RIP NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: RIP NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF

    In response to COMMIE-CONTRARIAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    he was a contrarian kinda guy.. where have these great men gone? bet he wasnt taking services from a "biographer" as his men suffered out in the fields? he came he saw and kicked buttt in the first gulf war.. as time goes by, i am putting GH bush in my all-time top 10 of leaders.. where have the mods in the now-nutjob GOP gone? he was my kind of republican!

    [/QUOTE]

    If you ever read that book Crusade about the first Gulf war you discover Schwarzkopf was a mass of contridictions. He screamed at his subordinates constantly for every minor mistake. He was despised by most of the officer's that worked directly for him but he was loved by the common soldiers and he loved them. He was a strangely emotional guy for someone with such responsibilty but he got the job done. He was definately no Belichek type. He apparently could go from screaming at his men to crying with them in a heartbeat. A more competent Rex Ryan perhaps?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: RIP NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to COMMIE-CONTRARIAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    he was a contrarian kinda guy.. where have these great men gone? bet he wasnt taking services from a "biographer" as his men suffered out in the fields? he came he saw and kicked buttt in the first gulf war.. as time goes by, i am putting GH bush in my all-time top 10 of leaders.. where have the mods in the now-nutjob GOP gone? he was my kind of republican!

    [/QUOTE]

    If you ever read that book Crusade about the first Gulf war you discover Schwarzkopf was a mass of contridictions. He screamed at his subordinates constantly for every minor mistake. He was despised by most of the officer's that worked directly for him but he was loved by the common soldiers and he loved them. He was a strangely emotional guy someone with such responsibilty but he got the job done. He was definately no Belichek type. He apparently could go from screaming at his men to crying with them in a heartbeat. A more competent Rex Ryan perhaps?

    [/QUOTE]

    Thats typical of Generals, they are complicated creatures. The Civil War is full of colorful characters like that of all kinds. James Longstreet is one of those guys with contradictions like that--its what makes them interesting. George McClellan too can be both inspiring and infuritating all at the same time. Playing with the life and death of thousands of men who depend on you when someone wakes you up cold turkey at three a.m. and tells you the enemy just turned your left flank has that effect. As R.E. Lee said, "to be a good soldier you must love the army; to be a good commander you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love." 

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: RIP NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to COMMIE-CONTRARIAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    he was a contrarian kinda guy.. where have these great men gone? bet he wasnt taking services from a "biographer" as his men suffered out in the fields? he came he saw and kicked buttt in the first gulf war.. as time goes by, i am putting GH bush in my all-time top 10 of leaders.. where have the mods in the now-nutjob GOP gone? he was my kind of republican!

    [/QUOTE]

    If you ever read that book Crusade about the first Gulf war you discover Schwarzkopf was a mass of contridictions. He screamed at his subordinates constantly for every minor mistake. He was despised by most of the officer's that worked directly for him but he was loved by the common soldiers and he loved them. He was a strangely emotional guy someone with such responsibilty but he got the job done. He was definately no Belichek type. He apparently could go from screaming at his men to crying with them in a heartbeat. A more competent Rex Ryan perhaps?

    [/QUOTE]

    Sounds like Patton.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes. Youll find those characteristics common among many great Generals. 

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: RIP NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to COMMIE-CONTRARIAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    he was a contrarian kinda guy.. where have these great men gone? bet he wasnt taking services from a "biographer" as his men suffered out in the fields? he came he saw and kicked buttt in the first gulf war.. as time goes by, i am putting GH bush in my all-time top 10 of leaders.. where have the mods in the now-nutjob GOP gone? he was my kind of republican!

    [/QUOTE]

    If you ever read that book Crusade about the first Gulf war you discover Schwarzkopf was a mass of contridictions. He screamed at his subordinates constantly for every minor mistake. He was despised by most of the officer's that worked directly for him but he was loved by the common soldiers and he loved them. He was a strangely emotional guy someone with such responsibilty but he got the job done. He was definately no Belichek type. He apparently could go from screaming at his men to crying with them in a heartbeat. A more competent Rex Ryan perhaps?

    [/QUOTE]

    Thats typical of Generals, they are complicated creatures. The Civil War is full of colorful characters like that of all kinds. James Longstreet is one of those guys with contradictions like that--its what makes them interesting. Playing with the life and death of thousand of men who depend on you when someone wakes you up cold turkey at three a.m. and tells you the enemy just turned your left flank has that effect. As R.E. Lee said, "to be a good soldier you must love the army; to be a good commander you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love." 

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't know a lot about the Civil War generals other than the big ones Grant, Lee, Sherman and McLellan. Lee always struck me as a great man on the wrong side of history simply because of where he was born a few hundred miles south of the dividing line. It seems like all his instincts would have put him with the union.  

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: RIP NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to COMMIE-CONTRARIAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    he was a contrarian kinda guy.. where have these great men gone? bet he wasnt taking services from a "biographer" as his men suffered out in the fields? he came he saw and kicked buttt in the first gulf war.. as time goes by, i am putting GH bush in my all-time top 10 of leaders.. where have the mods in the now-nutjob GOP gone? he was my kind of republican!

    [/QUOTE]

    If you ever read that book Crusade about the first Gulf war you discover Schwarzkopf was a mass of contridictions. He screamed at his subordinates constantly for every minor mistake. He was despised by most of the officer's that worked directly for him but he was loved by the common soldiers and he loved them. He was a strangely emotional guy someone with such responsibilty but he got the job done. He was definately no Belichek type. He apparently could go from screaming at his men to crying with them in a heartbeat. A more competent Rex Ryan perhaps?

    [/QUOTE]

    Thats typical of Generals, they are complicated creatures. The Civil War is full of colorful characters like that of all kinds. James Longstreet is one of those guys with contradictions like that--its what makes them interesting. Playing with the life and death of thousand of men who depend on you when someone wakes you up cold turkey at three a.m. and tells you the enemy just turned your left flank has that effect. As R.E. Lee said, "to be a good soldier you must love the army; to be a good commander you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love." 

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't know a lot about the Civil War generals other than the big ones Grant, Lee, Sherman and McLellan. Lee always struck me as a great man on the wrong side of history simply because of where he was born a few hundred miles south of the dividing line. It seems like all his instincts would have put him with the union.  

    [/QUOTE]

    True. There has been none greater IMO. Hes one of the greatest men our country ever produced, and anyone who disagrees with that simply doesnt know enough about him. He was against slavery, thought it wicked, but fought for the South anyway. We find it hard to understand nowdays because the North won the war, and we have a northern version of patriotism. That is, we are American citizens first, state citizens second. In the South, allegiance to your state came first, THEN to the country. Certainly there were some real devils in the south--Howell Cobb, Alexander Stephens, etc., who believed blacks were inferior and whos natural state was slavery. Cobb said "you cannot make soldiers of slaves, and if slaves seem good soldiers, then our entire theory of slavery is wrong." As it turned out, they made excellent soldiers, so the theory was obviously wrong. But there were men like Lee and Jackson who thought slavery wrong, but also believed it was the right of the states to resolve. Longstreet said they should have freed the slaves first, then seceeded. To them, they were being invaded. As an example you can understand, lets say some army of men who happen to agree with you on some political issue invade your home town and begin wrecking property and killing your neighbors. Would you hold your peace because you happen to agree with some of their principles, or would you defend your home, friends and neighbors? Thats what the south faced, and while slavery was and is pure evil, the issue often gets mixed up to the point that all men who fought for the South are demonized and considered racists, and thats not the case. It was just that thier understanding of patriotism required that they stand with their state first. That doesnt exist much anymore and sounds strange to us because we all think like northerners now. Soon after the war, Lee was at church, and a black man came and kneeled at the altar. Lee immediatey left his seat and went to kneel beside him-- something that was unthinkable for a southern white man in those times. But he did it to show that peace was what he wanted, and that his belief was that God created all men equal. Others soon followed suit and also knealt, making Lee an ealry civil rights advocate. Im from the north, and am glad the north won. Clearly slavery had to be done away with, and the South paid a DEAR price for defending it. Their entire infrastructure was wrecked, not to mention losing some 300,000 men. But, there is also someting to be said for states' rights, as we see a topheavy Federal government that is growing beyond what it was designed to in our present country--which is creating problems of a different nature.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: RIP NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to COMMIE-CONTRARIAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    he was a contrarian kinda guy.. where have these great men gone? bet he wasnt taking services from a "biographer" as his men suffered out in the fields? he came he saw and kicked buttt in the first gulf war.. as time goes by, i am putting GH bush in my all-time top 10 of leaders.. where have the mods in the now-nutjob GOP gone? he was my kind of republican!

    [/QUOTE]

    If you ever read that book Crusade about the first Gulf war you discover Schwarzkopf was a mass of contridictions. He screamed at his subordinates constantly for every minor mistake. He was despised by most of the officer's that worked directly for him but he was loved by the common soldiers and he loved them. He was a strangely emotional guy someone with such responsibilty but he got the job done. He was definately no Belichek type. He apparently could go from screaming at his men to crying with them in a heartbeat. A more competent Rex Ryan perhaps?

    [/QUOTE]

    Thats typical of Generals, they are complicated creatures. The Civil War is full of colorful characters like that of all kinds. James Longstreet is one of those guys with contradictions like that--its what makes them interesting. Playing with the life and death of thousand of men who depend on you when someone wakes you up cold turkey at three a.m. and tells you the enemy just turned your left flank has that effect. As R.E. Lee said, "to be a good soldier you must love the army; to be a good commander you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love." 

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't know a lot about the Civil War generals other than the big ones Grant, Lee, Sherman and McLellan. Lee always struck me as a great man on the wrong side of history simply because of where he was born a few hundred miles south of the dividing line. It seems like all his instincts would have put him with the union.  

    [/QUOTE]

    True. There has been none greater IMO. Hes one of the greatest men our country ever produced, and anyone who disagrees with that simply doesnt know enough about him. He was against slavery, thought it wicked, but fought for the South anyway. We find it hard to understand nowdays because the North won the war, and we have a northern version of patriotism. That is, we are American citizens first, state citizens second. In the South, allegiance to your state came first, THEN to the country. Certainly there were some real devils in the south--Howell Cobb, Alexander Stephens, etc., who believed blacks were inferior and whos natural state was slavery. Cobb said "you cannot make soldiers of slaves, and if slaves seem good soldiers, then our entire theory of slavery is wrong." As it turned out, they made excellent soldiers, so the theory was obviously wrong. But there were men like Lee and Jackson who thought slavery wrong, but also believed it was the right of the states to resolve. Longstreet said they should have freed the slaves first, then seceeded. To them, they were being invaded. As an example you can understand, lets say some army of men who happen to agree with you on some political issue invade your home town and begin wrecking property and killing your neighbors. Would you hold your peace because you happen to agree with some of their principles, or would you defend your home, friends and neighbors? Thats what the south faced, and while slavery was and is pure evil, the issue often gets mixed up to the point that all men who fought for the South are demonized and considered racists, and thats not the case. It was just that thier understanding of patriotism required that they stand with their state first. That doesnt exist much anymore and sounds strange to us because we all think like northerners now. Soon after the war, Lee was at church, and a black man came and kneeled at the altar. Lee immediatey left his seat and went to kneel beside him-- something that was unthinkable for a southern white man in those times. But he did it to show that peace was what he wanted, and that his belief was that God created all men equal. Others soon followed suit and also knealt, making Lee an ealry civil rights advocate. Im from the north, and am glad the north won. Clearly slavery had to be done away with, and the South paid a DEAR price for defending it. Their entire infrastructure was wrecked, not to mention losing some 300,000 men. But, there is also someting to be said for states' rights, as we see a topheavy Federal government that is growing beyond what it was designed to in our present country--which is creating problems of a different nature.

    [/QUOTE]

    Admiring Lee is diferrent than agreeing with the south's cause whatsoever. Slavery was wrong and Lee's fault is for defending it even though he knew it was wrong. I support fedaralism simply because in my lifetime state's rights have been nothing more than an excuse for instituationalized racism, in the future it's probably going to be about legalized marijuana though. If I had been born in Alabama in 1840 I most likely would have fought for the south but that does not mean I would have been on the right side of history.  

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: RIP NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to COMMIE-CONTRARIAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    he was a contrarian kinda guy.. where have these great men gone? bet he wasnt taking services from a "biographer" as his men suffered out in the fields? he came he saw and kicked buttt in the first gulf war.. as time goes by, i am putting GH bush in my all-time top 10 of leaders.. where have the mods in the now-nutjob GOP gone? he was my kind of republican!

    [/QUOTE]

    If you ever read that book Crusade about the first Gulf war you discover Schwarzkopf was a mass of contridictions. He screamed at his subordinates constantly for every minor mistake. He was despised by most of the officer's that worked directly for him but he was loved by the common soldiers and he loved them. He was a strangely emotional guy someone with such responsibilty but he got the job done. He was definately no Belichek type. He apparently could go from screaming at his men to crying with them in a heartbeat. A more competent Rex Ryan perhaps?

    [/QUOTE]

    Thats typical of Generals, they are complicated creatures. The Civil War is full of colorful characters like that of all kinds. James Longstreet is one of those guys with contradictions like that--its what makes them interesting. Playing with the life and death of thousand of men who depend on you when someone wakes you up cold turkey at three a.m. and tells you the enemy just turned your left flank has that effect. As R.E. Lee said, "to be a good soldier you must love the army; to be a good commander you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love." 

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't know a lot about the Civil War generals other than the big ones Grant, Lee, Sherman and McLellan. Lee always struck me as a great man on the wrong side of history simply because of where he was born a few hundred miles south of the dividing line. It seems like all his instincts would have put him with the union.  

    [/QUOTE]

    True. There has been none greater IMO. Hes one of the greatest men our country ever produced, and anyone who disagrees with that simply doesnt know enough about him. He was against slavery, thought it wicked, but fought for the South anyway. We find it hard to understand nowdays because the North won the war, and we have a northern version of patriotism. That is, we are American citizens first, state citizens second. In the South, allegiance to your state came first, THEN to the country. Certainly there were some real devils in the south--Howell Cobb, Alexander Stephens, etc., who believed blacks were inferior and whos natural state was slavery. Cobb said "you cannot make soldiers of slaves, and if slaves seem good soldiers, then our entire theory of slavery is wrong." As it turned out, they made excellent soldiers, so the theory was obviously wrong. But there were men like Lee and Jackson who thought slavery wrong, but also believed it was the right of the states to resolve. Longstreet said they should have freed the slaves first, then seceeded. To them, they were being invaded. As an example you can understand, lets say some army of men who happen to agree with you on some political issue invade your home town and begin wrecking property and killing your neighbors. Would you hold your peace because you happen to agree with some of their principles, or would you defend your home, friends and neighbors? Thats what the south faced, and while slavery was and is pure evil, the issue often gets mixed up to the point that all men who fought for the South are demonized and considered racists, and thats not the case. It was just that thier understanding of patriotism required that they stand with their state first. That doesnt exist much anymore and sounds strange to us because we all think like northerners now. Soon after the war, Lee was at church, and a black man came and kneeled at the altar. Lee immediatey left his seat and went to kneel beside him-- something that was unthinkable for a southern white man in those times. But he did it to show that peace was what he wanted, and that his belief was that God created all men equal. Others soon followed suit and also knealt, making Lee an ealry civil rights advocate. Im from the north, and am glad the north won. Clearly slavery had to be done away with, and the South paid a DEAR price for defending it. Their entire infrastructure was wrecked, not to mention losing some 300,000 men. But, there is also someting to be said for states' rights, as we see a topheavy Federal government that is growing beyond what it was designed to in our present country--which is creating problems of a different nature.

    [/QUOTE]

    Admiring Lee is diferrent than agreeing with the south's cause whatsoever. Slavery was wrong and Lee's fault is for defending it even though he knew it was wrong. I support fedaralism simply because in my lifetime state's rights have been nothing more than an excuse for instituationalized racism, in the future it's probably going to be about legalized marijuana though. If I had been born in Alabama in 1840 I most likely would have fought for the south but that does not mean I would have been on the right side of history.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, its true that states rights has been used as a cloak for racism, no question about that. That was the case in many instances in the Civil War. The cry of states rights really meant leave our slaves alone. Im just saying that not everyone in the south thought that way. Remember that Lee did not fight to defend slavery, he fought for his country. There are many things about my country I disagree with, but I would still fight for it. Even if we still held slaves and I disagreed with slavery, I would still fight to defend my nation, and deal with its problems the best I could when I got done. Once you define what patriotism was in that place, the issue clears up substantially. Slavery was the kind of wrong a man like Lee would have wanted to right by education and understanding. Now that clearly was not--in retrospect--enough to unseat it because it went so much deeper than most realized, but Im just saying thats how he may have felt at the time. As it turned out it took 623,000 lives and the suffering of millions more to right it, but few at that time knew that beforehand. Thats something we have the benefit of hindsight to see. As the true wickedness of it was, so was the extremity of the cure--but that is something only God could reveal. Lincoln figured that out near the end of the war. I would also lean towards federalism because you need something centralized to say what goes. Part of the reason the Confederacy failed was the same reason we switched from Articles of Confederation to a Constitution. Confederate government is unweildy because the power is divided up, and no one can agree on anything. The pitfall of federalism is that too much power gets consolidated in the Federal government, and it becomes opressive. We're seeing the beginning of that now with the taxes and regulations etc. But what the war did was consolidate the country into one, and made it stronger. Before the war it was "the United States ARE", now its "the United States IS". With the patriotism, the grammar changed also--as we say today without even thinking about it--but it was not always so.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: RIP NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF

    I was one of those soldiers out there in desert storm as a young Apache Pilot and I thought he was great and he had the plan for that invasion on paper years before it was needed. Rest in piece General!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: RIP NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF

    In response to raptor64d's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I was one of those soldiers out there in desert storm as a young Apache Pilot and I thought he was great and he had the plan for that invasion on paper years before it was needed. Rest in piece General!

    [/QUOTE]

    +1

    Thanks for your service.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: RIP NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF

    What's ironic about the first Gulf war is Scwarzkopf and Powell were so paranoid of the media they never got the long term credit they deserved. The media was kept to tightly controlled pools as much as possible that to this day the majority of people have no idea what really happened. The Army's victory over the republican guard was assumed to be because of the bombing campaign but in actuality the Crusade book shows the republican guard was effective in hiding it's tanks from American air power but was beaten handily by the American army in a few hours of fighting yet almost no one knows about this because the media was kept away from the battles.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: RIP NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What's ironic about the first Gulf war is Scwarzkopf and Powell were so paranoid of the media they never got the long term credit they deserved. The media was kept to tightly controlled pools as much as possible that to this day the majority of people have no idea what really happened. The Army's victory over the republican guard was assumed to be because of the bombing campaign but in actuality the Crusade book shows the republican guard was effective in hiding it's tanks from American air power but was beaten handily by the American army in a few hours of fighting yet almost no one knows about this because the media was kept away from the battles.

    [/QUOTE]

    Nice post, thats good stuff! The media has always been a scourge to Generals. Sherman thought they should all be shot as spies. One idiot--before the Chancellorsville campaign--published the number of sick in the Army of the Potomac, and used a percentage along with it. The enemy was therefore able to calculate the number of men in Hooker's army. 

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF

    Nobody was telling the South they had to end slavery at the outset of the Civil War. But the Missouri Compromise created the state of Maine which was actually Massachusetts prior to that in order to keep the precarious slave/free state balance when Missouri was admitted. The South rightly saw that eventually as territories became states in the west their reprehensible institution would be ending. So they made a break for it.

    As far as Robert E. Lee, few realize he was offered command of all union forces at the time the Civil War was looming. And few realize he was eventually stripped of his US citizenship and that it was only restored in 1975.

    And few realize that "Old Blood and Guts" came from a long line of Confederate military fighters.

     

    RIP General Blackhead

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The South didn't want to be told what to do, basically needing to invest in inventions and equipment, stemming from the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. That's pretty much the long and short of it.

    To this day, there is an anti-Yankee sentiment down here which is kind of awkward at this point.

    Proud people with their traditions, but they'll never hide behind the disgrace that was wanting to keep slavery intact, just a measly 150 years ago.

    Always wondered if not for Lincoln's guts and heroics, just when would have slavery ended? Scary to think about.

    [/QUOTE]


    The North wasn't always kind after and during their victory.

    Lincoln ended slavery out of desperation. But, being a Republican that would have been his eventual goal.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share