T1B

Posted: **Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:36 am**

And during Inchon, the KPA constituted 70,000 men. After the landing, it took eleven days for MacArthur to get twenty miles. The bulk of the KPA, estimated at 35,000 men remaining, had the time to get out. Not a threat in themselves, they were the whole reason for the pursuit to the Yalu River and triggered the coming consequences. The general in search of a war.

Had he ignored taking Seoul and cut off the retreat of KPA - none of that would have happened. It's similar to Stalingrad and the evacuation of the Caucuses, in reverse. Any commander serving in Europe would have known that, but it's Mark Clark - Anzio territory

Shamelessly copied from Russell Stolfi via Wikipedia, contrasting American tactics with German Tactics in the Baltic

The American advance was characterized by cautious, restrictive orders, concerns about phase lines, limited reconnaissance, and command posts well in the rear, while the Germans positioned their leaders as far forward as possible, relied on oral or short written orders, reorganized combat groups to meet immediate circumstances, and engaged in vigorous reconnaissance

Posted: **Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:25 am**

mvscal wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:How come no love for Ike or Bradley? Not insane enough?
I'm a big fan of Ike. I believe he is highly underrated both as a great captain and a president. He took a lot of criticism for his broad front strategy but I concur with his judgment 100%. A narrow front as advocated by Montgomery and Patton would have enabled the Germans to defend in depth against such a thrust. Attacking over a broad front took that option away from them and spread them thin everywhere.

Bradley was a petty, small minded man personally and an unremarkable mediocrity professionally. He dropped the ball at Falaise Gap and was completely asleep at the wheel in the build up to the Bulge. His total lack of oversight in the Battle of Hürtgen Forest amounted to criminal negligence in my opinion. 33,000 men were killed or maimed for absolutely nothing in a battle that never should have been fought. His "soldier's general" schtick was every bit as phony and contrived as Patton's bluster.

Now Patton is the one you should have dialed in on as being a complete maniac. He was Custer all over again except that Custer only commanded a few hundred men. Patton commanded over two hundred thousand. Fortunately for the nation, his untimely demise prevented him from reaching his own personal Little Bighorn in the Fulda Gap against the Soviet Army.

Good take, for a staunch defender of the catastrophic destruction of Iraq on behalf of the utterly criminal fake apartheid state. It was Ike, let's remember, who put Patton's admittedly MacAarthurian insanity in a weird pretty box--pretending to order paper mache legions in the bald rain of Britain as a decoy to D-Day Can you imagine the grinding seething affront? Of course you can, because you're on record as being more demented than him.

Posted: **Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:18 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Good take, for a staunch defender of the catastrophic destruction of Iraq on behalf of the utterly criminal fake apartheid state.

I thought we were talking military tactics? From a military perspective the Iraqi army and the Revolutionary guard fell faster than I thought they would...you'd expect them to at least put up a fight...now we could go into all of the mistakes of invading, disbanding the Iraqi army, etc, but from a military perspective, the invasion was was about as successful as it could have been....

It was Ike, let's remember, who put Patton's admittedly MacAarthurian insanity in a weird pretty box--pretending to order paper mache legions in the bald rain of Britain as a decoy to D-Day Can you imagine the grinding seething affront? Of course you can, because you're on record as being more demented than him.

actually, that strategy was brilliant and without it D-Day could have been much much worse....

mvscal wrote:Total horseshit. Inchon saved thousands of lives and remains one of the most brilliant amphibious operations in history. The KPA was fucking finished.

yep, the KPA didn't know what the fuck hit them and they were done before they ever got started
Inchon was a brilliant strategic plan

Posted: **Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:21 pm**

Bullshit. The invasion of Iraq has proven a total disaster for all concerned--except for the vile Israelis. Just because we were able to maraud our way into it--basically no defense at all--so what? A military achievement is determined by the results, not the initial ease of invading. We created a quagmire, pure and simple, for ten years. That's it. That's the record of Iraq, along with murdering countless thousands of innocent Iraqis, rendering the entire area a toxic waste dump of depleted uranium and other nasty ordinance recklessly deployed, and moreover, creating an increased hatred of America in the region. You see, that's a total failure, just like Vietnam.

As for Ike keeping Patton on the sidelines, pretending to order about fake units, well this was as I suggested a clever and fitting ploy by Ike--and doesn't need your vapid commentary for confirmation.

As for Korea, sure, the initial sneak attack at Inchon worked--for a brief period. But, the generals, Mac and others, completely fucked it up and turned it into the ultimate quagmire, which it remains to this day. Mac was properly fired because he was panting to start a thermonuclear war.

So far the only general mentioned who was not a ludicrous fuck-up was Gaius Marius, the uncle of Caesar. His tremendous feats in the field are of course only the first part of his amazing story.

In our day--today--we are beset with the appalling situation of having been subjected to the most heinous crime in our history--the INSIDE JOB of 9/11 by the neocons (Israel) and the subsequent launching of the grotesque Permanent War. You'll notice that America's military leadership is in a pathetic state of dysfunction, with all of the top generals either disgraced, forced into early retirement, or confused as to the murky and untenable missions upon which we are haplessly embarked.

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:32 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Just because we were able to maraud our way into it--basically no defense at all--so what? A military achievement is determined by the results, not the initial ease of invading.

the results were the removal of Hussein as the leader of Iraq, which was stated US policy under President Clinton.....Hussein was a very, very bad guy, that liked to torture and kill his own people for no particular reason.....but the US gave him multiple opportunities to leave the country and avoid all of this.....sure the invasion was initiated by Bush on trumped up and phony evidence, but the invasion was hardly a walk in the park.....but it could have been avoided if Hussein had simply left....the invasion was executed perfectly, with minimal coalition casualties....that is a military achievement......

now what's followed in the wake of that invasion is a clusterfuck created by the Administrations lack of planning of "what happens afterward", but that's irrelevant to the planning and execution of the military invasion itself.....

Code: Select all

As for Korea, sure, the initial sneak attack at Inchon worked--for a brief period. But, the generals, Mac and others, completely fucked it up and turned it into the ultimate quagmire, which it remains to this day. Mac was properly fired because he was panting to start a thermonuclear war.

the fuck are you talking about......you're a fucking moron

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2013 8:41 pm**

Oh, so removing Saddam made it all worth while? Really? He was such a bad man. Well, this is exactly the mealy excuse still being offered by Tony Blair. The problem is it's total bullshit. Both he and you are simply regurgitating the original neocon chants. To the extent--as you admit--that there was no follow-up plan at all, is in fact the bottom line. The entire affair was and remains a total disaster. Except for the vile Israelis, of course, who want instability and necessary security measures, etc.

As for your pathetic bailout on the subsequent topics, ("you're a moron"), this is typically childish and mewling on the part of your type. The facts stand--Korea remains a clusterfuck of a stalemate. Mac was a bull-goose loon and was this close to deploying nukes on China (and Russia). Gaius Marius is the only general listed who really succeeded big time in the field--without subsequent disaster. And yes, Felix, 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB by the utterly criminal and ruthless Zionazis--and we're all paying the big price for it.

WAKEY WAKE

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2013 8:43 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Oh, so removing Saddam made it all worth while? Really? He was such a bad man. Well, this is exactly the mealy excuse still being offered by Tony Blair. The problem is it's total bullshit.

So Saddam was a good guy just misunderstood? Is that your take? He didn't really mean to start two wars and destabilize the region? He was just cleaning his army when it suddenly went off...twice?

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:00 pm**

mvscal wrote:He didn't really mean to start ~~two~~ three wars and destabilize the region?

Don't leave out the one you backed him on.

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:06 pm**

Saddam was our guy when we wanted him to viciously attack the Persians. That's why Rummy was shaking his hand and giving him lots of weaponry. His invasion of Kuwait had been preceded by his getting the green light from the U.S. ambassador, Gillespie. You know this well enough. The threat he posed to the West was his plan to take his nation's oil market off of the dollar. You know this as well. The utter lies and cherry-picked deceptions that comprised the (unelected) Bush regime's invasion of Iraq continues to be examined. As for the results ten years later, it's a disaster, period. And if you dispute this, tell it to the tens of thousands of American servicemen whose lives have been completely ruined, not only by PTSS but by the dreadful effects of depleted uranium.

Here's just the latest on how this entire vile crime was instigated.
http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/ ... -post.html

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:47 pm**

Martyred wrote:
mvscal wrote:He didn't really mean to start ~~two~~ three wars and destabilize the region?
Don't leave out the one you backed him on.

Which one was that?

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:51 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Martyred wrote:
mvscal wrote:He didn't really mean to start ~~two~~ three wars and destabilize the region?
Don't leave out the one you backed him on.
Which one was that?

Oh, Terry's wife, please....

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2013 11:13 pm**

Seriously...

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2013 11:17 pm**

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2013 11:19 pm**

Hurry up and cobble together some bullshit response...your coach turns back into a pumpkin at midnight, Spin-derella.

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2013 11:24 pm**

Oh. You mean the war in which we gave Iraqis satellite intel on Iranian troop movements so as to tip them off to on where to mass armor while we exchanged anti-tank missiles for hostages with the Iranians and used the proceeds to finance anti-communist activity in Central America? The one which ended in a bloody stalemate between two shithole countries which hate us? That war?

That was pretty slick, huh? You like how we did that?

Posted: **Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:46 am**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
As for your pathetic bailout on the subsequent topics, ("you're a moron"), this is typically childish and mewling on the part of your type. The facts stand--Korea remains a clusterfuck of a stalemate.

you're a moron because you're pathetically uninformed about the Korean conflict, the motivations of the US intervention, and why an agreement of armistice was enacted

Mac was a bull-goose loon and was this close to deploying nukes on China (and Russia). Gaius Marius is the only general listed who really succeeded big time in the field--without subsequent disaster.

you make it sound like MacArthur was personally in charge of the codes for all of the US nuclear armament....he wasn't....nuclear option was never viable, so why you insist that MacArthur somehow controlled our nuclear warheads is simply the ramblings of an uninformed moron.....

And yes, Felix, 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB by the utterly criminal and ruthless Zionazis--and we're all paying the big price for it.

whatever.....our government isn't capable of squashing the release of a CIA operatives name, what makes you think they are remotely capable of pulling something like that off?

Posted: **Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:26 am**

mvscal wrote:Oh. You mean the war in which we gave Iraqis satellite intel on Iranian troop movements so as to tip them off to on where to mass armor while we exchanged anti-tank missiles for hostages with the Iranians and used the proceeds to finance anti-communist activity in Central America? The one which ended in a bloody stalemate between two shithole countries which hate us? That war?

That was pretty slick, huh? You like how we did that?

Yes, 1-malt, you grotesque ghoul, the war we fomented against the Persians, causing the death of about a million of Iran's citizens.. Yes, our ally and tool, Saddam, to whom we gave the back-stabbing fake green light to invade Kuwait--so we could bluster and blast and fuck up once more on a monumental scale, which is what the American military complex is all about. Or What? You've completely supported all such actions on behalf of the fake apartheid state--your sole allegiance. You completely supported the actions of Ollie North and the Contras. And yet we see you here trying to distance yourself from this disgrace--by cawing at B-juice, who is in fact you yourself, just a ludicrous fake "Canadian" troll nic you use.

How the fuck do you look in the mirror?

Posted: **Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:38 am**

Perhaps he has a two-way mirror?

Posted: **Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:39 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Saddam, to whom we gave the back-stabbing fake green light to invade Kuwait--

A lie. Glaspie simply stated that we would prefer to see an Arab resolution to the dispute. I sincerely doubt that a military annexation was the envisioned resolution. In any event, Saddam was given plenty of time to leave on his own. He chose to stay. He chose poorly and thousands of Iraqis died.

You know what else? I still don't give a shit about them, their country or their problems.

Posted: **Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:36 am**

mvscal wrote:
You know what else? I still don't give a shit about them, their country or their problems.

Of course you don't--can't--care or feel or think or deal with the real horror of these unspeakable crimes committed by the vile Zionazi lunatics in the name of the American virtues. And that's because you are not just a total fraud, but a complete coward--whoever or whatever you pretend to be or represent.

How do you look in the mirror?

You liberal slurptards...I'm..I'm...an expert in battle experts...like me...

T1B

Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for:

Re: Top 3 generals you would have liked to serve for: