Patton Quotes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

No one can be a saint and a politician. Sure, we all know that. That’s why our Founding Fathers tried to set it up so no one could make our government wicked. Trouble is, that conflicts with the principles of Altruism, and Altruism won. You no longer own yourself — try skipping your income tax or real estate tax.

You want government, you pay income tax.

There was no government in the United States from 1776 until 1913?[/quote]

Is four generations all that it takes to so ingrain the notion of a particular tax into people that not only do they don’t mind paying it, they expect it as part of the normal order of things?

Income tax has got to be the most insidious form of taxation ever devised.

42

[quote]hedo wrote:
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/patton.html

Patton was the father of Armored Tactics in the US Army. His development of the deep thrust into enemy territory using armor was designed to keep enemy forces from reforming defensive lines. It worked brilliantly.

The article I linked to is a good summary of Patton’s accomplishments. Olympic athlete, military leader, first thinker and flamboyant and opinionated SOB. The kind of guy that used to be admired on T-Nation. Now…well this is where we are at.

The most important statement in the article was “Patton won every campaign he participated in”. The same cannot be said of his well thought of opponents and enemies. Ultimately that is how the professional keeps score in these types of affairs.[/quote]

Fair enough, he’s certainly in the top tier of American generals. All time? Doubtful. Dealing with war at the strategic level vs. the operational adds a whole new set of difficulties.

I highly recommend this biography, worth reading 1,000 pages on the man, great book:

43

Famous Lt. Patton Quotes:

“Hold still, this will only take a second.”

“Are we there yet?”

“My balls itch.”

“Let’s kill something.”

“Oh yeah soldier, that’s the spot…”

“Do I need to get Mrs. Patton out here to teach you boys how to hold a position?”

“Nice shoes, wanna fuck?”

44

[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:

That Patton quote is my favorite.

It took a very special country to produce such a great man as the General. He was a true and pure warrior, produced by the noblest and most moral society in the history of the world. Only the United States of America could produce men such as this.

Most other countries produce appeasing rodents, who cower at a raised voice. America produces MEN.

I thank God for the gift of being born in America, an honor I couldn’t have possibly deserved.

As usual, 100% Bullshit. Except maybe the last sentence.

Patton was a good general, but his fame was largely the result of his personality rather than his skills. How many battles has he fought without having the overwhelming numerical superiority of men and material on his side? Outside the History Channel Patton isnt even in the top 50 of greatest warriors ever.
[/quote]

Patton WAS the 50 greatest warriors of all time…

45

[quote]hedo wrote:
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/patton.html

Patton was the father of Armored Tactics in the US Army. His development of the deep thrust into enemy territory using armor was designed to keep enemy forces from reforming defensive lines. It worked brilliantly.
[/quote]

He translated General Guderian into English?

Impressive.

46

[quote]hedo wrote:
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/patton.html

Patton was the father of Armored Tactics in the US Army. His development of the deep thrust into enemy territory using armor was designed to keep enemy forces from reforming defensive lines. It worked brilliantly.

The article I linked to is a good summary of Patton’s accomplishments. Olympic athlete, military leader, first thinker and flamboyant and opinionated SOB. The kind of guy that used to be admired on T-Nation. Now…well this is where we are at.

The most important statement in the article was “Patton won every campaign he participated in”. The same cannot be said of his well thought of opponents and enemies. Ultimately that is how the professional keeps score in these types of affairs.[/quote]

I’m not taking away from his strengths. I’m just saying that there were many who were better than he.

Great leader? Sure.

Better than Robert E. Lee, Washington, Stonewall Jackson, Grant, Sherman, Nathaniel Greene, Francis Marion, John Pershing, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Phil Sheridan, Knox, A.P. Hill, McPhereson, hell, even J.L. Chamberlain… not so sure.

The pantheon of great American military minds is great. A loud mouth can only get you so far when you’re faced with generals who engineered such remarkable fights like moving massed artillery to Dorchester heights in the middle of the night in 1776, or dividing your army three times in the face of an enemy that outnumbers you 2-1 and winning perhaps the most impressive tactical victory in recorded history.

47

[quote]pookie wrote:

Income tax has got to be the most insidious form of taxation ever devised.
[/quote]

VAT is worse.

48

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
pookie wrote:

Income tax has got to be the most insidious form of taxation ever devised.

VAT is worse.[/quote]

Could you explain why? Personally, I’d prefer no income tax and a higher VAT to compensate, but am I missing something here?

49

[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/patton.html

Patton was the father of Armored Tactics in the US Army. His development of the deep thrust into enemy territory using armor was designed to keep enemy forces from reforming defensive lines. It worked brilliantly.

He translated General Guderian into English?

Impressive.[/quote]

Not that Guderian was half the innovator he claimed to be. His ideas came largely from British theorists, and a handful of Germans (and one of your fellow Austrians) who were less heralded than he was.

50

VAT is more hidden.

Sales tax you feel - it’s figured in on top of your purchase.

Income tax is withheld, but it’s at least totaled, and you feel the pain once each year when you file - and you can deduct and do other things.

VAT is painless - it’s just included in the price. It’s so stealth, people hardly even know it’s there - and that’s why it’s so insidious.

If I were to have my way, there wouldn’t be any withholding, so people would need to send a check in to the government with each paycheck and they would feel the cost of government.

51

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/patton.html

Patton was the father of Armored Tactics in the US Army. His development of the deep thrust into enemy territory using armor was designed to keep enemy forces from reforming defensive lines. It worked brilliantly.

He translated General Guderian into English?

Impressive.

Not that Guderian was half the innovator he claimed to be. His ideas came largely from British theorists, and a handful of Germans (and one of your fellow Austrians) who were less heralded than he was.[/quote]

I do not know how much of the theory he claimed to have come up with, but he was certainly one of the first to see the potential of the tank plus the need for a fast moving artillery aka planes and therefore at least the first that implemented it.

52

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
VAT is more hidden.

Sales tax you feel - it’s figured in on top of your purchase.

Income tax is withheld, but it’s at least totaled, and you feel the pain once each year when you file - and you can deduct and do other things.

VAT is painless - it’s just included in the price. It’s so stealth, people hardly even know it’s there - and that’s why it’s so insidious.

If I were to have my way, there wouldn’t be any withholding, so people would need to send a check in to the government with each paycheck and they would feel the cost of government.[/quote]

All taxes should be very clearly indicated, I agree.

That said, taxing purchases at least gives people who wish to save their money the option of reducing their spending and thus pay less taxes.

Taxing the income directly leaves absolutely no way on reducing the burden (other than using tax shelters or other government-approved tax reduction means).

Worse of all is the double-dipping of paying tax when receiving your salary and then paying more taxes when spending what’s left of it.

53

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
hedo wrote:
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/patton.html

Patton was the father of Armored Tactics in the US Army. His development of the deep thrust into enemy territory using armor was designed to keep enemy forces from reforming defensive lines. It worked brilliantly.

The article I linked to is a good summary of Patton’s accomplishments. Olympic athlete, military leader, first thinker and flamboyant and opinionated SOB. The kind of guy that used to be admired on T-Nation. Now…well this is where we are at.

The most important statement in the article was “Patton won every campaign he participated in”. The same cannot be said of his well thought of opponents and enemies. Ultimately that is how the professional keeps score in these types of affairs.

I’m not taking away from his strengths. I’m just saying that there were many who were better than he.

Great leader? Sure.

Better than Robert E. Lee, Washington, Stonewall Jackson, Grant, Sherman, Nathaniel Greene, Francis Marion, John Pershing, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Phil Sheridan, Knox, A.P. Hill, McPhereson, hell, even J.L. Chamberlain… not so sure.

The pantheon of great American military minds is great. A loud mouth can only get you so far when you’re faced with generals who engineered such remarkable fights like moving massed artillery to Dorchester heights in the middle of the night in 1776, or dividing your army three times in the face of an enemy that outnumbers you 2-1 and winning perhaps the most impressive tactical victory in recorded history. [/quote]

Some great names up there no doubt. Throw Bradley, LeMay and Crieghton Abrams in there and you got all the bases covered.

Sure many were better but in the context of the time they served they executed tactics better then their opponents. Patton’s brilliance lies in being a developer of tactics and more importantly initiating them at the right time to have the most effect. Guderian somwhat developed a strategy but was unwilling to change it under field conditions. His strategy worked for a time but it did not fit the conditions of the changing battlefield. That’s why Guderian is credited with losing the Russian campaign in WW2. Patton didn’t lose a campaign and he worked with what he had.

54

[quote]orion wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/patton.html

Patton was the father of Armored Tactics in the US Army. His development of the deep thrust into enemy territory using armor was designed to keep enemy forces from reforming defensive lines. It worked brilliantly.

He translated General Guderian into English?

Impressive.

Not that Guderian was half the innovator he claimed to be. His ideas came largely from British theorists, and a handful of Germans (and one of your fellow Austrians) who were less heralded than he was.

I do not know how much of the theory he claimed to have come up with, but he was certainly one of the first to see the potential of the tank plus the need for a fast moving artillery aka planes and therefore at least the first that implemented it.

[/quote]

If you are referring to “Achtung Panzer” it was published in 1937. It was hardly a bestseller and more of a position paper that summarized the position and wants of the entire German General Staff not just Guderian. It borrowed heavily from the British, in particular Fuller and Hart, who developed the British version of the armored thrust in the 20’s. Translated into English? Hardly. Achtung Panzer could not have been translated until after it’s publication and Patton was given command of the first US armored division in the 20’s. Guderian was simply part of the phantom German army during that period, training with plywood mock-ups.

It is much more likely Guderain patched bits and pieces of other ideas to formulate a strategy borrowing heavily from Hart and Fuller and forming a consensus from the General Staff positions. His rigid adherance to his strategy (very Prussian) and his inability to adapt to changing conditions in the war cost the German’s in Russia. He is credited with defeating lightly armed Poland and a war weakened France in suprise assaults. To his credit he executed these strategies effectively.

What Guderian was responsible for envisioning is combined arms operations combining Infantry, artillery armor and air power. Although a brilliant tactic it’s effectivness was limited by the communications of the time period and Guderian’s unwillingness to use “his Panzer’s” effectively during the combined assaults. His commanders operated independently and were not accountable to the other groups so his combined assaults were more linear then combined. This strategy would be perfected by the US in the 80’s and has been used ever since, most notably in Gulf War 1.

Guderian is more well known for losing. Ultimately if your tactics lose in battle, given the conditions present at the time, they were poor. Second place means you are defeated. Tactics may win a battle but logistics wins wars. Patton knew that, hence his focus on resupply, particularly gasoline.

55

[quote]lixy wrote:

Funny that both of you flag-worshipping rednecks can’t even spell the general’s name correctly.[/quote]

I imagine that since the, admitted, misspelling was the only flaw you pointed out, you agree with my major points?

I apologize for taking so long in responding to your scathing remarks. I get the feeling I don’t spend as much time on the internet as you.

56

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bolo Yeung wrote:
…
Like it or love it, Petreus knows what he’s doing.

Agreed. What do you think about Fallon resigning? He seemed to be undercutting Petraeus.[/quote]

What do you mean by undercutting?

I don’t believe that the Admiral resigned as a result of any animosity with Petraeus. Although they did disagree on the surge and the tempo of a drawdown. If anything his resignation undercuts the Bush administration which was a problem with supressing dissenters.

57

[quote]Bolo Yeung wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bolo Yeung wrote:
…
Like it or love it, Petreus knows what he’s doing.

Agreed. What do you think about Fallon resigning? He seemed to be undercutting Petraeus.

What do you mean by undercutting?

I don’t believe that the Admiral resigned as a result of any animosity with Petraeus. Although they did disagree on the surge and the tempo of a drawdown. If anything his resignation undercuts the Bush administration which was a problem with supressing dissenters.[/quote]

He publiclly opposed the surge and has been pushing for a faster draw down that Petraeus. It is one thing to do this behind closed doors, entirely a different thing to do this in the media.

The civilian leadership sets the policy with the input of the military but once the decision is made it is not the job of military to undercut the policy in Esquire magazine. He, of course, is entitled to his opinion and is free to speak his mind. When it undercuts the policy as set by our elected leader then it seems he is in the wrong position.

Replacing generals is pretty common in a time of war when they don’t follow instructions.

He has been fighting against the success of the surge. He seemed to be the wrong man for the job.

What do you think?

58

Today’s Strong Words:

The glory of great men should always be measured by the means they have used to acquire it. �?? Francois de La Rochefoucauld

59

[quote]hedo wrote:

If you are referring to “Achtung Panzer” it was published in 1937. It was hardly a bestseller and more of a position paper that summarized the position and wants of the entire German General Staff not just Guderian. It borrowed heavily from the British, in particular Fuller and Hart, who developed the British version of the armored thrust in the 20’s. Translated into English? Hardly. Achtung Panzer could not have been translated until after it’s publication and Patton was given command of the first US armored division in the 20’s. Guderian was simply part of the phantom German army during that period, training with plywood mock-ups.

It is much more likely Guderain patched bits and pieces of other ideas to formulate a strategy borrowing heavily from Hart and Fuller and forming a consensus from the General Staff positions. His rigid adherance to his strategy (very Prussian) and his inability to adapt to changing conditions in the war cost the German’s in Russia. He is credited with defeating lightly armed Poland and a war weakened France in suprise assaults. To his credit he executed these strategies effectively.

What Guderian was responsible for envisioning is combined arms operations combining Infantry, artillery armor and air power. Although a brilliant tactic it’s effectivness was limited by the communications of the time period and Guderian’s unwillingness to use “his Panzer’s” effectively during the combined assaults. His commanders operated independently and were not accountable to the other groups so his combined assaults were more linear then combined. This strategy would be perfected by the US in the 80’s and has been used ever since, most notably in Gulf War 1.

Guderian is more well known for losing. Ultimately if your tactics lose in battle, given the conditions present at the time, they were poor. Second place means you are defeated. Tactics may win a battle but logistics wins wars. Patton knew that, hence his focus on resupply, particularly gasoline.[/quote]

Hedo, I will have to politely request that you not discuss armor warfare and tactics, as such “phallic” projections of such a masculine nature have no place in a Politics forum on a site titled Testosterone Nation.

Kidding aside, Patton was one of a kind - and the quotes, sadly, are conventionally seen as a relic of a different time rather than good advice for even our modern era.

Shame.

60

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bolo Yeung wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bolo Yeung wrote:
…
Like it or love it, Petreus knows what he’s doing.

Agreed. What do you think about Fallon resigning? He seemed to be undercutting Petraeus.

What do you mean by undercutting?

I don’t believe that the Admiral resigned as a result of any animosity with Petraeus. Although they did disagree on the surge and the tempo of a drawdown. If anything his resignation undercuts the Bush administration which was a problem with supressing dissenters.

He publiclly opposed the surge and has been pushing for a faster draw down that Petraeus. It is one thing to do this behind closed doors, entirely a different thing to do this in the media.

The civilian leadership sets the policy with the input of the military but once the decision is made it is not the job of military to undercut the policy in Esquire magazine. He, of course, is entitled to his opinion and is free to speak his mind. When it undercuts the policy as set by our elected leader then it seems he is in the wrong position.

Replacing generals is pretty common in a time of war when they don’t follow instructions.

He has been fighting against the success of the surge. He seemed to be the wrong man for the job.

What do you think?[/quote]

I agree, although I wasn’t aware of his speaking out in Esquire. I think he’s trying to salvage what’s left of a ruined career. A smart move, financially, when he has the opportunity to bolster future book sales.