Jump to content

Stilicho

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    689
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Stilicho

  1. 3 hours ago, MixtyMotions said:

    It's amazing how many people just occupy space and count that as an achievement.

    I remember Steve Jobs famous recruiting pitch to John Scully: "Do you want to change the world or sell sugar water to kids?"

     

    I think elected leaders should be people who can make something happen.  I think if you want somebody who can make things happen you should look at people who have done that.  Beto is a talker, not a doer.

    Says the guy responsible for refreshments at the bi-weekly breakfast for the Bumfuck County, Alabama Chapter of the GOP. 

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  2. I agree, and if it needs to be moved to non-political forum, I'm all for that.  However, I have found it difficult to sometimes separate the tactics of a military commander without taking into consideration the socio-political environment in which they operate.  I think most of the more famous, or infamous, military commanders are often shadowed by such environments.  The tactics of Alexander, Caesar, Henry V, Gustavus, Napoleon, etc. can all be seen through numerous lenses, one of which happens to be their own socio-political leanings.

    But to the point of the previous discussion, how do you differentiate Petain from Rommel when both seem to have followed the same "blueprint" in regards to supporting a regime in which they did not believe in for the sake of protecting their own?  And, if it is simply a matter of tactics and "who won the last battle", why would Zhukov not be just as viable a candidate for Allied commemoration as Rommel?  He was an actual Allied commander and it can be argued that he was an even more brilliant tactician than Rommel.

  3. 1 minute ago, Lobo said:

    Vichy French.  Only country to lose the same war, twice.  Petain's prowess came in the Great War, before the true demonstration of mechanized warfare.  He would have been judged differently had he held his higher regard in WWII instead.  

    But was he not looking out for his the well-being of his country and fellow countrymen?  Did he not sign a devil's bargain to defend a controversial government, not because he actually believed in the government, but because he believed that by supporting it he could limit the damage to a country he had so famously defended two decades prior?

    I understand why history takes a dim view of Petain.  Because he failed to emerge victorious in the last battle history recounts.  But you pose the same basic arguments as to why history, specifically Allied history, respects Rommel.  If it's simply a matter of tactics and results and political beliefs, as you point out above, than why isn't Zhukov considered at least the equal to Rommel in Allied war colleges?  

  4. 10 minutes ago, Lobo said:

    his museum was built at the end of the Cold War, so I'm wondering where the recasting was in that story?.  And all those British and U.S. officers who made a trip to his grave are apparently nazi-symphatizers since they openly supported an officer who was in the opinion of this learned body...a war criminal.  I look forward to telling three West Point instructors tomorrow that everything they know...is wrong.  

    I don't believe they're Nazi sympathizers, inasmuch as they adhere to Nazi principles.  They do opt for a sort of "hero worship" that dovetails nicely with late 1940s and early 1950s belief in "the good German" as a means to rebuilding the German state to serve as a battleground for the Cold War.  The fact that that he wasn't an officials member of the party and that he committed suicide during the fallout of the July 20th plot, again gives them the leeway to play fast and loose with history.  Here's a question for you:

    Why does history and, in your example, military historians take a lesser view of Petain than they do Rommel?

  5. 21 minutes ago, Lobo said:

    Okay, point taken.  I wonder if some of you realize that thousands upon thousands of Allied officers vehemently disagree with you and they were there and you barely understand WWII history.  You really think it's just a wild coincidence that the records of every Italian, Japanese, and German general officer have been poured over and that Rommel's just "slipped through the cracks"?  You are literally disagreeing with the official position at a half dozen Allied war colleges to this day.  But you must know more than they do.  And any officer who leads a nation during a war is automatically taking up the positions of that nation's in-power political party?  That is literally your contention.  Any general officer who operates a command during a controversial party ruling is worse than the general membership of that party.  Tell me how that's different than what you just said.  

     

    Thousands upon thousands?

    I actually do happen to be a student of history, with a fancy diploma and everything, and the Rommel Myth has been fleshed out pretty clearly by historians and journalists alike.  The reasons why "half dozen Allied war colleges" hold such positions is due more to hagiography and national pride than true history.

    Rommel was not a "card carrying" member of the Nazi party, but he was an early champion of Hitler and Hitler's rise to power.  He was, on top of being a pioneering field marshall in terms of mobilized infantry and tank warfare, a political opportunist and fortune seeker.  Historically, he appears to have found very little "controversial" about Hitler's reign and subsequent war until reversals in North Africa, the Eastern Front, and his own failures in Normandy.  His ties to the July 20th plot have always been somewhat specious and hard to pin down, thus adding a patina of legitimacy to the myth itself.

    To be honest, he is no more deserving of "respect" from Allied soldiers than his Nazi-turned-American collaborator Wernher Von Braun.  But public perception and a desire to one up the Soviets in the Cold War led to a recasting of specific Nazis and Nazi-supporters as "good Germans".  This is pretty evident in the American push and subsequent enactment of the Marshall Plan as a means to rebuild West Germany into a bulwark against the "dreaded" spread of Stalinism.

    I do, however, agree that this probably isn't the thread to be arguing over old WWII debates.  Specifically since its about a narcissistic lunatic like Kanye West.

    @hayden_horn is there an appropriate forum to start a thread about these age old debates? 

    • Like 3
  6. Just now, hobbes2702 said:

    Whoa whoa whoa, I was told we were drinking scotch.

    I assume there's going to be a limited amount of scotch on such a crowded ledge.

    I'll take the rum.  I've always been a cheap and somewhat tasteless drinker.

    • Like 2
  7. Kanye West.  Robert E. Lee being dogwhistled at a Republican rally in Ohio.  The Rommel Myth. 

    All being defended in 2018 American politics.

    @Brisketexan I hope you have a top shelf barrel of rum out on your ledge.

  8. 5 minutes ago, BearCon said:

    What play made y’all feel like “Texas was back?” The one where Baylor intercepted the pass in the end zone and the refs called incomplete? Or a different play where the refs called a phantom penalty? 

     

    Either way, much deserved W. 

    The one where the entire university didn't try to cover up a massive rape scandal for football relevancy?  

    • Like 5
  9. 1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

    Great.  Have fun. Only 67 votes to impeach.  Good luck. 

    Clinton was guilty as fuck on perjury.  Didn’t get convicted because of partisan dems.  

    Kavanaugh is innocent.  And will be on the court for the rest of our lives.  I’m sure he’s a fair minded guy who won’t want payback for the bullshit he’s been put through.  

    What a wonderfully Kavanaugh-esque response. Dodge the question and throw in a “but Clinton” for bonus points. 

  10. Just now, Continental Op said:

    Come on, JS... We just need the NYT to write more and more long form pieces that humanize white supremacists and then they will maybe stop saying Democrats are raping kids in pizza dungeons and start voting democrat.   

    But Democats were the original racists!  Robert Byrd! /FCHorn

    • Like 1
  11. 3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    All  I get out of this is that Trump is going to be our next football coach.

    Sure, fuck it.  The universe has to find new and different ways to suck, I admire its creativity.

    Listen.  We can both be on the same ledge.  You with your bourbon and me with my $6 vodka.  Life sort of kicks you in the balls in that respect.

    But the multiverse... that's where it's at Brisket.

  12. 1 hour ago, babysdaddy said:


    Take that shit to the football board?

    The football board is 1000x worse than the politics board.

    Let that sink in for a moment.  

    Then take another shot of vodka.

  13. 6 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

    I see you've never heard of the "filibuster".  So, higher level discussion would probably be difficult for you.

    And I love the Limbaugh/Hannity/Who? comment.

     

    I actually listen to NPR.  I started back when Clinton was POTUS.  I probably watch more CNN than any other news channel but that's only because it's on in lots of airports.  I NEVER put that shit (or any other news channel) on my TV

     

    I just moved to Corpus, though, so I've noticed the NPR channel here is...lacking?

    ... so no rebuttals on how your own conservative beliefs tend to run in the opposite direction of the administration you voted for?  Cool.

    Stephen Miller is not a "who", he is a "what", and he currently occupies a spot as the right side of the deteriorating bath tub sponge better known as Donald Trump's brain.

    I could not give less than two shits of your opinions on NPR.  Those you vote for have repeatedly attempted to defund and outright destroy it.  Because "muh politics".  The same holds true for CNN.

    Give me the logical, conservative reason for you support of Trumpian policy decisions..  We're still waiting.   

  14. 1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    I see 2020 as the greatest opportunity for real change.  Whatever is left of Trump by then should be an easy candidate to beat just as Hillary 2020 would have been a cakewalk for Republicans.

    Playing not lose is a terrible strategy.

    Make the 2020 election about IDEAS and not hollow rhetoric and/or fear mongering.  

    This is my entire point.  The 2020 election should reflect a paradigm shift just as great as those of Lincoln, FDR, or LBJ.  It's almost a necessity for the continued function of our country striving to meet its own expectations.

    I simply feel that when nearly 40% of the electorate is okay with fucking over themselves and as well as their neighbors in their own abstract sense of "team", that we may someone that transcends these things.  That's wishful thinking, I know.  I simply wish that wasn't the case.

  15. 1 minute ago, Ag with kids said:

    Love your talking points.

     

    You're cute when you're wrong.

     

    Whenever you feel like explaining why your own personal policy beliefs don't match up with those of the people you vote for, we'll be waiting with baited breath.

    And please don't pull the "fiscal responsibility, limited federal government, lower taxation" argument on us.  The GOP, who own all three facets of the what can loosely be termed as an "acting governing body" of the United States has failed to implement any of these reforms.   

    And I expect actual rebuttals.  Not Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Stephen Miller goalpost movements.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...