Obama Overstates Kansas Tornado Toll says 10,000 killed

One of the things I was taught as a leader, although it does not apply 100% of the time is once you make a decision and go forward with it you can not back down. It will make you look indecisive and weak.

This discussion was primarily meant for discipline and doing something that was unpopular. Perhaps someone ad the same discussion with the current POTUS and he took it to heart. Either way, I think the guy has balls to stick to what HE feels is right in the face of so much criticism and hatemongering without backstepping.
 
Marinerhodes said:
One of the things I was taught as a leader, although it does not apply 100% of the time is once you make a decision and go forward with it you can not back down. It will make you look indecisive and weak.

This discussion was primarily meant for discipline and doing something that was unpopular. Perhaps someone ad the same discussion with the current POTUS and he took it to heart. Either way, I think the guy has balls to stick to what HE feels is right in the face of so much criticism and hatemongering without backstepping.
Click to expand...


Thats true, But on the other hand refusing to make corrections to a plan of action that isn't working, or refusing to admit a mistake is a sign of arrogance and of being obtuse. That too, is a sign of a weak leader.

I guess the answer is somewhere in between the two.
 
mmarsh said:
Thats true, But on the other hand refusing to make corrections to a plan of action that isn't working, or refusing to admit a mistake is a sign of arrogance and of being obtuse. That too, is a sign of a weak leader.

I guess the answer is somewhere in between the two.
Click to expand...

I will grant you that. But on the same hand I will stand to say that he is getting advice from his advisors. I don't know if he has acted on that advice or gone off on his own. But you know as well as I do the politics involved in getting anything done if it doesn't make a politician look good.
 
mmarsh said:
Thats true, But on the other hand refusing to make corrections to a plan of action that isn't working, or refusing to admit a mistake is a sign of arrogance and of being obtuse. That too, is a sign of a weak leader.

I guess the answer is somewhere in between the two.
Click to expand...

How do you know his plan isn't working? Because the "news sources" say so? Given their interpretation of a successful campaign, D Day would have been a total failure.

If picking a leader without arrogance was a requirement for command, Gen. Patton would have been a Private and Field Marshall Montgomery would have never at El Alamein to help turn the tide of WWII. As any poker player will tell you, count your money after, not during, the game.
 
MarineRHodes

Thats the one unanswered question I have about Bush. How much of his 'ideas' are his, and how much of it is from his "advisers"? Is he really in charge or are his strings being pulled. Its very hard to tell, especially due to the fact that given 'power' the vice president has given himself.

Missileer

Embedded Journalism is nothing new, and you are mistaken about D-Day.
The link below is an Audio recording of Radio Canadian Press Ross Monro who is reporting at Juno Beach. July 6 1944. The broadcast was a day later.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-1317-7872/conflict_war/d-day/clip8

Actually I think its those Generals you mentioned who were amongst the worst. Patton was just plain lucky his army wasn't obliterated when he stupidly ran out of gas during the 1944 Lorraine Campaign. His "ability" is primarily based off the fact that he was facing an enemy that was deeply inferior to his own. Had he faced the elite formations such SS GrossDeutschland or Panzer Lehr of the Russian Front he would have been squashed flat, just like Monty was at Market Garden by the elite 2nd SS Panzer Corps. I find that Patton is the most over-rated General of American history.

Just last week the GOP said they are going to support "Plan B" in September if their isn't any improvement Iraq. Thats a pretty big bombshell. When the Presidents own political party threatens to go against the President dellusions of victory; we are in some serious, serious, trouble.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/07/us.iraq.ap/index.html
 
UncleSam.gif

Why?

Because the French short term memory seems unable to recall that this...
hitler.jpg

...would be a CURRENT picture were it not for overrated Generals like Patton. Funny, in 1944 no one was whinging about Americans and their military. It was the Germans' concern over Patton that led them to deploy troops elsewhere and enable the D-Day landings to succeed. The Generals of the Third Reich who faced Patton in battle respected/feared him more than any other. To hear a civilian berate him 60 years on carries no weight in light of the overwhelming evidence in support of Patton as perhaps the greatest General of WWII.
GIs.jpg

^^^ This happened because of this man...
patton-crop.jpg
 
Bulldogg

Did you miss last week's episode of The Factor? Fox News thrall Overlord Bill O'Reilly called the "Boycott France" campaign over.
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/08/185756.aspx

So its now 'ok' to like France, because Bill O'Reilly says so.

1. I have lived in France 8 years, during that time I have never ONCE heard anybody not say they didn't appreciate US intervention in WWII or any other type of anti-American comment. You and I might disagree on most everything, but this something that I think you'll agree that I am in a MUCH better position to know about. My relatives especially those who survived the Nazi occupation will not abide ANY criticism (even justified) of the US because of WWII. You and your cohorts are just dead wrong to say otherwise, and If you cannot look past the utter propaganda of the anti-French bigotry (most of whom have never once been to France, yet seem to know everything about it) then I am sorry to say you are just plain ignorant. Its utter bollocks.

But because France owes a debt doesn't mean its going to be a kiss-a** either. They went to fight in Afghanistan with the US, they opted out of Iraq, turns out they were right to do so. They were right, we were wrong. Lets get over it.

Secondly, these same far right-wingers show some lack of memory of their own history. I think we all remember these guys

hartwell.jpg


These guys would still be in control of the Colonies if it were not for the help of

george01.jpg


^^^^^^
These guys. So I call the France-USA score about a tie, unless you wish to count Afganistan then its 2-1 favor France. Of course the right never likes to mention the above, so the people suffering short term memory loss isn't the French.

Secondly, Patton was an overrated US General. I think people like Bradley, Spaatz, Eisenhower, Marshall, MacArthur, were much better, and deserve much more of the credit. Even Division commanders such as Generals Roosevelt, Allen, Taylor, Ridgeway deserve greater credit than Patton.

Patton was colorful (the media liked him), but reckless. Patton sole brilliant move was at the Bulge. But he did alot of stupid menuevers too like running out of gas during the Lorraine Campaign, and Task Force Baum of which he should have been have faced a courts martial for. Patton's gross narcissism also contributed to an extremely high causality rate amongst 3rd Army, the highest amongst all the American Forces in Europe.

But the truth about Patton was that he only faced Enemies that were inferior to his own force. Even at the Bulge, because he missed the initial Blitzkreig at the Ardennes he faced a tired and worn out German Army who had run out of fuel. Patton never faced any of the truly formidable German Armies. He faced a already-beaten Afrika Korps in North Africa, a ragtag mob of 2nd rate German-Italian troops during the Italian Campaign, and a group of Eastern European conscripts in France. He didn't participate in Market Garden so he never had to face a German Elite Division.

Its easy to win victories when your army is better trained, better equipped, have total air superiority, and outnumbers the enemy 15 to 1.
 
Last edited:
MacArthur was a coward, aka "Dugout Doug".
Bradley was popular but not what I would call a combat leader.
Eisenhower was a supply man and not a combat leader.
I'll buy Marshall and Spaatz but not one of them was more effective on the ground leading from the front and inspiring his men to meet the enemy and defeat him than Patton. I will desist at this point because you have not served and have not been a combat leader and would not understand what it takes to lead men in battle. You might "know about" the subject but you would never understand.

And damn this is off topic... as you were.
 
Last edited:
Did you serve in WWII? Did you lead those Armies into combat? Trying to compare a modern day military to the 67 year old Army of our grandfathers is a pretty poor comparison. Incidentally, some of the most Acknowledged Military Historians never actually served themselves. I'll agree that your understanding of todays military is superior to mine. But on the historical level, your 'understanding' is no more, nor less, than anybody else's except for those who were actually there in 1944.

And Yes, we should get back to topic.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
MarineRHodes

Thats the one unanswered question I have about Bush. How much of his 'ideas' are his, and how much of it is from his "advisers"? Is he really in charge or are his strings being pulled. Its very hard to tell, especially due to the fact that given 'power' the vice president has given himself.
Click to expand...

Well I suggest you write a letter to him and ask him for yourself. Perhaps write letters to his advisors? That is the only way you will get answers for yourself. If they answer you honestly you probably won't like the answers you get as they may not fit into the picture that you want to see.
 
Marinerhodes said:
Well I suggest you write a letter to him and ask him for yourself. Perhaps write letters to his advisors? That is the only way you will get answers for yourself. If they answer you honestly you probably won't like the answers you get as they may not fit into the picture that you want to see.
Click to expand...


The question is who is gullible enough to trust a politician to answer honestly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top