U.S. GENERAL: LET'S MAKE OBAMA RESIGN

[JD Barleycorn]

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;

[timpage]

Originally Posted by lostincypress

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.

Well, 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.

The OP is a perfect example. Ifyouradumbass seeks to elevate this general (who retired 20 years ago) to some special status when, in reality, he is encouraging other service members to disregard their oath and refuse to deploy into a combat zone, just because he happens to disagree with the political philosophy of the President of the United States. So, the reality is exactly the opposite of what ifyouradumbass intended: he holds this guy up as some example to follow when, in reality, he is a dishonorable POS shit who has violated his oath. The irony.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

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;

But, usually not. Drunks in the military are usually just like drunks who are civilians: they're just drunks.

And, of course, there were those civil war generals who were not drunks and who, in virtually every engagement with the enemy where the forces were even close to be equal, kicked ass and took names....while being a teetotaler:

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

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;

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.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Bert Jones

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.

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.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by timpage

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.

Gotta 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.

[JD Barleycorn]

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.

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.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

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.

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.

You're so fucking stupid and your posts are so obtuse that it's difficult to respond.

Yes, Professor, I am aware that "Lee was beaten by Grant." So is every elementary school student in the United States that had to take American history.

And, yes...I believe you have accurately restated exactly what I posted originally: that Grant was willing to attack endlessly and incur enormous casualties in order to achieve victory....while prior Union commanders had been unwilling to do so...maybe if you go back and read my post again, you will understand it this time.

Finally, McPherson's book was OK but from a historical perspective, there are dozens that are better. I'd suggest you start with Shelby Foote's three volume history of the war if you really want to start getting a handle on it. Be warned though....no pictures for you to look at. And, well....three volumes, like I said. Given your apparently remedial level reading and writing skills, finishing it will probably be a full-time job for you for the next several years. Remember though.... If you'll just stop moving your mouth when you read, it will go faster.

[Jackie S]

There seems to be some sort of idolization of Robert E Lee, and many Confederate and Union Generals.

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.

[BigLouie]

Can't be any worse than Bush who got the US into TWO unfunded wars in situations where it was not possible to win

[Yssup Rider]

IBIdiot is so bonerized over Civil War lore that he is stuck on the plantation.

Check out his reviews. Massa Overseer...times (well maybe not considering how many of his reviews he used to get onto ECCIE) three? ALL OF HIS REVIEWS ARE OF ANGELFOOD McSPADE!



What a fucking pathetic human being!

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by timpage

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.

Makes sense

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

There seems to be some sort of idolization of Robert E Lee, and many Confederate and Union Generals.

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.

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.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The Constitution provides the means of which a President can be removed. Period.

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.

Let me guess ... "And the Nigger Failed."

Movies were made in Hollywood by Jews. You really wanna use that as support?

still waiting for a response from Short Bus IFFYYYEIEIO regarding his "Go stab a Jesus comment."

I don't think the drooling retard even knows what he said, not that THAT would stop him.

we should institute a basic IQ test for ECCIE posters. Droolers like Simple Jack (and probably half the idiots on the right) would be relegated to Another Realm...

[CuteOldGuy]

Trust me, AssupRidee, DEM. you don't want an IQ test instituted in this forum, unless you have completed your work here. Ijs.