Anti-War 100,000 - Pro-War 400

During the campaign seventy-three Italian prisoners were murdered by soldiers in the 45th Division. General Omar Bradley ordered two men to face a general court-martial for premeditated murder. The men's main defence was that they were obeying orders issued by Patton in a speech he made to his soldiers on 27th June. Several soldiers said they were willing to give evidence that Patton had told then to take no prisoners. One officer claimed that Patton had said: "The more prisoners we took, the more we'd have to feed, and not to fool with prisoners." In order to protect Patton from the charge of war crimes, Bradley decided to drop the investigation into the murder of the Italian soldiers.
.....................

On 10th August 1943, Patton visited the 93rd Evacuation Hospital to see if there were any soldiers claiming to be suffering from combat fatigue. He found Private Paul G. Bennett, an artilleryman with the 13th Field Artillery Brigade. When asked what the problem was, Bennett replied, "It's my nerves, I can't stand the shelling anymore." Patton exploded: "Your nerves. Hell, you are just a goddamned coward, you yellow son of a bitch. Shut up that goddamned crying. I won't have these brave men here who have been shot seeing a yellow bastard sitting here crying. You're a disgrace to the Army and you're going back to the front to fight, although that's too good for you. You ought to be lined up against a wall and shot. In fact, I ought to shoot you myself right now, God damn you!" With this Patton pulled his pistol from its holster and waved it in front of Bennett's face. After putting his pistol way he hit the man twice in the head with his fist. The hospital commander, Colonel Donald E. Currier, then intervened and got in between the two men.

Colonel Richard T. Arnest, the man's doctor, sent a report of the incident to General Dwight D. Eisenhower. The story was also passed to the four newsmen attached to the Seventh Army. Although Patton had committed a court-martial offence by striking an enlisted man, the reporters agreed not to publish the story. Quentin Reynolds of Collier's Weekly agreed to keep quiet but argued that there were "at least 50,000 American soldiers on Sicily who would shoot Patton if they had the chance."

..............................

On 25th April Patton created more controversy when he made a speech using obscene language to an audience that included a large number of women. At the meeting he also said it was the destiny of the United States and Britain to rule the world. This remark upset Allied leaders and Karl Mundt in the House of Representatives complained that Patton had "managed to slap the face of every one of the United Nations except Great Britain."

...................................................
After the war Patton was made governor of Bavaria. He was severely criticized for allowing Nazis to remain in office and at a press conference on 22nd September 1945, Patton created outrage when he said: "This Nazi thing. It's just like a Democratic-Republican election fight."


1- No problem with Nazi (fascist) ideology
2- Ready to kill both Americans and foreigners
3- No problem with murdering prisoners of war

Sounds like a perfect general for present administration.

 

Oh gee, suddenly Patton wasn't a great leader who was beloeved by his men because always met his objectives with below average casualties. Suddenly he's a bad guy because he's not politically correct.

Cry me a river.

 

there were "at least 50,000 American soldiers on Sicily who would shoot Patton if they had the chance."

Do you always feel beloved when people want to shoot you?

 

What is funny to me is how you are a) too supid, b) too ignorant, c) too stubborn, or d) pretending to be all of the above, to comprehend two things:

1. History has sided against you. The vast numbers of Patton's troops who loved him far exceeded the few who failed to understand that his goal was to keep them alive.

2. All 50,000 of those soldiers did have the chance to shoot General Patton. None of them did. End of your little drama.

 

I love the way RepubliCONS always cherry pick the numbers. George W Bush did not become president in November 2004. He became president in January 2001.

Why do you choose to leave out those numbers? Because when W(orst) took office the unemployment rate was 4.2% in January 2001. That number increased 50% to 6.3% by June of 2003. No RepubliCON wants to mention that fact. By the same point in Clinton's term unemployment decreased to 5.6% from 7.3%. That's a 23.29% decrease in unemployment. You have no leg to stand on. Even with the bogus 4.9% in August unemployment is still 16.67% higher today than it was when Bush took office. The only way Bush is better than Clinton is if you lie or spin the numbers.

I suggest you visit http://www.caseagainstbush.com and spend time reading the Tables section. You people obviously have a lot to learn.

As far 9-11 and the affect on unemployment, I present...

9-11 did not cause the Shrub job loss
Despite the lies and misrepresentations of Shrub supporters the facts remain the facts. The attacks on September 11th, 2001 did not cause the Shrub job loss.

The unemployment rate had already risen 16.67% by August. So much for that idiotic theory. The single largest increase in unemployment throughout Shrub's entire term was before 9-11, July to August, 2001 from 4.6 to 4.9. Although unemployment did jump from 5.0 to 5.3 after 9-11 and then again from 5.3 to 5.6 the 0.3 percentage point increase is the single largest increase.

0.3 / 4.6 = 0.0652173913 or 6.52% increase July - August
0.3 / 5.0 = 0.06 or 6.0% increase September - October
0.3 / 5.3 = 0.5660377358 or 5.66% increase November - December

So we see that the single largest percentage increase in unemployment, 6.52%, was before 9-11.

http://caseagainstbush.blogspot.com/2005/09/9-11-did-not-cause-shrub-job-loss.html

Anyone else need a new A$$hole?

 

Just making the link active.

http://caseagainstbush.blogspot.com/2005/09/9-11-did-not-cause-shrub-job-loss.html

 

Are you talking to yourself in the mirror?

 

You are the new asshole, but I don't think that anyone needed you.

I wonder, are you really new here, or are you just one of the existing idiots posting under a new handle?

 

Will, you are probably right -

Hey mods - is caseagainstbushcom a duplicate of a current user?

Last time someone did this we found them out.

 

I get where you're going with this but must say I don't think you can totally discount any political party itself. I even have a problem with in Iraq the US/Iraq government making it so no former baathist member can exist in the political process. It is very possible a moderate member of the baathists, someone not guilty in anyway of murdering anyone could be a great help with patching some of the fractures. Granted many within Iraq may not wish to work with a baathist, but there are those the baathist moderates might beable to convince to get into the process.

If killing one of your soliders in the heat of battle where there is no other viable solution would save a few hundred others I think it would be acceptable. Not that I'm supporting it, just that it's better 1 weak link be taken away from the chain than hurting the force as a whole. There is also a big difference from a threat to an actual murder or killing. Yes it is something that should not be done, but war is hell and sometimes I'm sure commanders need to do whatever it takes to get their men to fall in line and make it through the day even if that means being the biggest SOB on the planet.

This one is my main gripe out of your list and where I would fully agree with you. As if what you state is true, which I'm not disputing it. It's a bit hard for us to take the moral high road, especially when our soldiers are in harms way captured behind enemy lines every time an enemy soldier is killed while in our custody.

 

Hes really me with another name

 

I admit it, its' me.



Just kidding with you will, I hope you can tell it's not my style

 

I don't know who he is but his site is pretty neat. Lots of good links!

 

Hey Will are you still with us? Just wanted to make sure you didn't have a heart attack after checking your latest rep

Ohwell time for me to run to the store and get smokes, brandy and possibly some bud light.

Until then.

 

So are guys going to protest the abortion clinics later, work on getting the gay marriage amendment passed, being the party of small government and all

 

As a matter of perspective, it is useful to note that Patton won a difficult war and Robert S. Macnamara lost an easy one.

Patton waged war as a warrior. Macnamara attempted to wage war using the same zero-defects strategy currently promoted by the liberal media and by certain less-knowledgable partitipants in this message thread.

In war, bad things will happen. Things will get broken and people will die. Plans will go awry. The enemy will win some and you will lose some. The path to victory runs through a trail of hardship.

When I read this thread, I see a seemingly endless stream of remarks that all appear very much like this to me:

Those remarks are callow and unimpressive.

Whining about how difficult war is seems to me very much like whining about how flat Kansas is or how hot Saudi Arabia is. This is the nature of the beast. It will be difficult. Have faith and you will persevere. This nation will not be cowed by a small group of religious zealots.

In a hundred years, Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the entire militant Islamist movement will be a distant memory - but the United States of America will still be here.

 

Who are "you guys"?

I am pro-abortion and against any state approval of marriage (hetero or homo).

You'll have to look elsewhere to find your boogeyman.

Do you read The Economist? The latest issue has an excellent article on the conflicts within the Republican Party.

 

No one said he did. In fact the numbers are simply a comparison of the last *almost* year. I note you are still flaunting your own version of numbers as well.23.29%, 16.67% ? Yea, those get real traction in the real world, eh?

You fail to see the point. The point was, your nonsense numbers you try to throw together to come up with an alternate reality are made up. Not unlike Kerry did, by coming up with his own version of the misery index.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-31-bush-economy-csm_x.htm

Ha ha! Yea, that's the ticket! Let me visit the fabrication store to get loaded up on twisted reality!

Your presentation is fails on merit and baseless inflated numbers, but most importantly, reality. 16.67% ? We're dealing in 4/5/6 percentages here. Fabricating your own numbers to suit your own purpose?

Anyone that doesn't believe 9/11 didn't have an impact on our country is full of crap. It did, it's been well documented. Of just one:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-31-bush-economy-csm_x.htm

Apparently yours has already consumed you If that's what you consider ripping an ass, this is going to be fun

 

Sorry just get the New Yorker and Atlantic

A vote for Bush and the repulican party is against pro-choice, against homo rights, for the breakdown of church and state

Don't you watch then news, 75% of the republican party platform is based on religious and morality bullshit.

 

Hey we added a 3rd lane on the road with an increase of trafic load of 50%. We later realized that the light system could not handle the 3rd lane and we removed it decreasing only 33% so in the end we still gained 17% even though we still have the same 2 lanes.

I love math....