. P's model or how we can sustain enough troops for years to come. Despite the "meeting our recruiting targets" we hear, I'm skeptical. The US can't do this on our own anymore. Now don't anyone say I recommend we approach the UN with hat in hand. We're going to have to have some overt help though. It seems that it's going to have to be from the region and our supporters there are increasingly reluctant to be seen as supporting the US. Our well publicized warnings about Iran's nuke program didn't faze the region much, outside of Israel.


I'm not proposing a solution here. Just commenting on the quandary.

I trust that the commanders know what they are doing. I'm much less convinced that the White House or Congress know what the military is doing. My observation is that the collective patience of the country, our country, is waning. It's a lot for the military to overcome.

[OklahomaTuba]

Interesting the libz are ****ing themselves to destroy probably the most respected mind in the modern American military.

Here we are, trying to win this thing so we can get our Men & Women home, and all these jerks on the left want to do is try to ruin the credibility of those in uniform.

Sickening stuff.

[OklahomaTuba]

Also interesting is the New York Times giving these freaks at moveon.org a sweet heart deal on the ad space attacking the military.

I wonder if the New York Times would do the same for the Blue Star Mothers ad asking us to not retreat?

Probably not.

[Okla-homey]

The Hungarian Mr. Souros must be a very creepy guy. Kinda the T. Boone Pickens of the political hard left in this country. I hear he keeps all his dough in off-shore accounts so he doesn't pay any taxes in the US, but I don't know if there's any truth to that.

[usmc-sooner]

I remember when LAS tried to pass himself off as the conservative Republican in a lame attempt to win over points from (I guess) the conservatives. I also remember his millions of lame posts that led to him being banned over and over. I also remember his lame attempts to sneak back in.

Seriously if President Bush gets to you to the point that you can't control yourself, you need to step back from the computer take a deep breath, count to 10, then get a life.