American Journalist James Foley Reportedly Beheaded

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
I wonder how George S. Patton would have dealt with the Islamists?? We need a commander who said things like this:

“From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don’t give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that.”

“Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle…Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.”

"My men don’t surrender, I don’t want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That’s not just bull shit either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet…

“We’ll win this war, but we’ll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we’ve got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We’re not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we’re going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You’ve got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it’s the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you’ll know what to do!”

“I don’t want to get any messages saying, “I am holding my position.” We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy’s balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!”

"There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON’T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, “Well, your Granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana.” No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, “Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!”[/quote]

Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]

Ha. I can tell you never served from that statement. Same was said in some quarters about Schwarzkopf. We need a atypical leader for an atypical enemy. This enemy will require ground troops at some point. How many, we will see. The solider on the ground, and the leaders who command them, is quite different that academic theory.

[quote]dcb wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]

Bullshit. His strategic vision was spot on at the time. There was little stomach for the correct action at the time though. That’s probably why he died.
[/quote]

Exactly. And of course, his tactics and strategy would adapt to today’s weaponry, personnel and environment. His leadership would be constant though.

[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Dude, he is one of our new trolls…don’t waste your breath.

But really good post, FTR.[/quote]

Um, yea, I probably wasted my breath. I’m a critic of my country as any reasonable person should be but I also have a lot of pride and when people talk nonsense and disrespect our contributions I get a bit fired up. I’m horrible with concise posts too. The thing is there are definitely a lot of people out there that hold those views, troll or not.[/quote]

While I agree with your post that America ( American people) have been responsible for many great things, why do you care if people criticise it, be proud of yourself and your achievements, not the piece of rock you live on.

It is like when I see people bragging about their ancestors and I ask are you proud of slavery too and obviously the answer is no. I then ask why it is legitimate to take pride and hold up the achievements of the good people of our past without doing the same and feeling shame for the bad ones.

Don’t get me wrong I feel no guilt over slavery because i didn’t take part in it, but i also don’t take credit or feel pride in the good people we had who did great stuff, because that was not me either.

[/quote]

Where are you from lad? I know the question has been asked, don’t know the response.

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
I wonder how George S. Patton would have dealt with the Islamists?? We need a commander who said things like this:

“From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don’t give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that.”

“Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle…Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.”

"My men don’t surrender, I don’t want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That’s not just bull shit either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet…

“We’ll win this war, but we’ll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we’ve got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We’re not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we’re going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You’ve got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it’s the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you’ll know what to do!”

“I don’t want to get any messages saying, “I am holding my position.” We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy’s balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!”

"There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON’T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, “Well, your Granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana.” No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, “Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!”[/quote]

Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]

Ha. I can tell you never served from that statement. Same was said in some quarters about Schwarzkopf. We need a atypical leader for an atypical enemy. This enemy will require ground troops at some point. How many, we will see. The solider on the ground, and the leaders who command them, is quite different that academic theory. [/quote]

Conventional ground forces will be required, but not American ones. U.S. SOF should be the extent of American assets on the ground, conducting kill/capture missions once U.S. Air power forces ISIS to devolve from a relatively conventional army to insurgents embedded with the populace. Where did I refer to "academic theory " in my post?

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]dcb wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]

Bullshit. His strategic vision was spot on at the time. There was little stomach for the correct action at the time though. That’s probably why he died.
[/quote]

Exactly. And of course, his tactics and strategy would adapt to today’s weaponry, personnel and environment. His leadership would be constant though. [/quote]

You haven’t answered the question that I posed to DCB. He was politically untenable in an era where the practice of directly targeting civilian populations was seen as legitimate. How would be fair in a modern counter insurgency, which is “… 80 percent political action and only 20 percent military”?

Like it or not, war, as Clausewitz famously taught, is the continuation of politics by other means. Wars are fought to realign politics in a way that benefits the victor and is detrimental to the loser. Patton was a brilliant tactical and operational commander but lacked the ability to formulate cogent grand strategy.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

  • Bring back conscription

[/quote]

Why?

[/quote]

US Army is only half a million strong and dropping. It’s at its lowest level since pre-WWII.
[/quote]

This isn’t necessarily an unwelcome development. [/quote]

Well it’s not unwelcome to our enemies that’s true.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

  • Bring back conscription

[/quote]

Why?

[/quote]

US Army is only half a million strong and dropping. It’s at its lowest level since pre-WWII.
[/quote]

Okay, get that. But why?

Is it because of the sheer volume you’d be sending in your scenario to a specific place?[/quote]

Yeah. US only has a single standing armoured division right now.[/quote]

Volunteer military forces are superior to conscripted ones. Why muddle a highly professional army? I do however think that all young Americans should be obligated to be employed in a short stint of public service. [/quote]

I agree. But during the Iraq war the US was having huge problems with recruitment and had to lower their standards anyway.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]dcb wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]

Bullshit. His strategic vision was spot on at the time. There was little stomach for the correct action at the time though. That’s probably why he died.
[/quote]

Care to elaborate on Patton’s “spot on” views regarding grand strategy? You’re asserting that Patton was assassinated? That’s a bold claim that must be evidenced. [/quote]

Grand strategy is the purview of the statesman not the general.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]dcb wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]

Bullshit. His strategic vision was spot on at the time. There was little stomach for the correct action at the time though. That’s probably why he died.
[/quote]

Care to elaborate on Patton’s “spot on” views regarding grand strategy? You’re asserting that Patton was assassinated? That’s a bold claim that must be evidenced. [/quote]

Grand strategy is the purview of the statesman not the general.[/quote]

Yes, but Patton’s myopic and foolish desire to invade the USSR blurred the distinction between the two.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]dcb wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]

Bullshit. His strategic vision was spot on at the time. There was little stomach for the correct action at the time though. That’s probably why he died.
[/quote]

Care to elaborate on Patton’s “spot on” views regarding grand strategy? You’re asserting that Patton was assassinated? That’s a bold claim that must be evidenced. [/quote]

Grand strategy is the purview of the statesman not the general.[/quote]

Yes, but Patton’s myopic and foolish desire to invade the USSR blurred the distinction between the two. [/quote]

It wasn’t a “foolish desire” it was merely impractical as the Russians had a 4:1 superiority in men and a 2:1 superiority in tanks at the end of hostilities.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
I wonder how George S. Patton would have dealt with the Islamists?? We need a commander who said things like this:

“From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don’t give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that.”

“Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle…Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.”

"My men don’t surrender, I don’t want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That’s not just bull shit either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet…

“We’ll win this war, but we’ll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we’ve got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We’re not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we’re going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You’ve got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it’s the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you’ll know what to do!”

“I don’t want to get any messages saying, “I am holding my position.” We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy’s balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!”

"There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON’T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, “Well, your Granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana.” No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, “Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!”[/quote]

Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]

Ha. I can tell you never served from that statement. Same was said in some quarters about Schwarzkopf. We need a atypical leader for an atypical enemy. This enemy will require ground troops at some point. How many, we will see. The solider on the ground, and the leaders who command them, is quite different that academic theory. [/quote]

Conventional ground forces will be required, but not American ones. U.S. SOF should be the extent of American assets on the ground, conducting kill/capture missions once U.S. Air power forces ISIS to devolve from a relatively conventional army to insurgents embedded with the populace. Where did I refer to "academic theory " in my post? [/quote]

Is this opinion coming from personal experience or a book?

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
I wonder how George S. Patton would have dealt with the Islamists?? We need a commander who said things like this:

“From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don’t give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that.”

“Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle…Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.”

"My men don’t surrender, I don’t want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That’s not just bull shit either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet…

“We’ll win this war, but we’ll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we’ve got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We’re not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we’re going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You’ve got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it’s the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you’ll know what to do!”

“I don’t want to get any messages saying, “I am holding my position.” We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy’s balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!”

"There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON’T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, “Well, your Granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana.” No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, “Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!”[/quote]

Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]

Ha. I can tell you never served from that statement. Same was said in some quarters about Schwarzkopf. We need a atypical leader for an atypical enemy. This enemy will require ground troops at some point. How many, we will see. The solider on the ground, and the leaders who command them, is quite different that academic theory. [/quote]

Conventional ground forces will be required, but not American ones. U.S. SOF should be the extent of American assets on the ground, conducting kill/capture missions once U.S. Air power forces ISIS to devolve from a relatively conventional army to insurgents embedded with the populace. Where did I refer to "academic theory " in my post? [/quote]

Is this opinion coming from personal experience or a book?[/quote]

Small minds can’t help but to avoid addressing the merit of the argument itself.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bistro, for crying out loud.[/quote]

You disagree with the above? [/quote]

Not necessarily, it’s just your style.[/quote]

I’ve found it difficult to write informally if the subject of the discussion is inherently academic. [/quote]

I actually have a degree of the same problem, but as my academic career is biochemistry it doesn’t affect me in politics :).

That said I don’t particularly mind your style. You bring lots of good points to the table even if I disagree with a number of them (in this case I tend to agree with you, but with a flavor or sex machine’s post about “rational sepf interest” being thr driver)

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]dcb wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]

Bullshit. His strategic vision was spot on at the time. There was little stomach for the correct action at the time though. That’s probably why he died.
[/quote]

Care to elaborate on Patton’s “spot on” views regarding grand strategy? You’re asserting that Patton was assassinated? That’s a bold claim that must be evidenced. [/quote]

Grand strategy is the purview of the statesman not the general.[/quote]

Yes, but Patton’s myopic and foolish desire to invade the USSR blurred the distinction between the two. [/quote]

It wasn’t a “foolish desire” it was merely impractical as the Russians had a 4:1 superiority in men and a 2:1 superiority in tanks at the end of hostilities.[/quote]

Without a doubt. Such a war would have cost the U.S. dearly without benefiting it proportionally. Containment was clearly the superior option and history vindicated the doctrine.

Bismark,

I’m not trying to be critical but I’m sure you could sit back and arm-chair-quarterback every successful American military campaign. If we only had intellectuals implementing strategy, we would have nothing to fear. Seventy years ago, you would have been 100% against our response to Japan in WW2. Correct? You would have never had the guts to order men to storm Normandy. I’m sure you would cite the “political fallout”, the “diplomatic complexities” and the “emotional detriment” the casualties would have to the families back home.

War is the hardest thing on this planet. Look back in history. ALL the way back. The winners of wars don’t fight with one hand behind their backs. They don’t do what’s popular, they do whatever it takes to succeed. If you we ever in a foxhole with bullets whizzing by your ears, you would understand that war is not black and white. If you and you buddies are taking fire from enemies hiding in a village, you order an airstrike on the damn village! If there are enemies firing rockets at your position from a goat-ranch, call in the Apaches and mow them down with 30mm rounds. Would civilians die? Yes they would. Would you be alive and able to return home, yes you would. Oh, the New York Times may run an article about you calling in an airstrike an wiping out a small village. And then their would be an editorial on how YOU should have responded while under fire.

The point I’m trying to make is war unique. Remember the Surge. How critical were SOME of the “experts”, ex-Generals, talking heads and media and academic types? Many were wrong. And it’s funny with all the love the Special Forces get. I remember the reports after Somalia. I remember my dad taking about what the papers said about the SF in Vietnam. Much of what these guys do never gets published (like the recent attempt to get Foley. Normally that stuff stays under wraps). Why, because if they did, many of our freedom-loving civilians would have a different opinion of them.

In short, war is hell. And the only way we (or the world) is going to stop ISIS is to declare war on them. And we need to be prepared for the long-haul. If not, our Grandchildren need to learn Arabic.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
I wonder how George S. Patton would have dealt with the Islamists?? We need a commander who said things like this:

“From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don’t give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that.”

“Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle…Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.”

"My men don’t surrender, I don’t want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That’s not just bull shit either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet…

“We’ll win this war, but we’ll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we’ve got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We’re not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we’re going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You’ve got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it’s the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you’ll know what to do!”

“I don’t want to get any messages saying, “I am holding my position.” We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy’s balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!”

"There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON’T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, “Well, your Granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana.” No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, “Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!”[/quote]

Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]

Ha. I can tell you never served from that statement. Same was said in some quarters about Schwarzkopf. We need a atypical leader for an atypical enemy. This enemy will require ground troops at some point. How many, we will see. The solider on the ground, and the leaders who command them, is quite different that academic theory. [/quote]

Conventional ground forces will be required, but not American ones. U.S. SOF should be the extent of American assets on the ground, conducting kill/capture missions once U.S. Air power forces ISIS to devolve from a relatively conventional army to insurgents embedded with the populace. Where did I refer to "academic theory " in my post? [/quote]

Is this opinion coming from personal experience or a book?[/quote]

Small minds can’t help but to avoid addressing the merit of the argument itself.[/quote]

If you were in charge, we’d all sleep better at night.

Q: Is your opinions from personal experience? Yes or no.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]dcb wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]

Bullshit. His strategic vision was spot on at the time. There was little stomach for the correct action at the time though. That’s probably why he died.
[/quote]

Care to elaborate on Patton’s “spot on” views regarding grand strategy? You’re asserting that Patton was assassinated? That’s a bold claim that must be evidenced. [/quote]

Grand strategy is the purview of the statesman not the general.[/quote]

Yes, but Patton’s myopic and foolish desire to invade the USSR blurred the distinction between the two. [/quote]

It wasn’t a “foolish desire” it was merely impractical as the Russians had a 4:1 superiority in men and a 2:1 superiority in tanks at the end of hostilities.[/quote]

Without a doubt. Such a war would have cost the U.S. dearly without benefiting it proportionally. Containment was clearly the superior option and history vindicated the doctrine. [/quote]

Hindsight is always so clear, isn’t it? And what has worked in the past, will always work in the future…

[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
How about we don’t lump all Americans together and all Europeans together. People devolve into fucking casually bigotted teenagers in seconds on here at times.

[/quote]
…You must be new to the internets…this is the defining characteristic of all internet conversation everywhere, along with Rule #34.

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]dcb wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]

Bullshit. His strategic vision was spot on at the time. There was little stomach for the correct action at the time though. That’s probably why he died.
[/quote]

Care to elaborate on Patton’s “spot on” views regarding grand strategy? You’re asserting that Patton was assassinated? That’s a bold claim that must be evidenced. [/quote]

Grand strategy is the purview of the statesman not the general.[/quote]

Yes, but Patton’s myopic and foolish desire to invade the USSR blurred the distinction between the two. [/quote]

It wasn’t a “foolish desire” it was merely impractical as the Russians had a 4:1 superiority in men and a 2:1 superiority in tanks at the end of hostilities.[/quote]

Without a doubt. Such a war would have cost the U.S. dearly without benefiting it proportionally. Containment was clearly the superior option and history vindicated the doctrine. [/quote]

Hindsight is always so clear, isn’t it? And what has worked in the past, will always work in the future…[/quote]

I never advocated such an approach to non-state actors in ISIS.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]dcb wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]

Bullshit. His strategic vision was spot on at the time. There was little stomach for the correct action at the time though. That’s probably why he died.
[/quote]

Care to elaborate on Patton’s “spot on” views regarding grand strategy? You’re asserting that Patton was assassinated? That’s a bold claim that must be evidenced. [/quote]
Actually I think he is saying that Patton got bored and died to be reincarnated at another time, when he would be needed. Lol