Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

$1 in 1960 = $7.15 today.

Another Delphic utterance from the Kevster.

It means something, I'm sure ... but what?

It means learn something.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29861648

Does that mean you support increased taxing of corporations?

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

It means learn something.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29861648

Does that mean you support increased taxing of corporations?

Farming is the only business that doesn't pass cost increases on directly to the consumer.
Raise taxes on corporations and you only raised them on yourself.

You're right, the days of high taxation were the worst, least prosperous years in America's history.

On topic, yet anecdotal; I sensed significant disenchantment amongst the Brits in Helmand. That was a while ago when things started to turn bad. I think the Brit armed forces were in a fragile enough state when Blair came in and his Eastern Ambitions have done significant damage. Just my opinion. Britain is a nation in peril from the inside. That's another topic.

The Dutch gunners I worked with were on the whole genuinely pleased to be there. They were doing particularly fine gunning it seems.

The Americans I worked with tended to gripe a lot, but not the kind of complaints indicating a serious morale problem. They're just louder in their complaints than others. Not as many "true believers" as one might think. One old sgt. I worked with for a time was the epitome of a mud'n boots soldier, until he let fly with his opinions of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. He could make me sound like a true believer.

Not a scientific sample.

I still believe that A'stan is where Empires go to die; that it never was NATO's fight; that there's good work that can be done there; and that we will fail to accomplish that good work. Unless there's some refreshing public  honesty about the reasons for being there, we can only fail because we cannot achieve the aims of our lies, but we might achieve the aims of the real strategic goals. But we don't discuss the real strategic aims.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2009-10-16 6:35 am)

But we don't discuss the real strategic aims.

I may have missed your thinking on that. But, I'm all ears, if you'd like to give it a go. What exactly are the real strategic aims?

It can't be about Russia, Iran and nukes, right?

We of the white, western world have a moral obligation, a burden to enlighten our brown, heathen brothers in the east.



So Rib, that sergeant was of the opinion that the Bush administration wasn't really good for the Army?

Kerry's doubting the wisdom of more US troops until the election is settled, and Karzai's being downright obstreporus about a runoff. Might be a hint of the coming decision.

I certainly agree that one shouldn't grouse about one's superiors within ear-shot of your juniors. Bad for morale and discipline. Never bad-mouth your superiors to your juniors.

Political discussions are verboten between higher and lower ranks, and frowned upon within equal ranks as well. That's what apolitical is about.

I don't doubt that there might be some grousing about the Rumsfeld dictates and Bush policies.

I still feel that the current emphasis on BCTs is short-sighted and doesn't address the Army's strengths. It also seems to be aimed at a foreign policy that has serious short-comings for implementation.

It certainly is.

Not to the extent that is hoped for.

Emotions often overrule better sense.

They should, I agree.

However, a great many in command positions are rather ego-centric, type A personalities. That doesn't mean they are more competent or even better at their jobs than those without so much testosterone, it just means that they are prone to greater gaffs.

Gen. McCaffery's son-in-law was one such, and as a O-6 was in command of the Infantry Training Brigade at Ft. Benning. He got called on the carpet when he spent 1.5 times his yearly budget in a single year.

Gen. McCaffery got called out for intstituting a physical fitness "standard" higher than that required by the Army for the Infantry Officer Advance Course students. An NG officer complained to the I.G. that the standard was not being followed. They agreed.

Over-preening egotism is their downfall. And in combat, can be others downfall and misfortune as well.

Patton, on the other hand, was competent and a good tactician. And a fairly effective leader.

sturner wrote:

They should, I agree.

However, a great many in command positions are rather ego-centric, type A personalities. That doesn't mean they are more competent or even better at their jobs than those without so much testosterone, it just means that they are prone to greater gaffs.

Gen. McCaffery's son-in-law was one such, and as a O-6 was in command of the Infantry Training Brigade at Ft. Benning. He got called on the carpet when he spent 1.5 times his yearly budget in a single year.

Gen. McCaffery got called out for intstituting a physical fitness "standard" higher than that required by the Army for the Infantry Officer Advance Course students. An NG officer complained to the I.G. that the standard was not being followed. They agreed.

Over-preening egotism is their downfall. And in combat, can be others downfall and misfortune as well.

Patton, on the other hand, was competent and a good tactician. And a fairly effective leader.

Patton should have been strung up for his costly jaunt through Sicily. He got thousands killed for no good reason.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2009-10-20 1:51 pm)

sturner wrote:

Yes, he did. However, he made up for it to some degree for his presence as the Commander for the Phantom Army before D-Day. And for his conduct of the 3rd Army from Normandy through the Battle of the Bulge.

That's a tribute to Ike's managerial genius, not really to Patton.