"Patton" relevant today

Status
Not open for further replies.
4

45Guy

Member
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
378
Location
Appleton, WI
Watching "Patton" today and there was a comment about how "politicians always stop short and leave us with another war." How true is that since the beginning of the 20th Century. If the military actually ran our wars, I think we would win much faster. Instead CNN, MSNBC, and the bleeding hearts run the way we fight our wars, not the men and women TRAINED to fight them.

These are just my thoughts, feel free to weigh in with your own, no matter if you agree or disagree.

BUT MAKE SURE YOU PROVIDE A REASON.
 
You only have to look as far back as Japan in the 1930's and 1940's to know why it isn't a good idea to let the military run things.

It's the same reason you have a city council and mayor rather than let the cops be in charge.
 
Our system is set up with civilian oversight for a reason.
If the military had a free hand things would be different but not necessarily better.

Warriors have always complained that the politicians were cumbersome and politicians have always complained that the warriors were head strong.

In Japan the military usurped the political system and look what happened


Damn, SIOP and I were typing at the same time
 
I thoroughly agree with that statement. Not only does the media and public opinion control the outcome of war, but the enemy knows where our troops are going to be as quickly as you or I. Though public support and media flex were helpful to some extent in WW2, it was politics that gave into the Russians demands for Eastern Europe. Politics and public opinion kept us from dropping another atomic bomb in Korea (I'll leave my opinion out), and lets not even get started on the mess at home during the Vietnam era. I believe it would be very hard to wage war and try to keep the public happy at the same time. Perhaps the majority of Americans would have been happier with just a few airstrikes after Sept. 11? As these Islamic terrorists of our generation are predominately our biggest concern, perhaps a Congressional declaration of unrestricted warfare would've been the better option. I believe censorship of the press is key to any military conflict. I'm a veteran, and I don't believe in the ill treatment of prisoners on either side, however, that kind of stuff should have been handled by the UCMJ, and kept under wraps untill this conflict was over. I believe our counting of US casualties is also a mistake. Why don't we see a running count of the estimated enemy dead? I lost friends in both Afganistan and Iraq, but, if 2000 US deaths have removed 50,000 potential terrorists from this planet, I'd feel alot better.

Patton was a darn good movie, by the way.

-Sigfan
 
Why don't we see a running count of the estimated enemy dead?
Click to expand...

If you're talking about Iraq, who would you count? The civilians killed when Humvees futilely spray 40mm grenades after IED attacks? The Shiite and Sunni militias fighting each other?

There's lots of bodies, but most of them had nothing to do with us... before. Maybe we should keep a running total of the relatives of people that our $500 billion dollar invasions kill... then you could watch the number of potential "terrorists" as it climbs into the millions.

As far as censorship goes, it never kept the KGB from finding out anything it wanted to know. The only people in the dark were and are the US taxpayers.
 
"politicians always stop short and leave us with another war."
Click to expand...

I believe that was in the script to acknowledge that Patton believed we needed to still deal with the Russians. The problem was that everyone was tired of fighting and the devastation, along with the costs and sacrifices.

The press controls the agenda and public opinion, but the Senate Armed Services committee controls what actually happens or doesn't.
 
"politicians always stop short and leave us with another war." ~~Patton
Click to expand...

"Only the dead shall see the end of war."~~Plato
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmmm.....

Patton was right about wanting to push the Russkies east out of europe. Washington wanted to deal with the Japanese, though. And, yes, we were getting tired of the war.
 
decisiveness

The way I read it; correct me if I'm wrong "45Guy," is not that the military ought to be in charge, per se, but that they ought to be allowed full prosecution of military operations with the civilian oversight only to ensure that attrocities and such do not occur.

I agree with 45Guy! Patton was correct about our very next adversary, the Russians, MacArthur knew the threat the Chicoms posed, and the dirty rotten politicians LBJ and Nixon kept the "leash" so close on the military that it became a "choke collar." The result for all of these named has been in the blood of our servicemen. Service people. At my age; and experienced cynicism, I truly believe "at Dawn We Slept." FDR was at least malfeasant in office, if not worse.

The combined influence of the NEWS media and the politics it induces are blood upon all of their hands. As if they cared.

If our current President should authorize a pre-emptive military strike on Iran, so that Israel will not be forced to, and thereby, perhaps avoid WWIII, I would support him and his cabinet in their decision, even if he were to elect to use nuclear weaponry, which I believe he would only do as not a last resort, but one of sound strategic reasoning.

--- bless America, my home sweet home.
 
Not sure I'd go around quoting Patton. He's not quite the hero he's portrayed unfortunately.

Read up on the "Bonus Army" and Pattons orders to attack retired soldiers in the middle of a peaceful demonstration.

He lined his troops in parade formation, and the protesting retired soldiers thought it was a parade in their honor, just about the time Patton ordered his men to turn and attack.

Not a highlight you saw in the movie was it?
Eisenhower and MacArthur were in on it too. Sad day in American History.
For all their heroics in WWII, I don't think it made up for their actions following WWI.

Eisenhower later wrote, "the whole scene was pitiful. The veterans were ragged, ill-fed, and felt themselves badly abused. To suddenly see the whole encampment going up in flames just added to the pity."
Click to expand...
 
I love patton, we needed him.
But the Military does only two things in life: break things and kill people. His statement is true to a point, but it doesnt mean the patton mentality is right for governance.

The Bonus Army attack was a disgrace, and lessons should have been learned.
 
Instead CNN, MSNBC, and the bleeding hearts run the way we fight our wars, not the men and women TRAINED to fight them.
Click to expand...

Er.. the press and the "liberals" don't run the way we fight our wars. The civilian leadership runs it. They choose to run it how they want to. It has always been like that in vietnam, korea, iraq, world war I, world war II, and it will always be. Just because some people disagree with your views on a war, doesn't mean they get to decide how the war is run.
 
"There's lots of bodies, but most of them had nothing to do with us..."
Click to expand...

Really? I'll get back to that...

"You only have to look as far back as Japan in the 1930's and 1940's to know why it isn't a good idea to let the military run things."
Click to expand...

The issue is not allowing the military to "run" things per se, but rather to allow them the ability to execute the policy civilian leadership has directed without ridiculous, and counter-productive, restraints.

perhaps a Congressional declaration of unrestricted warfare would've been the better option.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

This is the biggest hurdle we face as a nation, and the biggest asset used by our enemies. We, as a nation, have a misconception of what war truly is, based on our experiences in WWI and WWII. The American public, and it's elected leadership, is under the misguided impression that warfare involves ONLY the uniformed militaries of SOVEREIGN nations. Nothing could be further from the truth, and our enemies are taking full advantage of our ignorance. Americans need to understand that wars can, and must, be persecuted against a people, a religion, or even a culture REGARDLESS of whether the enemy is uniformed, or represented by a sovereign nation. Such is the case today.

This will to win exists within us as a nation, for it hasn't been that long since we applied it with success. This will to win was applied against the native Americans with resounding success. In that war, we fought as a nation against both a people, and a culture, and we won simply because we had the will to win. Today we face the same type of enemy, and in order to win, which we CAN, we must have the same will to win as we did in the past.

Now back to...

"There's lots of bodies, but most of them had nothing to do with us..."
Click to expand...

The enemy we face uses those "bodies" to hide in, to recruit, to resupply, to communicate, and even to attack us. They are not innocent, or impartial, and they support the enemy war effort. In order to win a war, you must do EVERYTHING you can to defeat the enemy, which includes taking away his support base. Those civilians are a large part of his support base, and are legitimate targets. This same simple concept was used against the native Americans with much success, and it would work today.

While Americans fail to understand what war truly is, our enemy does not. Our enemy understands that there are NO off limit targets, NO off limit tactics, and NO rules other than win at any cost. They have proved this time and time again, and will continue to prove it until they either win, or die.

I don't want them to win, and I don't want US to die. I am willing to do ANYTHING necessary to prevent them from killing us, because I KNOW they WILL use anything they have to attack us as a nation. It is US vs. THEM. PERIOD.

We should have learned our lesson from the Viet Nam war about civilian policy influencing military strategic and tactical decisions, but we didn't. Today the enemy masses arms, and fighters in mosques that we KNOW they use for this purpose, but our military is not allowed to target them. Today our soldiers operate under a microscope of scrutiny and are subject to investigation almost any time they fire a round. Today our enemy sits back and laughs at how morally weak we are as a nation, and thanks allah that he fights an enemy that doesn't understand the concept of war.
 
Sorry about this long post

Thank you to those who fully understood my point. I don't want the military to run everything, just the warfare end of it. I know about the Bonus Army and that is a disgrace, but as was said the military shouldn't handle civilian affairs, just as civilians shouldn't handle military affairs.

The Senate Armed Services Committee does , in theory, control the military, but who influences them? The answer would be the media, and civilians. They are, after all, elected officials, who really wanna keep their positions, and as officials, are voted in by the population, who are influenced by the media.

And I know we all see these broadcasts, and the are anything but the 'balanced news coverage' they proclaim. It doesn't matter if you're left right or middle, you are well aware of how skewed it is.

People eat up whatever they're told, and that is what they base their votes off of. So, biased media+gullable sheeple= media controlled elected officials.

Sorry for this post being so long.
 
I submit that there's a difference between allowing the military to decide when/if we should go to war, and allowing the military to WIN a war once the duly-elected political types make the decision to involve us in a war. The military most assuredly should not decide on whether or not to enter a war, but if the politicians say "go," then they darned sure ought to take off the leash and let Rover sic 'em.
 
Does anyone know if the Movie Patton is available on DVD. I would really like to have one. I love that movie.
 
TexasSIGman said:
Read up on the "Bonus Army" and Pattons orders to attack retired soldiers in the middle of a peaceful demonstration.

He lined his troops in parade formation, and the protesting retired soldiers thought it was a parade in their honor, just about the time Patton ordered his men to turn and attack.

Not a highlight you saw in the movie was it?
Eisenhower and MacArthur were in on it too. Sad day in American History.
For all their heroics in WWII, I don't think it made up for their actions following WWI.

Eisenhower later wrote, "the whole scene was pitiful. The veterans were ragged, ill-fed, and felt themselves badly abused. To suddenly see the whole encampment going up in flames just added to the pity."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The Bonus Marchers are a story that's never fully told, the only side that gets any exposure is "CRUCIFY THEM!"--"them" being the generals. MacArthur never got the "hold" order, and the man who prevented it from getting to him BRAGGED about it. Mac believed that most of the real AEF vets had left and Commie infiltrators had taken over the movement. The historical record shows that Mac was sympathetic to Waters, the original BEF leader, and made arrangements to furnish them some tents and other supplies.

And Patton? Patton had a pattern of behavior of being trigger-happy.

Kim, it was available on DVD--not sure if it still is, though.
 
What's APS?

Gen. Patton was a pretty rough officer, according to a book on West Point heroes. During WW1, he found some doughboys just watching as an American tank tried to get unstuck from the mud. He grabbed a shovel and whacked one guy over the head so hard he later said he thought he might have killed him. Luckily he didn't kill him, but motivated those soldiers to get off their rearends and help. He figured it was a case of 'cruel to be kind'; being rough in the short run would save GI lives in the longer run.
 
Anyone have a link on the Bonus Army incident?

I saw a short thing on the History Channel about it, but it only mentioned MacArthur's involvement. It didn't mention Patton or others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Where do we go from here?
Replies
0
Views
378
sctman800
S
F
  • Locked
It's a Fight for Survival -- Pull Out All Stops
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
4K
Coronach
C
S
  • Locked
Pink Pistols Set Record Straight
Replies
21
Views
1K
LawDog
L
F
  • Locked
Has WWIII started?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
karaya
K
2
  • Locked
Unfriendly Fire
Replies
1
Views
638
dinosaur
D
Back
Top