|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 17 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Most mistakes in one article award!!!!!:
Archive through 17 January 2003
Author: Paula Wolff
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 08:25 am |        | Hi Harry,
You are right and in all my reading and studying it (loosely), I never saw the Zulus with anything but high ground and advantage. I'm afraid I was being a teeny bit sarcastic in my post regarding that. Sorry bout that. They were just good and, as you noted, well trained. They were also fighting for their lives, but a rifle that blows holes in people big as a cantaloupe helps a little. The Zulus had some too, but they kept aiming high and without the accuracy of the Welsh. So the rifles (Martini-Henry, or vice versa) were no help to them in the end.
Thanks for your post and see you on the boards!
Ta,
Paula |
Author: Paula Wolff
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 08:31 am | | Scott,
One last note - Huey Long was not a communist. A budding dictator, yes, but very intelligent. He knew what the people of especially southern LA wanted and promises flowed like hot butter. He kept some of them but began to get a little too big for his britches. I have a lot of family who remembers Huey Long. Bad memories.
Thanks,
Paula |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 10:03 am | | Dear Rick.....don't pass it around. We don't want to scare anyone off from attending Baltimore 2004. Just let 'em be surprised, OK?
BTW, Paula....Huey AND Earl BOTH were smart and dangerous and fascinating....kind of like Jim Jones, in a way....or like watching a cobra. You couldn't believe they were saying and doing what they did, but you couldn't look away, either. Ah, Southern politics....you gotta love it.
Actually, the Longs must have been the models for Francis Urquhart in the HOUSE OF CARDS series. If you have never seen that set of programs....DO!!!
The phrase "deliciously evil" comes to mind when I watch it, and Ian Richardson is just perfect as the PM.
J |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 10:15 am | | During Jefferson’s administration, the US had no real standing Army. We had an Army, yes, but not a standing Army as the bulk of US military strength came from the State’s militias. Napoleon had pretty much started running rough shod over Europe, the US understood that IF Napoleon soundly defeated Spain he would get a strong foothold in South and Central America as well as Mexico. IF Napoleon defeated Russia he would have a foothold in Western Canada and IF Napoleon defeated England Canada would be his.
In the US, the French had regained control of Louisiana from Spain and French troops were massed in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Natchez and St. Louis, all of which were major ports on the river and strategically placed supply points, and had begun spreading between the cities . With Napoleon owning the entire Mississippi River and the middle third of the United States and his massing of French troops on the Western Border of the United States, Jefferson and his administration began feeling a little queasy. In memos to the War Department and Naval Department Jefferson made his fears of French invasion clear.
Napoleon began feeling the crunch of being Emperor. There were problems at home and the French Revolution was still fresh in the minds of the citizens. Napoleon knew it took the support of the people, the government and the military to wage a successful campaign. He writes of this in his military dictums. He knew without the support of all three he was doomed to fail. From strictly a military point of view this is one reason for the Vietnam debacle, lack of support from the people and later the government and finally the military itself. In order to quell some of the problems on the home front Napoleon had to begin diverting funds from his war chest to home. He needed money for war.
Napoleon then began pulling troops from Louisiana and in a memo to the Jefferson from the War Department the French withdrawal was noted. The American Ambassador to France, I forget his name, informed Jefferson of the growing problems in France and suggested to Jefferson that purchasing Louisiana from France might be a workable proposition. At First the French wanted to sell only the land that today makes up Minnesota and parts of Nebraska. Napoleon was adamant about keeping the St. Louis and all land South. Finally through shrewd business negotiations Jefferson was able to buy the entire Louisiana Territory.
As far as Roarke’ Drift is concerned, it does sit on high ground. It sits on a plateau in a valley. True there are mountains around the plateau but the assault on the location takes you up a hill. In military strategy this is still considered holding high ground. It is true the soldiers defending the place were well trained. That is why there were secondary and supplemental fighting positions and a fall back position.
Huey Long was extremely Marxist in his thinking. Not that there is anything the matter with that. I am Marxist in some of my beliefs. Notably a draft and the belief that all men are not created equal...it sometimes takes the government to make them equal, and that last belief is the basis for Long and his Every Man a King Program and the New Deal Program by Roosevelt.
Killeen, Texas.......First Team! I was an infantry platoon leader there.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 10:55 am | | Scott Medine wrote:
"IF Napoleon defeated Russia he would have a foothold in Western Canada"
Hi, Scott:
I take it that this is your idea not the students with their web page. If it is your thought, Scott, don't let domino theories run away with you. Napoleon was hard pressed to get his army to Moscow, and he came back with only a fraction of his men. It was the same wrong-headed type of vainglorious thinking under which he operated in going to Egypt in 1798 and losing his army. And yet men followed him like puppy dogs. Just goes to show you what a charismatic leader can do, leading men into a meat grinder.
There is a famous map drawn by Charles Joseph Minard which shows the startling losses that Napoleon suffered stage by stage on the way to and from Russia plotting the size of the Grand Armée against the freezing winter temperatures. Follow the link for a discussion of the destruction of the Grand Armée on the Russian campaign and a reproduction of the map.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Timsta
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 11:09 am | | Paula:
Only an adopted Texan, I'm afraid. And since I *still* don't own a F150, poorly adopted at that.
Have to disagree with you on Nagasaki though. In my opinion quite transparently motivated by the desire to test out the plutonium bomb, and little else. (Except maybe to make doubly sure the Russians didn't move into Manchuria.)
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 12:36 pm | | Chris,
The key word was if. When looking at the situation in Europe Jefferson and the US War Department had to look at each viable scenario. If Napoleon did take Russia then, depending on the mettle of his army, he could march into North America by way of Alaska, which was part of Russia at the time. During the cold war, and they may indeed still do so, the US Army and the Soviet Army pulled border guard in Alaska and Russia as the Bering Strait freezes over during the winter months and Russia, then the Soviet union, and the US became connected by ice.
The rules of war are simple. To the victor goes the spoils. That means everything the loser owns now belongs to the winner. People tend to forget that nowadays. People tend to think that war is quick and tidy. No one gets hurt except the enemy combatants. I want to puke when I hear people say, I do not want to see a single US serviceman lose their life. What the hell do they think is going to happen. Either in combat or in other ways US lives are going to be lost. Either in combat or other ways, civilian lives are going to be lost. In fact, the price of war calls for civilian lives, the loss of civilian life is necessary to gain total control over the enemy after you have destroyed their military and political infrastructure.
Grand Strategy states, battle is won by armies occupying ground, war is won by nations occupying ground. If the US goes to war with Iraq, and they will, the only way to achieve total victory is to call for unconditional surrender and occupy Irag. Is this feasable, maybe. There is lot to go into holding onto a piece of acquired property. The Macedonian Empire fell shortly after Alexander’s death and the Roman Empire fell when it grew to big to control. But in theory it is what must happen to gain total victory.
Too many people tend to over look Grand Strategy and tend to settle for the strategic gains on a smaller level. It has been theorized that by the Allied Forces over looked Grand Strategy in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sure it ended the war, but instead of granting world peace and security it spawned the cold war and the rampant spread of communism- -actually Soviet aggression is the more appropriate name - - and the world wide feeling of insecurity. Because all military powers had nuclear capability, the only way a smaller country could level the playing field was with terrorism. Terrorism and terrorist has always been here, but the cold war saw their numbers and acts rise to the levels where they are now. In theory this is due to countries trying to avert the possibility of not only nuclear war but full blown unadulterated war. It is logical to believe that a country is most likely to attack if the country they attack will retaliate with force due ti being perceived as the aggressor. Now the possibility of terrorist gaining access to nuclear capabilities has everyone on edge. One could argue that the Allies did not look closer at Grand Strategy. General Patton saw the writing on the wall and felt the allies should have invaded Russia while they were down. During Korea General McArthur wanted to invade China.
Grand strategy, a lot of people missed it but Thomas Jefferson understood the big picture. He knew the US Army was not able to stand up against the likes of Napoleon, and he simply chose to defend against him by purchasing a little real estate.
And I agree with you Timsta, the overall point is that Nagasaki was overkill that amounted in the US gaining nothing.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 12:38 pm | | If anyone wants to read about military strategy then I suggest. The Mask of Command by John Keegan and How to Make War by James Dunnigan.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Paula Wolff
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 12:48 pm | | Timsta,
I'll help you out. My husband has a big F150 he'll be glad to get rid of for a new one. It's all yours as an adopted Texan. Yep, if you live in the country like we do, you gotta have something beside a Mercedes or BMW in the driveway. I hate Fords and am a Chevy person myself, but would take a Dodge Ram, en extremis. 
We can happily(I hope) agree to disagree about Nagasaki. It didn't do as much damage as it was hoped anyway!! Actually, they were trying to avoid as many civilians as possible which is impossible in any war. I have a uncle, career and retired Marine, who was on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. You have to look at the times and how many of our men were dying. It couldn't go on. He has a horror story or two that made a believer out of me. But I'm not in favor of just flying around dropping bombs hither and yon. Nope, nope, nope. Ok? Friends?
Thanks,
Paula |
Author: Paula Wolff
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 01:11 pm | | Dear Scott,
A Marxist???? How many Marxists turn out to be what they believe? None that I have ever read or heard about. They all end up the same way. Do you think Lenin or Stalin or Marx was in favor of sharing the wealth?? Really? I don't see it anywhere. Huey started out with all the right things to say, "every man a king" and baloney like that. In the real world, these people become little Hitlers and Stalins and petty kingdom dictators. And they are later destroyed by people who know better. Marxism seems to attract evil people with evil ideas and idealism. I am NOT,NOT,NOT saying you are evil; it SEEMS to attract that kind though. And yes, there are those of us who still believe in a republic.
JUDITH- exactly. Snakes that are mesmerizing and that's just what the Longs did. If you really look at their eyes, you see a resemblance. Same with Stalin. However, I've never seen eyes like his on anything living. Truly, the Longs were nuts but very shrewd nuts!
Now, one last thing, Scott. I am quite sure that I cannot match you point for point on anything. You are very, very smart and I appreciate it more than you know. So I bow to your intelligence but not all your opinions. Oh, yes, and a plateau surrounded by mountains beats a swamp surrounded by plateaus, but that's not high ground to me. Ain't no mountain high enough.....
Thanks for listening,
Paula |
Author: Paula Wolff
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 01:14 pm | | JUDITH,
I have been intending to buy that set anyway so why not today? I only saw snatches of it on PBS but I liked what I saw. I like Ian Richardson very much. He is so much fun to dislike, you have to like him.
Thanks for reminding me of that!
Paula |
Author: Timsta
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 01:19 pm | | Paula:
Sadly I don't live in the country, but smack dab in the middle of downtown Austin, where as you know everyone absolutely needs a big truck or SUV just in case they run into shifting sands on Mopac, or some tricky off-road in the Arboretum parking lot.
Regards
Timsta
(Jag driver) |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 01:25 pm | | Scott,
There are a number of people, including a professor I had in my "History of the Nuclear Arms Race" class that feel that the motivation behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki was less to convince the Japanese to end the war on our terms, and more a warning to the Soviets to rethink their strategy in the region and in Germany as well. A kind of "look what we can do that you can't, so back off".
I don't know if I agree with it, but it's a theory.
B |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 02:11 pm | | Paula,
Therein lies the problem, through the eyes of the military as opposed to through the eyes of the civilian.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 02:15 pm | | Hi, Scott--
Yes you're right, the key word is IF. The key notion though is that Thomas Jefferson knew nothing whatsoever about military matters. He was the man who said that the capture of Canada in 1812 was "a mere matter of marching" conveniently forgetting that U.S. military had been woefully neglected during his administration.
Chris |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 02:24 pm | | For those who are interested, to gain a huge understanding on the effects of thermo-nuclear warfare, biological and chemical warfare there is a really good book called A higher Form of Killing. It is 600+ pages long and cites actual de-classified American and British test results as well as eye witness accounts of the affects. For people who have long believed the nuclear winter is a mother they need to understand that most living things will not live past the nuclear fires.
I read the book in 1990 so it may be out of print, but it is well worth if you can get a copy of it.
Now back to all things Ripper.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 02:31 pm | | Chris,
I can’t recall any American being a military genius with the exception of Grant. Grant i wouldn’t exactly call a genius but he did know how move troops and did understand the 7 classical maneuvers of warfare. Washington was known more for his tenacity, Jackson.....well.....was Jackson, Eisenhower was a figure head, Kennedy was lucky. Bush 1 had a pretty good cabinet and joint chiefs Bush 2....oh boy.
Jefferson was smart enough to listen to his generals from time to time.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 02:49 pm | | Hi, Scott:
Granted about Grant although southerners might want to lobby for Lee or Stonewall. 
Possibly Benedict Arnold would not have turned traitor if he didn't have G. Washington aka the radio shrink Frasier Crane psychoanalyzing him as per the recent TV biopic. 
I was thinking Major André might make a good biopic. I didn't like the actor who played André in Monday's version of events.
All the best
Chris |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 02:55 pm | | Hi, Chris and Scott,
What? No Ambrose Burnside? How about justice for Lincoln's real nemesis, George McClellan ("If you're not using the army right now, I'd like to borrow it")?
Seriously, doesn't Lee rank up close to Grant, if not right there with him (consider what Lee was working with at the time he surrendered to Grant)?
Two other names I'd submit, one of which will be hugely unpopular: Bedford Forrest, who definitely had some kind of martial gift, no matter what kind of man he was. The second is Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain but still intelligent and cool-headed under fire (which I think is the most anyone can ask for). I don't know about genius, but Chamberlin has seems to have some kind of innate military ability, considering he was a school teacher.
Cheers,
Dave
(Who's digging himself out of a sudden Tennessee snowstorm) |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 03:30 pm | | Well I was talking about presidents and not generals in particular. If McClelland and Burnside were alive today they would be taking the short bus to school. Custer was an arrogant jack ass who got his just desserts in the end. Sherman and Sheridan were good although they did plan the attack on the Sioux, but it was Custer and his great thinking in the end.
forrest was a nasty person but a good general. lee, jackson, stuart and longstreet were the best the South had and the South had many good generals and leaders. It is a shame that longstreet will be forever remembered, by the general public, for disobeying lee’s orders at Gettysburg. Even though they were good leaders, It is strictly my opinion that they should have been hung for treason. Voice your opinions on that but that’s my feeling and I can’t be swayed.
If I had to make my pick favorite US general..... I was always a fan of Patton and Pershing for various reasons. They were not perfect but they had a sound grasp of strategy and its application. To this day, the book that Pershing wrote on military strategy is the most complex and complicated book on the subject. I think the only person to fully understand it was Pershing himself.
In the grand scheme of military strategy nobody can beat Alexander of Macedonia. An upstart, who was light years ahead of his time in terms of leadership ability and strategy, and brought the known world to its knees.
I didn’t see the movie about arnold. I forgot it was on and watched King of Queens, Yes Dear and Everybody Loves Raymond. arnold was a good fighter and leader he just made a bad decision. I understand his feelings, being passed over for promotion and having to serve under that idiot General Horatio Gates. He should have shot Gates at Saratoga but no one would have believed that Gates had his cowardly butt that close to the fighting.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 03:45 pm | | Scott,
Couldn't agree more with you about Longstreet--he was a good man. But he didn't actually disobey Lee at Gettysburg, did he? I know he tried to dissuade him from ordering that charge on the last day, and then didn't have the heart to give Pickett the order himself (I think he had a junior officer give it instead). I think he came out with a book after Lee's death criticizing him for Gettysburg, and that's when he really angered Southerners.
Gotta disagree with you about Arnold's leadership qualities. I have to concede he was a good general, but don't forget he massacred Americans after he went over to the British.
I won't try to sway you over your opinion about hanging Confederate generals after the war, since you won't be swayed. I'll just point out that hanging the military for carrying out the orders of the politicians wouldn't have been helpful in trying to put the country back together. Reconstruction was bad enough as it was.
Chris,
I missed the Arnold movie--how about a review? How was Kelsey Grammer?
Thanks for the interesting conversation, guys
Dave |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 04:16 pm | | Scott,
I respect your opinion, but I disagree.
Lee, and the rest, including all of the Confederate politicians, were only following in the spirit of the founding fathers - they were trying to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them."
The people of the south didn't want to be part of the United States anymore. Their duly elected representatives voted to quit the union. It was the will of the people.
Perfectly legal, in my opinion.
And as the Union was the agressor in the war (despite the firing on Fort Sumter - if anyone wants to fight that battle, I'm willing) the south was merely defending itself.
My personal opinion of military genius is similar to Scott's. Although I think that Lee was probably the greatest military mind North America has ever produced, I also consider Grant and Pershing to be excellent commanders as well. Patton would have been great, had he been able to keep his mouth shut. Had Arnold's wife not been such a Jezebel, I don't think he would've turned traitor at all.
B |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 04:29 pm | | I read somewhere that Longstreet stated he was the most hated man in the US after Gettysburg. He definitely fell out of Lee’s favor. Up until then he was considered lee’s go to guy. Technically he did disobey orders and it was his delay that many historians say caused the southern defeat at Gettysburg.
I personally think Gettysburg was a long shot. Until Gettysburg, the South was fighting mainly a defensive war. They had a few offensive moments, but in the grand strategy the offensive strikes were still part of a defensive strategy. Wars are rarely won on the defensive. Battles can be won with defense but not the war. If the South had any chance, Lee had to launch an offensive against the North on their turf.
Arnold did slaughter Americans after jumping ship to the British. He was an effective leader of men (probably what I should have said) but not a strategic leader, his tactics were sound but his strategy was somewhat flawed at times.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 04:55 pm | | Hi All,
It was impossible for the South to prevail over the North militarily.
The Union fought the entire war with virtually one hand tied behind its back - not requiring nearly as high a percentage of civilians to serve as the South. The technological, economic, and manpower advantages of the North were overwhelming.
The failure of early Union generals of the Army of the Potomic (notably Hooker and MacClellan) were simply because they tried to use tactics to avoid casualties. Read their diaries and time and time again you will see how they had Confederate troops cornered and beaten - but feared the enormous loss of life required to overwhelm their opponents. Lee was a good tactician and thwarted them in tactical battles.
Grant understood that if the Union and Confederacy fought to in a bloodbath - basically exchaning lives - the North would be left standing. This is exactly what he did. Often his side suffered larger casualty rates than his opponents - but he knew he had more lives to sacrifice.
Grant grinded the South down - the ran out of men and materials.
The South never had a chance to win the war - the best they could hope for is the North figuring the cost of lives was not worth the struggle.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 05:35 pm | | David,
Aiden Quinn is the star of that made for TV Benedict Arnold biopic. I think it's worth watching, just to see his performance. His brother's film "This is my Father" (Aiden had a major role), is one of my all time favorites. Kelsey Grammer doesn't quite make it as George Washington. He's Frasier Crane with a wig, who doesn't know how to ride a horse.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 05:38 pm | | Going back to Jefferson, was it under his presidency that the whole Barbary Pirates incidents started happening? This is an area of history I'm not too familiar with. It has struck me, however, that there's a certain resemblance between that situation and what we're now facing with Al Queda (fighting a loose organization of individuals instead of a government). If I remember correctly, the young United States chose to capitulate and pay off the Pirates, although there were a few naval engagements (Tripoli).
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 05:41 pm | | Hi Kevin,
I thought "This Is My Father" was an outstanding movie, too. Stephen Rea's performance gave me chills. As an American, I've never understood the hold Catholicism had over the Irish, but his performance kind of crystallized it for me. Great movie, and Quinn gave a fine performance as usual.
Poor Kelsey--he's more Ben Franklin material, imo.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 06:27 pm | | David,
I forgot Stephen Rea's performance, the distant entrance standing in the horse cart, the tobacco stained fingers, the stare, the voice and the sermon (atmosphere!). The scene in the church,when the young men are waiting to make their confessions, is hilarious yet disturbing. Rea's finest hour on film.
Catholicism' hold over the Irish, etc., well another day.
Kelsey's a wealthy man with a beautiful wife. I give him credit for trying. Nice talking to you again!
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Paula Wolff
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 06:52 pm | | For what it's worth, Lee was brilliant and Longstreet, too, and didn't disobey Lee. He couldn't agree with his order and as David pointed out, he gave the order to a lesser light. When he recovered from the War, he changed totally in his thoughts and hated what the South did. Stonewall Jackson was also smart as a whip; just died too soon. Lincoln loved Grant because he won and he did. Very savvy guy as was his alter ego, Sherman. I agree that Patton should have had duct tape over his mouth most of WWII. But a brilliant general. Pershing was good too. Joshua L. Chamberlain is one of my favorites even though he had the misforture to be a Yankee. George (Little Mac) deserved everything he didn't get. Talk about a do nothing. Arrogant and pompous. Ugh.
As I say, for what it's worth. Oh, and Scott, John Keegan is one of my favorite authors and I think he has a remarkable mind.
If you are military, and you seem to say you are, of course you look at things differently. We poor little civilians try to look at it from
two ways - necessity and horror.
Ta,
Paula |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 09:20 pm | | In military terms, Longstreet disobeyed an order. As a junior officer it is not yours to question, agree or disagree but rather act. Delays in action can cost lives, more lives can be lost by delaying an action than by actually doing as ordered. I remember being a young lieutenant and being told by my captain, Peter Brigham, that all he wanted to see was boot soles and dust. Brigham was a West Pointer and he knew that I understood the West Point way.
The only order any soldier has the right to disobey is an unlawful order, eg., shoot the prisoners. If an officer is ordered to launch a charge on a hill, he simply launches a charge on the hill. Every officer has to realize that in war he or she will condem men, sometimes entire regiments, to death. That's called the burden of command. If an officer can't agree with or stomach that fact, then he or she may want to find another line of work.
A prime example is the assault on hill 937 by the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam. The enitre division ( about 12,000 men) was almost wiped out but the hill was taken.
Two other examples are the Marines and their assault on Iwo Jima and the Allied Invasion of Normandy. Men condemed to die.
As a Ranger Company Commander in the Panama Invasion, I had to order my 114 men to attack and secure an airfield. They executed the order without fail, without delay and without question. We were met with heavy machine gun fire and nine did not make it, seven others were wounded. In fact, I started the assault two people short as two did not even make it out of the plane during the airborne insertion. The plane was struck by anti-aircraft fire and I loss two before ever hitting the ground. My loses were small compared to other commanders in history, but those eleven men made the ultimate sacrifice, and that is a sacrifice a lot of people would never consider making.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 09:25 pm | | The idea of looking for "mistakes" in Ripperology is similar to that of "mental illness." In the same sense that the perceived faults in the "mentally ill" person are really nothing more than the fears and apprehensions of mainstream society projected on him, so too are the "mistakes" being found in a Ripperlogical enterprise nothing more than the desire on the part of mainstream Ripperology to be homogeneous. The mainstream Ripperlogical plan is to emphasize standardization at the expense of innovation, sameness at the expense of difference, and convention at the expense of change. In homogeneity the sugar is sweet and the money is good.
Just take a look at the above discussion. It starts out as an old home gathering of people exulting in other's perceived flaws, then winds up as a palsy-walsy BS session about common interests.
Show me a Ripperologist who dares to be different, please. I'll pass on their "mistakes."
David |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 09:51 pm | | "a palsy-walsy BS session about common interests."
David, I thought we were done with sniping. Weren't you just whining about someone sniping at you? If you continue in this vein, making snide remarks about conversations I'm involved in, I'll make a formal complaint against you with Ally. I think everyone's tolerance for this kind of nonsense is about used up.
Scott,
Thanks for your post, your story, and your service.
As far as Longstreet goes, I think he enjoyed a good relationship with Lee and they must have had other similar conversations (probably not on the magnitude as the Gettysburg incident), with Lee asking for and considering Longstreet's advice. That's just my impression, though--I don't really have anything to back that up. I don't think there was any dely in making the charge though--I think the disagreement between Longstreet and Lee took place well before the Picket's charge was ever made. I might be wrong, though.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 10:50 pm | | Paula.....BY ALL MEANS, get the HOUSE OF CARDS, TO PLAY THE KING, and FINAL CUT series....I BEGGED for them for Xmas and got 'em. I've really been enjoying Richardson as good ole F.U. (ain't that a gas?). He is just perfect, and every time I watch, I see something new.
Scott....I agree about Patton, but the poor bugger would have been lost without a real war; he could never have handled a "cold war". Talk about being suited for only one thing.....
{You all will notice, I have not responded to Radka, nor will I; I got myself into too much trouble on that last thread, and have no intention of going THERE ever again!!}
Cheers,
J |
Author: Paula Wolff
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 11:13 pm | | Dave,
Thanks for your post to Scott. Other people have a knack for saying what I am thinking and trying to say. I believe Lee's and Longstreet's relationship was that Lee knew Pete couldn't agree but the order was given. Given by Longstreet, maybe in a rather offhand way but I think he was just sickened by what he knew was coming. He was military enough to accept Lee's order even if he hated it. I do recognize there is a chain of command in the military. My dad was a WWII vet. All my uncles were or are. I've heard all the stories of obedience no matter what, etc. But I just can't fault Pete. I'm sure I would be booted out of West Point pronto, but the will to live and want others to is very strong in a man (species here, not sex).
SCOTT, you sound like one of the finest. I'm proud that my country has people like you to fight our battles. You are very necessary and I have nothing but respect for the military and veterans in particular. All the best to you. I would love to sit and fight some wars with you, verbally natch, but I would fail there too.
Thanks,
Paula |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 11:42 pm | | David,
I am not sniping. I enjoy the above discussion myself. All I mean is to speak from the perspective of epistemology, for the common good. Hang loose.
David |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 12:01 am | | David,
We don't need you to worry about the common good. We need you to worry about the tenor of your own posts.
Dave |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 12:06 am | | "David,
We don't need you to worry about the common good."
But I can see where there's cause to worry. Perhaps people expressing empathy is disturbing to you?
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 12:58 am | | Radka,
Making complaints like a schoolboy trying to get people banned will do you no good.It is getting around what you have done and you should be the one getting banned. |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 01:11 am | | "Radka,
Making complaints like a schoolboy trying to get people banned will do you no good.It is getting around what you have done and you should be the one getting banned."
I haven't asked for anyone to be banned. If I have, let that information be openly presented here. Ivor is making a misstatement above for the purpose of getting groundless gossip started. Read carefully what he says, and you'll see what I mean.
(yawn) time for bed.
David |
Author: Alegria [Moderator]
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 08:40 am | | Ivor,
What David has done? What has he done exactly? Except being a general irritant and socially ill-adjusted, David has not done anything in this situation to cause anyone to be banned.
Ever heard of personal responsibility? Did David ask anyone to send him threatening emails, listing his personal address and implying an ass-whipping if he didn't "watch himself" on the boards? No, I don't think he did that.
You however, *did* do something, you egged on a situation and your compatriot behaved like a juvenile idiot. No doubt he found it amusing to play into the rampant paranoia and persecution, but regardless, he made his own choices and they were the wrong ones.
To be clear, David did not ask that anyone be banned. After I deleted a post where he insulted the person in question, he sent me an email protesting the deletion and mentioned that he had received threatening emails and I asked him to send me copies. Which he did and the admin of this website made the decision how to handle it.
If you have a problem with this situation or how it was handled, you can send an email to me and discuss it with me directly or you can do what other people have done and start a nice little email slander fest (sounds like you already have) but keep this crap off the boards.
And grow up. Towel whipping the class nerd was over in junior high.
Ally |
|
|
|
|
