Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   General Petraeus is a phony hero for a phony war, we need generals that are psychotic in their drive to kill enemy soldiers and subjugate enemy nations   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Petraeus, director of the cia, The Establishment, Airborne Division, Korean War, MacArthur, soldiers, Afghanistan Conflict  
•       •       •

7981 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Nov 2012 at 1:44 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



170 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-11-19 10:25:39 AM  
Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.
 
2012-11-19 10:44:17 AM  

unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.



If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA.  But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part.  I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians.  The story is fascinating if nothing more.
 
2012-11-19 10:44:22 AM  
we need Generals that are psychotic in their drive to kill enemy soldiers and subjugate enemy nations

...and hear the lamentation of their women?
 
2012-11-19 10:45:47 AM  
Also...there is the Bhengazi thing...where the General's vagina said that the CIA was keeping prisoners...which it isn't supposed to be doing.  And that the attack on the consulate was related to prisoners.  So, yeah, his pillow talk is now a state security risk.
 
2012-11-19 10:46:12 AM  
They're not just supposed to shoot the bastards, they're supposed to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads on their tanks. They're supposed to murder those lousy Afghan bastards by the bushel.
 
2012-11-19 10:48:39 AM  

PainInTheASP: They're not just supposed to shoot the bastards, they're supposed to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads on their tanks. They're supposed to murder those lousy Afghan bastards by the bushel.



Rommel, you magnificent bastard.  I READ YOUR BOOK!!!
 
2012-11-19 10:55:26 AM  
A Phony Hero for a Phony War
By LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV
 

img51.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-19 10:56:18 AM  
"Well, don't let that trouble you," General Petraeus continued with a careless flick of his wrist. "Just pass on the work I assign you to somebody else and trust to luck. We call that delegation and responsibility. Somewhere down near the lowest level of this coordinated organization I run are people who get the work done when it reaches them, and everything manages to run along smoothly without too much effort on my part. I suppose that's because I am a good executive. Nothing we do in this large department of ours is really very important, and there's never any rush. On the other hand, it is important that we let people know we do a great deal of it. Let me know if you find yourself shorthanded. I've already put in a requisition for two majors, four captains and sixteen lieutenants to give you a hand. While none of the work we do is very important, it is important that we do a great deal of it. Don't you agree?"
 
2012-11-19 11:02:33 AM  
Yeah, we need more General LeMays running around, that's the problem.
 
2012-11-19 11:26:08 AM  

unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


The way I've had it best explained, is someone who is having an affair is more prone to being blackmailed, which is not a good position to be in for someone with an extremely high security clearance.
 
2012-11-19 11:35:57 AM  
images.sodahead.com
 
2012-11-19 11:37:30 AM  

Slaxl: we need Generals that are psychotic in their drive to kill enemy soldiers and subjugate enemy nations

...and hear the lamentation of their women?


1.bp.blogspot.com


I'm pretty sure that's "Peel the lamination off the women"
 
2012-11-19 11:44:12 AM  
By LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV

I don't think that I can take anyone with a name like that seriously.
 
2012-11-19 11:47:37 AM  

sigdiamond2000: By LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV


His grandfather was Kind of A Big Deal during WWII, and I believe he himself graduated West Point.
 
2012-11-19 12:41:38 PM  

unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


It doesn't matter who. It only matters that he had an affair. Whoever he had an affair with could have blackmailed him. If you don't accept that, then defer to Petraeus himself. Clearly Petraeus realized it mattered, that's why he resigned.
 
2012-11-19 12:49:25 PM  
I think the Department of Defense should be returned to defense and not so much for offense
 
2012-11-19 12:51:01 PM  

GAT_00: Yeah, we need more General LeMays running around, that's the problem.


And here I was getting ready to find a picture of Curtis LeMay for this thread..

/shakes tiny fists of indiscriminate firebombing rage
 
2012-11-19 12:56:52 PM  
The fact is that none of our generals have led us to a victory since men like Patton and my grandfather, Lucian King Truscott Jr., stormed the beaches of North Africa and southern France with blood in their eyes and military murder on their minds.

I guess Schwarzkopf and Horner were just sitting around the desert with their thumbs up their butts.
 
2012-11-19 01:08:31 PM  
i1212.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-19 01:28:34 PM  

cmunic8r99: The fact is that none of our generals have led us to a victory since men like Patton and my grandfather, Lucian King Truscott Jr., stormed the beaches of North Africa and southern France with blood in their eyes and military murder on their minds.

I guess Schwarzkopf and Horner were just sitting around the desert with their thumbs up their butts.


Yeah, everybody thought that was really weird during Gulf War I. They just kept sniffing their thumbs, then sniffing each other's. Really weird stuff. Whole news conferences where that's all they did.
 
2012-11-19 01:31:51 PM  
I've got just the man for the job!
4.bp.blogspot.com
His precious bodily fluids are secure sir!
 
2012-11-19 01:45:42 PM  
I like the headline.
 
2012-11-19 01:47:52 PM  
Military "leaders" are nothing but political puppets.
 
2012-11-19 01:48:17 PM  

I_C_Weener


PainInTheASP: They're not just supposed to shoot the bastards, they're supposed to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads on their tanks. They're supposed to murder those lousy Afghan bastards by the bushel.


Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I READ YOUR BOOK!!!


We might need leaders of a certain type, and it appears that Petraeus doesn't fit the Patton.
 
2012-11-19 01:49:04 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-19 01:50:06 PM  

unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


Lapse in judgement.....the trait you do not want in the guy who runs the CIA.
 
2012-11-19 01:50:07 PM  
media.cinemasquid.com
 
2012-11-19 01:51:36 PM  
I wanna, I wanna kill.

Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth
 
2012-11-19 01:52:20 PM  
It's always nice to read something written from the asshole's perspective.
 
2012-11-19 01:54:37 PM  
Psychotic generals win wars as quickly as possible.

That could be for the best.
 
2012-11-19 01:54:43 PM  
The Colbert Report soap opera bit on this was great.

"Afghanistan? Really? Don't you think that if we were still fighting a war there, the news would be reporting on that instead of this bullshiat?"

Right out of the park.
 
2012-11-19 01:55:12 PM  
neveryetmelted.com

sammyk: I've got just the man for the job!
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 314x244]
His precious bodily fluids are secure sir!


amindtat: [i.imgur.com image 500x376]


Fark Rye For Many Whores: [media.cinemasquid.com image 824x464]


probesport: I wanna, I wanna kill.

Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth


RexTalionis: [i1212.photobucket.com image 500x693]


Sherman
Strangelove
Apocalypse Now

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand...................

Alice's Restaurant for the holidays.

I think that's a wrap here people.
 
2012-11-19 01:56:10 PM  
www.leadership-with-you.com

Ain't laughing
 
2012-11-19 01:56:20 PM  
Agreed. We've been at war for more than 10 years, and haven't even killed a million people.

However we've pissed off a billion people that we will probably need to kill later, but who will die of old age due to our inefficiency.
 
2012-11-19 01:56:56 PM  

RexTalionis: [i1212.photobucket.com image 500x693]


I'll see your Sherman and raise you a Grant:

faculty.css.edu

No bullshiat--grab the enemy, kill them. Detested pomp and strutting about. The perfect foil for Robert E. Lee, Grant would have been a brilliant commander in any era.
 
2012-11-19 01:58:03 PM  
Sounds like the "they wouldn't let us win" narrative from First Blood is being trotted out for Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, we dropped more bombs on Vietnam than the entirety of all nations in WWII dropped on each other, but we just didn't do it enough. More bombs would have made them become a free market economy with one-party rule... sooner.

Afghanistan could easily be subjugated if only we were willing to be more brutal than the Soviets. We just aren't raping enough.
 
2012-11-19 01:58:26 PM  

I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA.  But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part.  I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians.  The story is fascinating if nothing more.


Pretty much on in agreement with this, but the web-of-women is somewhat disgusting and scary at the same time. Some self-claimed-ambassador twit with a phony charity gets to rub elbows with people charged with the responsibilities of a 4-star general and who knows who else?

Fark me, this whole thing sucks....
 
2012-11-19 01:59:15 PM  

dramboxf: His grandfather was Kind of A Big Deal during WWII, and I believe he himself graduated West Point.



Which was about as far as he could go riding on his name alone. He's been freelancing as a writer and screenwriter (see IMDB) for a while now.

If you want a real assessment on the leadership of the US Army take a look at the book Tom Ricks wrote (he seemed to have a high opinion of Petraeus's abilities).
 
2012-11-19 01:59:20 PM  
 
2012-11-19 02:00:08 PM  

AcneVulgaris: Agreed. We've been at war for more than 10 years, and haven't even killed a million people.

However we've pissed off a billion people that we will probably need to kill later, but who will die of old age due to our inefficiency.


Dont forget old age there is in their 40s.
 
2012-11-19 02:01:12 PM  
FTFA: "Though strutting military peacocks go back to Alexander's time, our first was MacArthur..."

Right in the first paragraph, I started thinking this guy didn't know what he was talking about. I think we can safely say that our first strutting peacock of a general was probably Geo. A. Custer. Then came Teddy Roosevelt and I'm sure many others in between.

I seen Petraeus interviewed. He didn't strike me as a strutting peacock or a self-proclaimed hero. He seemed measured, quiet, and contemplative. He is very well respected by command and troops alike. So I must conclude that Mr. Truscott is a dick.
 
2012-11-19 02:01:20 PM  

I_C_Weener: Also...there is the Bhengazi thing...where the General's vagina said that the CIA was keeping prisoners...which it isn't supposed to be doing.  And that the attack on the consulate was related to prisoners.  So, yeah, his pillow talk is now a state security risk.


KentuckyBob: [www.leadership-with-you.com image 332x450]

Ain't laughing


Are there conspiracy theories about Patton's death? Poor guy never even made it out of Europe!
 
2012-11-19 02:01:28 PM  

groppet: AcneVulgaris: Agreed. We've been at war for more than 10 years, and haven't even killed a million people.

However we've pissed off a billion people that we will probably need to kill later, but who will die of old age due to our inefficiency.

Dont forget old age there is in their 40s.


Oh hell, there's no WAY we'll catch up then. I suppose they'll teach their offspring to need killing too.
 
2012-11-19 02:05:28 PM  

Rapmaster2000: More bombs would have made them become a free market economy with one-party rule... sooner.


You really think that's what that war was about?

Really.
 
2012-11-19 02:05:49 PM  

unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


People have done a good job of trying to explain it to you, it seems you just don't like their explanations.
 
2012-11-19 02:05:54 PM  
Thank you NYTimes for another fine example of what constitutes American "journalism."
 
2012-11-19 02:06:08 PM  
Maybe we should call Petraeus "Old Blood And Nuts..."
 
2012-11-19 02:07:04 PM  
The fact is that none of our generals have led us to a victory since men like Patton and my grandfather, Lucian King Truscott Jr., stormed the beaches of North Africa and southern France with blood in their eyes and military murder on their minds.

Quite true. That is how you WIN wars. If you don't want to win, don't get into them. It's revolting that these present day pussy generals don't put their foot down and tell these idiot politicians that war IS NOT a surgical instrument. You can't kill individual ants with a sledgehammer. You can't go halfway. And the tragedy is that the finest people our society produces are sent into these unwinnable situations and get killed or maimed FOR NOTHING.

Fight to win or don't go. If the politicians won't accept that, the Generals should resign rather than agree. But the bureaucrat generals love their status and perks too much, and don't want to give it up, so they betray the fighting men and agree to these ridiculous Rules of Engagement. And our people bleed. For nothing.

I guess Schwarzkopf and Horner were just sitting around the desert with their thumbs up their butts.

Those two did their jobs. It was that pussy Powell who stopped them from anililating the Republican Guard. He was afraid we'ed "look bad". Fark him.
 
2012-11-19 02:07:12 PM  
4thgradeiscool.wikispaces.com

/OG
 
2012-11-19 02:08:30 PM  

sodomizer: Rapmaster2000: More bombs would have made them become a free market economy with one-party rule... sooner.

You really think that's what that war was about?

Really.


No, it's a summary of the result which isn't half-bad.
 
2012-11-19 02:10:00 PM  
it sure was courageous of this guy to voice his opinion before petraeus was down and easy to kick.


oh, wait.
 
2012-11-19 02:10:16 PM  
He seems to be complaining about myth making regarding Petraeus, but then:

The generals who won World War II were the kind of men who, as it was said at the time, chewed nails for breakfast, spit tacks at lunch and picked their teeth with their pistol barrels.

he seems to believe crap like this.
 
2012-11-19 02:11:11 PM  

JackieRabbit: FTFA: "Though strutting military peacocks go back to Alexander's time, our first was MacArthur..."

Right in the first paragraph, I started thinking this guy didn't know what he was talking about. I think we can safely say that our first strutting peacock of a general was probably Geo. A. Custer. Then came Teddy Roosevelt and I'm sure many others in between.

I seen Petraeus interviewed. He didn't strike me as a strutting peacock or a self-proclaimed hero. He seemed measured, quiet, and contemplative. He is very well respected by command and troops alike. So I must conclude that Mr. Truscott is a dick.


McClellan certainly gets the first real prancing pompous self-loving douche award.
 
2012-11-19 02:12:01 PM  
Spoken like a true terrorist
 
2012-11-19 02:13:34 PM  

unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


This.
Also, if you really look into the whole Iraq/Afghan war situation, General Petraeus was really the only theater-level commander that wasn't totally incompetent. He was the only one that adapted to the ever-changing style of urban warfare presented by the insurgents. He listened to his peers and to his generals in the field. Now, because he stuck his dick in some broad, all of his military merit is forgotten? Seriously?

Since someone up-thread already Godwin'd, Rommel was a brilliant strategist and opposed the extremist policies of the Third Reich quote vehemently. He was an outspoken opponent of Hitler and his many follies, including opening up the Eastern Front. Rommel's hand was forced by the SS into "suicide" to preserve his honor.

There is a parallel here. Rommel was vocal against his own government, but we still remember him as a great tactician. He was considered a traitor, but we still see his merits. Yes, this was the Third Reich calling him a traitor and that does itself carry negative weight, but he turned his back on an oath. Yet, he is seen as a hero to the German people (even still). Petraeus helped close out 2 wars and is a brilliant strategist. His accomplishments are not without merit. Why are we letting who he stuck is dick in on his private time make a difference? Just like Rommel, the government and the majority have turned their collective back on Petraeus and calling for everyone to "forget" his worth. Albeit, no one is calling for his suicide, but instead we publicly shame this man? For what? Poor judgement?

'Muricans, get your gigantic noses out of other people's private farking business.
 
2012-11-19 02:14:39 PM  
So, Holden Caulfield changed his name to Lucian K. Truscott IV?
 
2012-11-19 02:14:46 PM  
images50.fotki.com
 
2012-11-19 02:14:54 PM  

Clash City Farker: [4thgradeiscool.wikispaces.com image 600x347]

/OG


Ahh yes, G. Washington...

We will catch you drunk on Christmas and kill you in your sleep!

/that's sort of how it went down actually...
//still impressive
 
2012-11-19 02:18:29 PM  

I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA.  But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part.  I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians.  The story is fascinating if nothing more.


so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.
 
2012-11-19 02:19:17 PM  

I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA.  But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part.  I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians.  The story is fascinating if nothing more.



His biographer had clearances, and she was in possession of
NO INFORMATION SHE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE.

 
2012-11-19 02:19:34 PM  
The fact is that none of our generals have led us to a victory since men like Patton and my grandfather, Lucian King Truscott Jr., stormed the beaches of North Africa and southern France with blood in their eyes and military murder on their minds.

Those generals, in my humble opinion, were nearly psychotic in their drive to kill enemy soldiers and subjugate enemy nations.


Things we learned from this article:
1. Today's generals aren't like yesterday's
2. His grandfather was a murderous psychopath
3. That was a good thing, apparently
4. Petraeus is a bad general because he is neat and orderly.
5. Phonies are bad (says the guy who name-drops his dead grandfather and who includes his full first name, middle initial and a roman numeral in his by-line)
 
2012-11-19 02:20:59 PM  
Aren't officers supposed to put all of their ribbons on their dress uniform?

If he wasn't wearing them all this article would say "He's no true patriot! Uncle Sam gave him ribbons and he's too good to wear them!!! zomgeleventygod1!!1!"
 
2012-11-19 02:22:14 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: I think the Department of Defense should be returned to defense and not so much for offense


Why do you hate America???
 
2012-11-19 02:22:27 PM  
Let's not trash the man just because he chose to have an affair with a butterface.
 
2012-11-19 02:22:42 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: McClellan certainly gets the first real prancing pompous self-loving douche award.


No. A prancing horse might move an officer speedily. ;)
 
2012-11-19 02:22:56 PM  

relcec: I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA.  But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part.  I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians.  The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.


His mistress is also in the service...and she was writing a damn biography on him. I am sure she was cleared.
 
2012-11-19 02:23:16 PM  
Well, if there's anyone whose opinion I respect on what makes a good general, it's journalist and author Lucian K. Truscott IV. I mean, his granddaddy was a successful general. That kind of thing is genetic.

I hope he'll do a column soon on how HE would have won the Iraq war way faster than that preening wanker Petraeus.
 
2012-11-19 02:25:39 PM  
If a government isn't committed to going full farking bore in a war, then they shouldn't be going to war....prepare to and be willing to kill everything and everybody or don't kill at all...half-assed wars are half-assed...
 
2012-11-19 02:25:46 PM  
We need a general who walks into the psychiatrist's office and says "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL."
 
2012-11-19 02:26:26 PM  

hdhale: Clash City Farker: [4thgradeiscool.wikispaces.com image 600x347]

/OG

Ahh yes, G. Washington...

We will catch you drunk tired from weeks of being on high alert on Christmas the day(s) after Christmas and kill you in your sleep in regular order of battle!



FTFY
/Actually how it went down
 
2012-11-19 02:27:39 PM  

mbillips: Well, if there's anyone whose opinion I respect on what makes a good general, it's journalist and author Lucian K. Truscott IV. I mean, his granddaddy was a successful general. That kind of thing is genetic.

I hope he'll do a column soon on how HE would have won the Iraq war way faster than that preening wanker Petraeus.


This Lucian guy is a douche of the highest caliber, who if pressed, knows nothing in the field of strategy and waging war.
 
2012-11-19 02:28:12 PM  

DeathCipris: relcec: I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA.  But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part.  I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians.  The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.

His mistress is also in the service...and she was writing a damn biography on him. I am sure she was cleared.


his argument is people who can't avoid temptation and have affairs can't be trusted with secret government information.
it's the one of the most ludicrous arguments ever shiatted upon these pages.
 
2012-11-19 02:29:45 PM  

SpectroBoy: Aren't officers supposed to put all of their ribbons on their dress uniform?

If he wasn't wearing them all this article would say "He's no true patriot! Uncle Sam gave him ribbons and he's too good to wear them!!! zomgeleventygod1!!1!"


IIRC if you have too many ribbons to display, and this is not uncommon with career officers, you can display the ones of your choosing. By tradition you would display the most prestigious ribbons. I kind of remember that there was a formal heirarchy of prestige.

/it's been a while since PLDC.
 
2012-11-19 02:30:04 PM  

costermonger: GAT_00: Yeah, we need more General LeMays running around, that's the problem.

And here I was getting ready to find a picture of Curtis LeMay for this thread..

/shakes tiny fists of indiscriminate firebombing rage


No, it was well planned. And he pretty much leveled Japan. He took over a program that was not getting results using the most expensive weapon system of WWII (yes, more expensive than the A-bomb) the B-29, switched tactics and got the desired results.
 
2012-11-19 02:31:18 PM  

relcec: DeathCipris: relcec: I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA.  But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part.  I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians.  The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.

His mistress is also in the service...and she was writing a damn biography on him. I am sure she was cleared.

his argument is people who can't avoid temptation and have affairs can't be trusted with secret government information.
it's the one of the most ludicrous arguments ever shiatted upon these pages.


Hey, I am with you man. It is ridiculous on the face of it. He got close with a biographer, one thing led to another, and that was it. He isn't spouting secrets for sexual favors or something...
 
2012-11-19 02:32:52 PM  
Think of how many tens of thousands of lives could have been saved by sending Dave and his merry band of Doonesbury generals to the showers.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-19 02:33:36 PM  
From TFA "Those generals, in my humble opinion, were nearly psychotic in their drive to kill enemy soldiers and subjugate enemy nations."

1. Methinks the author's opinion is far from humble.
2. We're not talking about battle lines and trenches where enemy soldiers are clearly defined. In urban warfare someone can throw a grenade, run around a corner, and look no different from citizens of the area. Psychotic drive to kill means you end up murdering innocents.
3. Was the plan really to "subjugate" countries halfway around the world? Or to remove governments and organizations that posed a clear and present danger to people who didn't agree with them, and their own citizens, and anyone who looked at them funny.

Also what was up with random quotation marks on words like "Dave" and "win"?
 
2012-11-19 02:33:52 PM  

unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


Its a bad idea for people with access to lots of classified information to have serious financial problems (makes them susceptible to bribery) or sexual/personal secrets -- e.g., affairs, or being deeply in-the-closet, etc. (makes them susceptible to blackmail). Ideally, people in those roles should have boring, drama-free lives.
 
2012-11-19 02:35:53 PM  
Also my biggest concern is that she was in country with him. Did he make decisions on where to be because he was following his penis and therefore maybe made orders that would have been better given from a location where he could gain better intel?

Dicking her stateside I don't give to shiats about, but knowing if he was doing shiat to spend time with her in Afghanistan could be a much larger issue.
 
2012-11-19 02:36:51 PM  

DeathCipris: mbillips: Well, if there's anyone whose opinion I respect on what makes a good general, it's journalist and author Lucian K. Truscott IV. I mean, his granddaddy was a successful general. That kind of thing is genetic.

I hope he'll do a column soon on how HE would have won the Iraq war way faster than that preening wanker Petraeus.

This Lucian guy is a douche of the highest caliber, who if pressed, knows nothing in the field of strategy and waging war.


I don't know about that. I mean, his name ends with IV. That's pretty authoritative.
 
2012-11-19 02:37:38 PM  
relcec 2012-11-19 02:18:29 PM
I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA. But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part. I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians. The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.


First, yes, Clinton should have been impeached, he made himself vulnerable to blackmail and lied about it. Anyone else with a clearance would have lost it, Clinton was the CC in Chief and should have been held to the same standards everyone else in his chain of command was being held to.

As for Petreaus;
1. Adultery is punishable under the UCMJ.
2. Ever hear of Genral Order #1? If you are going to tell millions of people they can't have sex you better not be enthralled in adultery.
3. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed, you can't have clearances and be conducting yourself in that manner

/You, are in fact, the idiot
//Still think Gen. Petreaus did a great job
 
2012-11-19 02:38:19 PM  

relcec: DeathCipris: relcec: I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA.  But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part.  I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians.  The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.

His mistress is also in the service...and she was writing a damn biography on him. I am sure she was cleared.

his argument is people who can't avoid temptation and have affairs can't be trusted with secret government information.
it's the one of the most ludicrous arguments ever shiatted upon these pages.


Thats a really bad mis-representation of why this is an issue.

Its not the fact that he was having an affair (his wife and some puritanical farkwads may have an issue with that, but no else should), its the fact that he put himself in in a position where he could be blackmailed for sensitive information. Its would be a no different situation if he had gotten in deep gambling debts, and "someone" offered to pay off his debts in exchange for classified info.
 
2012-11-19 02:39:15 PM  

Slaxl: we need Generals that are psychotic in their drive to kill enemy soldiers and subjugate enemy nations

...and hear the lamentation of their women?


Came to post this, leaving satisfied that my work has been done

//
 
2012-11-19 02:41:35 PM  

jshine: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

Its a bad idea for people with access to lots of classified information to have serious financial problems (makes them susceptible to bribery) or sexual/personal secrets -- e.g., affairs, or being deeply in-the-closet, etc. (makes them susceptible to blackmail). Ideally, people in those roles should have boring, drama-free lives.


That is correct. If you hold a clearance, especially higher level clearances, and your credit starts to go in the shiatter as an example; the feds will contact you. However, if you report what happened beforehand, they are pretty understanding. Petraeus is a man. He made a bad call and slept with someone other than his wife (who might I add was also cleared and in the service). Again, he wasn't trading sexual favors for secrets.
I am responding to the fact that this author in TFA is a self-righteous dickweed that thinks because his granpappy was a general, that he is somehow qualified to discuss "what makes a general great."
 
2012-11-19 02:41:39 PM  

probesport: I wanna, I wanna kill.

Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth


*raises hand*

I already know I'm going to hell.

/lap seat preferred.
 
2012-11-19 02:41:46 PM  
...
digigum.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-19 02:44:06 PM  

Gdalescrboz: Clinton was the CC in Chief and should have been held to the same standards everyone else in his chain of command was being held to.


What if the CIA had a private register that would permit agents to disclose such issues to the agency? Would that be a sufficient remedy?

That's a radical challenge to the concept of civilian leadership of the military. Essentially, you are saying that the civilian President should be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Should the President of the United States wear a military uniform while we are it?

BlueFalconPunch: its the fact that he put himself in in a position where he could be blackmailed for sensitive information

 
2012-11-19 02:44:38 PM  

DeathCipris: jshine: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

Its a bad idea for people with access to lots of classified information to have serious financial problems (makes them susceptible to bribery) or sexual/personal secrets -- e.g., affairs, or being deeply in-the-closet, etc. (makes them susceptible to blackmail). Ideally, people in those roles should have boring, drama-free lives.

That is correct. If you hold a clearance, especially higher level clearances, and your credit starts to go in the shiatter as an example; the feds will contact you. However, if you report what happened beforehand, they are pretty understanding. Petraeus is a man. He made a bad call and slept with someone other than his wife (who might I add was also cleared and in the service). Again, he wasn't trading sexual favors for secrets.
I am responding to the fact that this author in TFA is a self-righteous dickweed that thinks because his granpappy was a general, that he is somehow qualified to discuss "what makes a general great."


Military connections will not protect you from your own stupidity.

I speak from experience, hence 5 years of a hellish "marriage" that was more like a tour of duty.

Thank the Lord for Key.
 
2012-11-19 02:44:39 PM  
I_C_Weener: "If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA. "

Assuming all secrets are equivalent.
If you can't keep the secret that Santa Claus isn't real from a six year old, should you not gain clearance?
What if you tell your wife that, well, yeah, there really were strippers at that bachelor's party?
Where exactly is the line between un-kept secrets that do, and those that do not, reflect on your ability to keep the 'real' ones?

Similarly with the bit on temptation. The temptation of playing Hide the Salami is not the same thing as the temptation to Sell Out Your Country. What makes getting some strange supposedly more illustrative of his character than giving in to the temptation to eat a twinkie, have a few beers or download some internet porn? Where's the line on temptation?
 
2012-11-19 02:45:13 PM  

Gdalescrboz: relcec 2012-11-19 02:18:29 PM
I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA. But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part. I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians. The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.

First, yes, Clinton should have been impeached, he made himself vulnerable to blackmail and lied about it. Anyone else with a clearance would have lost it, Clinton was the CC in Chief and should have been held to the same standards everyone else in his chain of command was being held to.

As for Petreaus;
1. Adultery is punishable under the UCMJ.
2. Ever hear of Genral Order #1? If you are going to tell millions of people they can't have sex you better not be enthralled in adultery.
3. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed, you can't have clearances and be conducting yourself in that manner

/You, are in fact, the idiot
//Still think Gen. Petreaus did a great job


JAG Corps anyone?
 
2012-11-19 02:45:22 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: hdhale: Clash City Farker: [4thgradeiscool.wikispaces.com image 600x347]

/OG

Ahh yes, G. Washington...

We will catch you drunk tired from weeks of being on high alert on Christmas the day(s) after Christmas and kill you in your sleep in regular order of battle!

FTFY
/Actually how it went down


That was just a warm up. He earned his nickname Town Destroyer in 1779 vs the Iroquios.
 
2012-11-19 02:45:22 PM  
I'm not sure I'd call any general a "hero." They generally aren't the ones doing the fighting.
 
2012-11-19 02:51:31 PM  
I love that people pretend its the "vulnerable to blackmail" thing that's so important here. It's a soap opera in real life and everyone wants to watch. If the social standards in American society didn't treat screwing like a crime in the first place then there wouldn't really be anything for them to use as blackmail so you seem to be putting the cart before the horse. The idea that a person who would make a bad decision to tag some hot new strange would show the same lack of good judgement in their job is preposterous. I'm sure there are people that treat both parts of their lives with equal contempt but to simply assume that is the case would be folly. We are all human. Humans are all animals. It's time we learned to take that into consideration when judging others.
 
2012-11-19 02:52:06 PM  
war criminal & UN plant!
 
2012-11-19 02:53:57 PM  
This isn't your grandfather's war, Mr Truscott. If it were, it would have been over long before Gen. Petraus assumed command.
 
2012-11-19 02:54:12 PM  
The_Gallant_Gallstone Smartest
Funniest
2012-11-19 02:44:06 PM


Gdalescrboz: Clinton was the CC in Chief and should have been held to the same standards everyone else in his chain of command was being held to.

What if the CIA had a private register that would permit agents to disclose such issues to the agency? Would that be a sufficient remedy?

That's a radical challenge to the concept of civilian leadership of the military. Essentially, you are saying that the civilian President should be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Should the President of the United States wear a military uniform while we are it


I didnt say he was accountable to the UCMJ, but you did make an impressive leap in logic. I said he should be held to the same standards of the Non-Disclosure Agreements that everyone else with clearances are. You don't have to be active duty military to have a clearance. Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president
 
2012-11-19 02:55:32 PM  

SnyderCat: DeathCipris: jshine: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

Its a bad idea for people with access to lots of classified information to have serious financial problems (makes them susceptible to bribery) or sexual/personal secrets -- e.g., affairs, or being deeply in-the-closet, etc. (makes them susceptible to blackmail). Ideally, people in those roles should have boring, drama-free lives.

That is correct. If you hold a clearance, especially higher level clearances, and your credit starts to go in the shiatter as an example; the feds will contact you. However, if you report what happened beforehand, they are pretty understanding. Petraeus is a man. He made a bad call and slept with someone other than his wife (who might I add was also cleared and in the service). Again, he wasn't trading sexual favors for secrets.
I am responding to the fact that this author in TFA is a self-righteous dickweed that thinks because his granpappy was a general, that he is somehow qualified to discuss "what makes a general great."

Military connections will not protect you from your own stupidity.

I speak from experience, hence 5 years of a hellish "marriage" that was more like a tour of duty.

Thank the Lord for Key.


I hear ya there! I learned my lesson from watching others, haha. I believe I will pass on getting married.
I love military strategy. Always have, even when I was a child (didn't have many friends if that wasn't apparent already). It is asshats like this damn author that really get me. He is dismissing all of his accomplishments because of a private relationship that was forced into the public eye. He calls for a resurgence in the old style of generalship. When in reality, Petraeus is MUCH closer to the brilliance present in the military greats that rose up during WWII. The author very clearly knows nothing and never bothered to research the issue.
 
2012-11-19 02:57:45 PM  
lennavan: "Whoever he had an affair with could have blackmailed him."

Except, as it turns out, they couldn't have. Because he didn't even *try* to deny it.
So he was apparently never that guy who could have been compromised by a honey-pot.

And affairs only work as blackmail because our nation is hell-bent on punishing public figures for their private sexual proclivities.
If we all grow the fark up and let consenting adults live their private lives in private, there's no blackmail potential for *any* public figure 'caught' in an affair.
 
2012-11-19 02:59:02 PM  

Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president


As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper
 
2012-11-19 03:01:41 PM  
The_Gallant_Gallstone
Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper


All you need to say is "yeah, im wrong." No need to try to be cute about it
 
2012-11-19 03:01:55 PM  
Hogwash.

Petraeus did the best job he could have done in Afghanistan, given what he had to work with.

If he rememvbers military history, he knows no one has ever taken that nation.

No one.

Not the Soviets, not the British, not even Alexander the Great.
 
2012-11-19 03:02:05 PM  

dramboxf: sigdiamond2000: By LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV

His grandfather was Kind of A Big Deal during WWII, and I believe he himself graduated West Point.


Yah but this guy starts off his opinion piece talking about how the optics of Generals takes away thier abilities to wage war, yet praises Patton who didn't wear a traditional uniform or side arm and was one of tyhe biggest blowhards out there.

Also, while MacAurther had his faults, the strategy in the Pacific and the stalemate in Korea wasn't part of it.
 
2012-11-19 03:02:07 PM  

UseLessHuman: I love that people pretend its the "vulnerable to blackmail" thing that's so important here. It's a soap opera in real life and everyone wants to watch. If the social standards in American society didn't treat screwing like a crime in the first place then there wouldn't really be anything for them to use as blackmail so you seem to be putting the cart before the horse. The idea that a person who would make a bad decision to tag some hot new strange would show the same lack of good judgement in their job is preposterous. I'm sure there are people that treat both parts of their lives with equal contempt but to simply assume that is the case would be folly. We are all human. Humans are all animals. It's time we learned to take that into consideration when judging others.


I assure you that I'm not pretending, I really feel that the "suceptability to blackmail thing" is a big issue here (in regards to Petraeus). Granted, even then, I'm not sure it was a large enough issue for the media to pay it proper attention without getting distracted by the sideshow sex/socialite/"Days of our LIves" BS thats not important. So I do agree with your sentiment.
 
2012-11-19 03:02:39 PM  

relcec: DeathCipris: relcec: I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA.  But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part.  I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians.  The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.

His mistress is also in the service...and she was writing a damn biography on him. I am sure she was cleared.

his argument is people who can't avoid temptation and have affairs can't be trusted with secret government information.
it's the one of the most ludicrous arguments ever shiatted upon these pages.


Sooo... you're suggesting it's a good thing that the Director of the CIA was possibly subject to blackmail for the last year or so? Or just that it doesn't matter?
 
2012-11-19 03:06:20 PM  
So if my Great General ends up sidelined by a sex scandal, do I get a discount on the xp needed to spawn a new Great General?
 
2012-11-19 03:09:16 PM  
Petraeus looks like a CPA or someone who does your taxes on the side. He's a wussbag.
Dinner party General

Now this guy, he'll shoot you with a tank round, then run your body over. Then stop and get out and stab your flat corpse. Then radio the Airforce to napalm the area once he is clear.

farm9.staticflickr.com 


/Tal Russo
//doesn't do dinner parties
///you farked with our consulate?
////update your status from 'hide' to 'run'
 
2012-11-19 03:09:20 PM  

Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone
Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper

I didn't know the administrative of security clearances could negate the democratic process.

That said, couldn't the President retain his security access by means of Executive Order anyway, even if that access were challenged by some official?

 
2012-11-19 03:10:21 PM  
"General Petraeus is very, very clever, which is quite different from stating that he is the brilliant tactician he has been described as. He figured if he hadn't actually been given the mission to "win" the "war" he found himself in, he could at least look good in the meantime. And the truth is he did a lot of good things, like conceiving of the idea of basically buying the loyalties of various factions in Iraq. But they weren't the kinds of things that win wars. In fact, they were the kinds of things that prolong wars, which for the general had the useful side effect of putting him on ever grander stages so he could be seen doing ever grander things, culminating in his appointment last year as the director of the C.I.A."

Wait, how does buying the loyalty of tribes and turning them against our main enemy in Iraq, al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, prolong the war? As I recall, right up to the point were Petraeus and Co. came into the picture, the Bush admin refused to negotiate with any of the Anbar tribes, and our number of wounded and dead was rising fast. After we brought the Anbar tribes in from the cold, and turned them against al Qaeda, our casualties went down, and within a few years, were able to leave Iraq. Was it perfect, no, but it served our purpose to get out and let the Iraqis figure out a way to leave with each other absent Saddam Hussein.
 
2012-11-19 03:12:50 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: dramboxf: sigdiamond2000: By LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV

His grandfather was Kind of A Big Deal during WWII, and I believe he himself graduated West Point.

Yah but this guy starts off his opinion piece talking about how the optics of Generals takes away thier abilities to wage war, yet praises Patton who didn't wear a traditional uniform or side arm and was one of tyhe biggest blowhards out there.

Also, while MacAurther had his faults, the strategy in the Pacific and the stalemate in Korea wasn't part of it.


What stalemate? McArthur was fired before Korea stalemated, because he pursued a reckless strategy that allowed the Chinese to nearly destroy half his forces and chase him out of the country. The Chinese success was almost ALL McArthur's fault. Inchon was well done, but after that, he screwed up Korea as badly as he screwed up the defense of the Philippines in 1941-42.
 
2012-11-19 03:17:29 PM  
The_Gallant_Gallstone Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone
Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper

I didn't know the administrative of security clearances could negate the democratic process.

That said, couldn't the President retain his security access by means of Executive Order anyway, even if that access were challenged by some official?


Hence, the impeachment part you brought up earlier.
 
2012-11-19 03:27:17 PM  

netcentric: Petraeus looks like a CPA or someone who does your taxes on the side. He's a wussbag.
Dinner party General

Now this guy, he'll shoot you with a tank round, then run your body over. Then stop and get out and stab your flat corpse. Then radio the Airforce to napalm the area once he is clear.

[farm9.staticflickr.com image 500x333] 


/Tal Russo
//doesn't do dinner parties
///you farked with our consulate?
////update your status from 'hide' to 'run'


Dayum... maybe the IDF should drop leaflets on Gaza with this photo?

/war over
/will star in Rambo XIV?


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-19 03:28:44 PM  

dramboxf: sigdiamond2000: By LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV

His grandfather was Kind of A Big Deal during WWII, and I believe he himself graduated West Point.


By the time you get to "IV" the chances that you are a self-absorbed douchebag are pretty high. Then this guy goes on to prove it by touting his own grandfather by proudly offering the opinion that he performed at the level of psychotic murderer during WWII. Then at the very end we have a link to his blog where he has to share the glory of his body with us (NSFWish):

A novelist and journalist who is writing his new book on the blog Dying of a Broken Heart. 

What a man!
 
2012-11-19 03:30:07 PM  

Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone
Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper

I didn't know the administrative of security clearances could negate the democratic process.

That said, couldn't the President retain his security access by means of Executive Order anyway, even if that access were challenged by some official?

Hence, the impeachment part you brought up earlier.


How can you claim impeachment is a security clearance nullifierevoker? It is an accusation, it is not a conviction. Impeachment has zero implication beyond making charges that have to be prosecuted. Clinton was acquited by the senate. His only conviction was for a civil charge of contempt. Please, explain what you're trying to prove by being so dramatically incorrect?
 
2012-11-19 03:30:28 PM  
"What's wrong with a general looking good?" you may wonder. I would propose that every moment a general spends on his uniform jacket is a moment he's not doing his job

He's a god damned four star general. Does this douchebag think that he does his own uniform? He's got a gaggle of privates doing that shiat for him.
 
2012-11-19 03:30:45 PM  

hdhale: RexTalionis: [i1212.photobucket.com image 500x693]

I'll see your Sherman and raise you a Grant:

[faculty.css.edu image 247x253]

No bullshiat--grab the enemy, kill them. Detested pomp and strutting about. The perfect foil for Robert E. Lee, Grant would have been a brilliant commander in any era.


My grandfather was there when Lee surrendered to Grant. Here is his words directly from his diary...
"Uncle Billy was too busy down south burning his way toward us to take the sword from Lee so Dear Father rode in on his horse,looking tired, Unshaven,boots tinged with mud and blood he took Lee's sword then returned it. He told us men not to brag in our glory but to share in the pain of our fellow Americans ,who we were once again brothers too. We later ate the best popcorn and coffee we had ever had. It was then that I found the most incredible mushrooms. Johnny Reb taught me how to smoke it. It is to this that I owe my longevity. It was then too that I first raped my Captains ripe ass,all the way back to New York City. Good Times"
 
2012-11-19 03:33:03 PM  

DeathCipris: SnyderCat: DeathCipris: jshine: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

Its a bad idea for people with access to lots of classified information to have serious financial problems (makes them susceptible to bribery) or sexual/personal secrets -- e.g., affairs, or being deeply in-the-closet, etc. (makes them susceptible to blackmail). Ideally, people in those roles should have boring, drama-free lives.

That is correct. If you hold a clearance, especially higher level clearances, and your credit starts to go in the shiatter as an example; the feds will contact you. However, if you report what happened beforehand, they are pretty understanding. Petraeus is a man. He made a bad call and slept with someone other than his wife (who might I add was also cleared and in the service). Again, he wasn't trading sexual favors for secrets.
I am responding to the fact that this author in TFA is a self-righteous dickweed that thinks because his granpappy was a general, that he is somehow qualified to discuss "what makes a general great."

Military connections will not protect you from your own stupidity.

I speak from experience, hence 5 years of a hellish "marriage" that was more like a tour of duty.

Thank the Lord for Key.

I hear ya there! I learned my lesson from watching others, haha. I believe I will pass on getting married.
I love military strategy. Always have, even when I was a child (didn't have many friends if that wasn't apparent already). It is asshats like this damn author that really get me. He is dismissing all of his accomplishments because of a private relationship that was forced into the public eye. He calls for a resurgence in the old style of generalship. When in reality, Petraeus is MUCH closer to the brilliance present in the military greats that rose up during WWII. The author very clearly knows nothing and never bothered to research the issue.


Ya know, every guy finds the perfect woman who he will suffer for the rest of his life.
But seriously, marriage isn't for everyone. I love being married, but I know some guys just really prefer being single. In the military life, it takes a certain kindof woman to deal with that kind of danger.

I'm an assassin.

So it works out okay for us.
 
2012-11-19 03:38:55 PM  
I still say the people in Florida were involved in some Flag Officer Wife Swapping, esp. that Kelley babe. When Broadwell thought her favorite General my be banging that Mediterranean WHOOORRE, she snapped. I mean, think about it. This babe's given a wave-on to the base where a whole host of our spooky stuff goes on, has direct, personal access to the top-level commanders and her only qualifications are a posh house, great parties, and fabulous tits.

Fabulous, luscious tits with bountiful, dark wine-colored nipples. You can just bet. She's what, Lebanese? Oh baby, those babes, along with the Israeli and Jordanian babes have that SWEET bubble butt going on. Yes, please, sir, dip me in hummus and run your tongue around the rim. And a deep bowl of seaming, fragrant babaganoush on the side, if you will. Oh, my, General, so many ribbons! What's this one for? And this one? And this? My, you must be so strong to be able to carry those big packs. And your gun, can I touch it? It's so big, my it must be difficult to control. Maybe I could help...
 
2012-11-19 03:40:54 PM  
Bender The Offender
Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone
Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper

I didn't know the administrative of security clearances could negate the democratic process.

That said, couldn't the President retain his security access by means of Executive Order anyway, even if that access were challenged by some official?

Hence, the impeachment part you brought up earlier.

How can you claim impeachment is a security clearance nullifierevoker? It is an accusation, it is not a conviction. Impeachment has zero implication beyond making charges that have to be prosecuted. Clinton was acquited by the senate. His only conviction was for a civil charge of contempt. Please, explain what you're trying to prove by being so dramatically incorrect?


We were talking hypotheticals. I dont know where you got the idea that i said Clinton was impeached, that wasn't even close to what I said. I said he SHOULD have been impeached based on the fact that I believe the POTUS should be held to the same standards that the POTUS holds every other clearance holder with. I hold a clearance, if I commited adultery and lied about, I would have lost my job. So, when the president commits and adultery and lies about it, impeachemnt is how you remove him/her from the office. My point was that our civilian leadership should be held to the same standards that they hold us to. Nothing more, nothing less. I guess others feel different
 
2012-11-19 03:44:26 PM  
srtpointman Smartest
Funniest
2012-11-19 03:30:28 PM


"What's wrong with a general looking good?" you may wonder. I would propose that every moment a general spends on his uniform jacket is a moment he's not doing his job

He's a god damned four star general. Does this douchebag think that he does his own uniform? He's got a gaggle of privates doing that shiat for him.


When you are a 4-star, you have a gaggle of 1-stars and Colonels bringing you coffee and doing your laundry
 
2012-11-19 03:48:37 PM  

netcentric: Petraeus looks like a CPA or someone who does your taxes on the side. He's a wussbag.


Here's the thing about that. FIGHTING a war is about bustin' caps and stabbing fools. MANAGING a war, the job of generals, is about logistics and management. He should look like an MBA because knowing how to manage an army and understanding the needs and roles of the various stakeholders is his gig. He doesn't need to napalm a guy or stab him in the face: he has air force Captains and Army SP4s for that kind of thing.
 
2012-11-19 03:50:26 PM  

Gdalescrboz: Bender The Offender
Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone
Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper

I didn't know the administrative of security clearances could negate the democratic process.

That said, couldn't the President retain his security access by means of Executive Order anyway, even if that access were challenged by some official?

Hence, the impeachment part you brought up earlier.

How can you claim impeachment is a security clearance nullifierevoker? It is an accusation, it is not a conviction. Impeachment has zero implication beyond making charges that have to be prosecuted. Clinton was acquited by the senate. His only conviction was for a civil charge of contempt. Please, explain what you're trying to prove by being so dramatically incorrect?

We were talking hypotheticals. I dont know where you got the idea that i said Clinton was impeached, that wasn't even close to what I said. I said he SHOULD have been impeached based on the fact that I believe the POTUS should be held to the same standards that the POTUS holds every other clearance holder with. I hold a clearance, if I commited adultery and lied about, I would have lost my job. So, when the president commits and adultery and lies about it, impeachemnt is how you remove him/her from the office. My point was that our civilian leadership should be held to the same standards that they hold us to. Nothing more, nothing less. I guess others feel different


He was specifically found "not guilty" of lying about the adultery (at least as far as lying to a grand jury was the charge). Impeachment does not remove a president from office. It does nothing but formally lay out criminal accusations. Conviction does not even remove the president from office (Nixon was convicted but resigned). I don't think you have a very solid grasp of what impeachment actually means. Don't be offended, read a bit and get a better understanding.
 
2012-11-19 03:58:18 PM  
wh40k.lexicanum.com


Amateurs.
 
2012-11-19 03:58:54 PM  

Gdalescrboz: srtpointman Smartest
Funniest
2012-11-19 03:30:28 PM


"What's wrong with a general looking good?" you may wonder. I would propose that every moment a general spends on his uniform jacket is a moment he's not doing his job

He's a god damned four star general. Does this douchebag think that he does his own uniform? He's got a gaggle of privates doing that shiat for him.

When you are a 4-star, you have a gaggle of 1-stars and Colonels bringing you coffee and doing your laundry


FTFY
 
2012-11-19 04:00:25 PM  

fireclown: netcentric: Petraeus looks like a CPA or someone who does your taxes on the side. He's a wussbag.

Here's the thing about that. FIGHTING a war is about bustin' caps and stabbing fools. MANAGING a war, the job of generals, is about logistics and management. He should look like an MBA because knowing how to manage an army and understanding the needs and roles of the various stakeholders is his gig. He doesn't need to napalm a guy or stab him in the face: he has air force Captains and Army SP4s for that kind of thing.



Ohhhhhh....so he is supposed to be a pasty, Perrier sipping twatwaffler on purpose?
See I was thinking guys like that were Quartermasters and in the Logistics core.
Well, then I stand corrected.
The US needs to recruit more skirt chasing Perrier sipping, CPA's.
Who drift through dinner parties, exclusive resorts, have butlers and such. They sit at conference tables and ask what wine is served with lunch.

And then you have Generals, who are also theater commanders, like Tal Russo.


I'll tell you which one I would like to serve with....
 
2012-11-19 04:02:42 PM  
Bender The Offender Gdalescrboz: Bender The Offender
Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone
Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper

I didn't know the administrative of security clearances could negate the democratic process.

That said, couldn't the President retain his security access by means of Executive Order anyway, even if that access were challenged by some official?

Hence, the impeachment part you brought up earlier.

How can you claim impeachment is a security clearance nullifierevoker? It is an accusation, it is not a conviction. Impeachment has zero implication beyond making charges that have to be prosecuted. Clinton was acquited by the senate. His only conviction was for a civil charge of contempt. Please, explain what you're trying to prove by being so dramatically incorrect?

We were talking hypotheticals. I dont know where you got the idea that i said Clinton was impeached, that wasn't even close to what I said. I said he SHOULD have been impeached based on the fact that I believe the POTUS should be held to the same standards that the POTUS holds every other clearance holder with. I hold a clearance, if I commited adultery and lied about, I would have lost my job. So, when the president commits and adultery and lies about it, impeachemnt is how you remove him/her from the office. My point was that our civilian leadership should be held to the same standards that they hold us to. Nothing more, nothing less. I guess others feel different

He was specifically found "not guilty" of lying about the adultery (at least as far as lying to a grand jury was the charge). Impeachment does not remove a president from office. It does nothing but formally lay out criminal accusations. Conviction does not even remove the president from office (Nixon was convicted but resigned). I don't think you have a very solid grasp of what impeachment actually means. Don't be offended, read a bit and get a better understanding.


Here's the problem. You are telling me what happened, while I'm saying what should have happened. I know he was found "not-guilty." But let's be real, the dude was lying. However, for arguments sake, let's say he wasn't lying. He still committed adultery. On that fact alone, if you are holding him to the same standard that everyone else with a clearance is held to, he should have been impeached. Again, in no way am I saying that he was impeached, I even said in my previous post "I dont know where you got the idea that i said Clinton was impeached, that wasn't even close to what I said." My argument is that he should have been. Additionally, I don't even know why I'm talking about Clinton. Gallant derailed me. Anyways, everything you are saying is correct, we are just debating two different angles
 
2012-11-19 04:05:29 PM  

Red Shirt Blues: No, it was well planned. And he pretty much leveled Japan. He took over a program that was not getting results using the most expensive weapon system of WWII (yes, more expensive than the A-bomb) the B-29, switched tactics and got the desired results.


Indiscriminate probably is the wrong word. I just mean he wasn't concerned with what he was burning down, just that things were being blown up/burned down as efficiently as possible.

His later actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis cemented his status in the psychotic-bloodlust category being referenced by the headline. If LeMay hadn't been overruled by Kennedy, life as we know it would be very, very different.
 
2012-11-19 04:11:16 PM  

Slaxl: we need Generals that are psychotic in their drive to kill enemy soldiers and subjugate enemy nations

...and hear the lamentation of their women?


Came for this.
 
2012-11-19 04:27:39 PM  

olddinosaur: Hogwash.

Petraeus did the best job he could have done in Afghanistan, given what he had to work with.

If he rememvbers military history, he knows no one has ever taken that nation.

No one.

Not the Soviets, not the British, not even Alexander the Great.


Mullah Omar managed to "[take] the nation."

And Patraeus is no McChrystal. I know. I served under McChrystal. Although Stan wasn't all that either, getting relieved for an article in Rolling Stone. Perhaps that was his plan to get out of a no-win situation, but if he couldn't win it then how great was he in the first place?

Ultimately though, I have no idea what generals do. However, I do know that they take forever to do simple paperwork requiring their signatures or approvals, to do things as simple as approve awards or buy building materials. Don't get me started on requests for air support...
 
2012-11-19 04:39:14 PM  

fireclown: netcentric: Petraeus looks like a CPA or someone who does your taxes on the side. He's a wussbag.

Here's the thing about that. FIGHTING a war is about bustin' caps and stabbing fools. MANAGING a war, the job of generals, is about logistics and management. He should look like an MBA because knowing how to manage an army and understanding the needs and roles of the various stakeholders is his gig. He doesn't need to napalm a guy or stab him in the face: he has air force Captains and Army SP4s for that kind of thing.


It doesn't take a commander to manage things. That's what staff officers are for. Commanders need to have vision and make decisions. They need to be leaders, not managers. In civilian terms, the owner, not the foreman.
/I can get doctrinal if you really want me to.
//AR 600-100 is a good place to start reading.
 
2012-11-19 04:42:49 PM  

netcentric: fireclown: netcentric: Petraeus looks like a CPA or someone who does your taxes on the side. He's a wussbag.

Here's the thing about that. FIGHTING a war is about bustin' caps and stabbing fools. MANAGING a war, the job of generals, is about logistics and management. He should look like an MBA because knowing how to manage an army and understanding the needs and roles of the various stakeholders is his gig. He doesn't need to napalm a guy or stab him in the face: he has air force Captains and Army SP4s for that kind of thing.


Ohhhhhh....so he is supposed to be a pasty, Perrier sipping twatwaffler on purpose?
See I was thinking guys like that were Quartermasters and in the Logistics core.
Well, then I stand corrected.
The US needs to recruit more skirt chasing Perrier sipping, CPA's.
Who drift through dinner parties, exclusive resorts, have butlers and such. They sit at conference tables and ask what wine is served with lunch.

And then you have Generals, who are also theater commanders, like Tal Russo.


I'll tell you which one I would like to serve with....


Tal Russo's got an MBA.
 
2012-11-19 05:02:24 PM  
Smedley Butler was our greatest general next to Washington.
 
2012-11-19 05:13:30 PM  
Grant would win our modern wars while downing at least a bottle of whiskey every single day.
 
2012-11-19 05:15:49 PM  

Gdalescrboz: Bender The Offender Gdalescrboz: Bender The Offender
Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone Gdalescrboz: The_Gallant_Gallstone
Gdalescrboz:
Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper

I didn't know the administrative of security clearances could negate the democratic process.

That said, couldn't the President retain his security access by means of Executive Order anyway, even if that access were challenged by some official?

Hence, the impeachment part you brought up earlier.

How can you claim impeachment is a security clearance nullifierevoker? It is an accusation, it is not a conviction. Impeachment has zero implication beyond making charges that have to be prosecuted. Clinton was acquited by the senate. His only conviction was for a civil charge of contempt. Please, explain what you're trying to prove by being so dramatically incorrect?

We were talking hypotheticals. I dont know where you got the idea that i said Clinton was impeached, that wasn't even close to what I said. I said he SHOULD have been impeached based on the fact that I believe the POTUS should be held to the same standards that the POTUS holds every other clearance holder with. I hold a clearance, if I commited adultery and lied about, I would have lost my job. So, when the president commits and adultery and lies about it, impeachemnt is how you remove him/her from the office. My point was that our civilian leadership should be held to the same standards that they hold us to. Nothing more, nothing less. I guess others feel different

He was specifically found "not guilty" of lying about the adultery (at least as far as lying to a grand jury was the charge). Impeachment does not remove a president from office. It does nothing but formally lay out criminal accusations. Conviction does not even remove the president from office (Nixon was convicted but resigned). I don't think you have a very solid grasp of what impeachment actually means. Don't be offended, read a bit and get a better understanding.

Here's the problem. You are telling me what happened, while I'm saying what should have happened. I know he was found "not-guilty." But let's be real, the dude was lying. However, for arguments sake, let's say he wasn't lying. He still committed adultery. On that fact alone, if you are holding him to the same standard that everyone else with a clearance is held to, he should have been impeached. Again, in no way am I saying that he was impeached, I even said in my previous post "I dont know where you got the idea that i said Clinton was impeached, that wasn't even close to what I said." My argument is that he should have been. Additionally, I don't even know why I'm talking about Clinton. Gallant derailed me. Anyways, everything you are saying is correct, we are just debating two different angles


Fair enough, I see where I got hung up on the impeachment thing. Sorry bout that.
 
2012-11-19 05:22:05 PM  
I thought the author was kind of cool when I read that one of his novels is "Dress Gay."


Then I realized it was "Dress Gray" and is standard military jerk-off material. If only there were some grizzled leader with a strong jaw to show those bureaucrats what things are all about. Like tanks. And Weapons systems. And guns that shoot around corners. I'll be in my bunk.
 
2012-11-19 05:29:59 PM  
I'll see your Tal Russo, and raise you one Col. Lewis Millet

i94.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-19 05:35:12 PM  

DeathCipris: SnyderCat: DeathCipris: jshine: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

Its a bad idea for people with access to lots of classified information to have serious financial problems (makes them susceptible to bribery) or sexual/personal secrets -- e.g., affairs, or being deeply in-the-closet, etc. (makes them susceptible to blackmail). Ideally, people in those roles should have boring, drama-free lives.

That is correct. If you hold a clearance, especially higher level clearances, and your credit starts to go in the shiatter as an example; the feds will contact you. However, if you report what happened beforehand, they are pretty understanding. Petraeus is a man. He made a bad call and slept with someone other than his wife (who might I add was also cleared and in the service). Again, he wasn't trading sexual favors for secrets.
I am responding to the fact that this author in TFA is a self-righteous dickweed that thinks because his granpappy was a general, that he is somehow qualified to discuss "what makes a general great."

Military connections will not protect you from your own stupidity.

I speak from experience, hence 5 years of a hellish "marriage" that was more like a tour of duty.

Thank the Lord for Key.

I hear ya there! I learned my lesson from watching others, haha. I believe I will pass on getting married.
I love military strategy. Always have, even when I was a child (didn't have many friends if that wasn't apparent already). It is asshats like this damn author that really get me. He is dismissing all of his accomplishments because of a private relationship that was forced into the public eye. He calls for a resurgence in the old style of generalship. When in reality, Petraeus is MUCH closer to the brilliance present in the military greats that rose up during WWII. The author very clearly knows nothing and never bothered to research the issue.


And a lot of credit for those WWII generals becoming Generals belongs to George C. Marshall, who hand-picked 90% of them to make general-officer grade before the war started in earnest in Europe (in 1937 Eisenhower was a Major, and, barring the war, probably would have ended up retiring a Colonel by 1945, if he was lucky, and the same goes for Patton, Bradley, Mark Clark, and a bunch of others, not to mention MacArthur would have stayed in retirement as a General in the US Army while serving as Chief of Staff of the Philippine Army with the permission of the US Army and US Congress).
 
2012-11-19 05:38:29 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: I still say the people in Florida were involved in some Flag Officer Wife Swapping, esp. that Kelley babe. When Broadwell thought her favorite General my be banging that Mediterranean WHOOORRE, she snapped. I mean, think about it. This babe's given a wave-on to the base where a whole host of our spooky stuff goes on, has direct, personal access to the top-level commanders and her only qualifications are a posh house, great parties, and fabulous tits.

Fabulous, luscious tits with bountiful, dark wine-colored nipples. You can just bet. She's what, Lebanese? Oh baby, those babes, along with the Israeli and Jordanian babes have that SWEET bubble butt going on. Yes, please, sir, dip me in hummus and run your tongue around the rim. And a deep bowl of seaming, fragrant babaganoush on the side, if you will. Oh, my, General, so many ribbons! What's this one for? And this one? And this? My, you must be so strong to be able to carry those big packs. And your gun, can I touch it? It's so big, my it must be difficult to control. Maybe I could help...


I may need a couple helpful pictures of what said women may look like.
 
2012-11-19 05:39:42 PM  

flynn80: Smedley Butler was our greatest general next to Washington.


Worth a download: Google "Smedley Butler War Is A Racket," and hear what a man has to say when he has been there and done that, better than you can imagine.

Just humor an old fart, it is worth two minutes of your time.
 
2012-11-19 06:00:56 PM  

unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


If his wife can't trust him, why should we?
 
2012-11-19 06:02:37 PM  
Most of the interesting figures that pop up throughout history were philandering generals. Caesar slept with half the Senators' wives and conquered Gaul. Genghis Khan conquered most of Asia and is the ancestor of 0.5% of humanity. Petraeus salvaged Iraq to a point where we had a semblance of victory, so, really, this should be a freebie for him. Hundreds of years from now, students will complain about having to learn about our time period because we have become so boring and straight-laced.
 
2012-11-19 06:24:15 PM  

probesport: I wanna, I wanna kill.

Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth


Came here for this.
 
2012-11-19 06:38:32 PM  

relcec: DeathCipris: relcec: I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA.  But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part.  I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians.  The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.

His mistress is also in the service...and she was writing a damn biography on him. I am sure she was cleared.

his argument is people who can't avoid temptation and have affairs can't be trusted with secret government information.
it's the one of the most ludicrous arguments ever shiatted upon these pages.


If a man can't be trusted to keep his marriage vows, how can we expect him to keep his secrecy oaths?
 
2012-11-19 06:52:51 PM  

tshauk: Col. Lewis Millet


A CMH is good, as a Capt. or later a Colonel....he just doesn't have to command a whole theater of operations. Like an Omar Bradley, George Meade or Grant etc...

You have to compare leaders to leaders.

Like "hey we picked Petraeus because he knows a good California Chardonney and is good with Excel Spread Sheets"

And then maybe bounce that against Gen. Tom Jackson. You know, "The time for war has not yet come, but it will come, and that soon; and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard."

See, a balance of restraint, intelligent and wise....but ready to go all out when called upon.
 
2012-11-19 06:54:58 PM  
Employees of CIA must report "close continuing contacts" to CIA. Failure to do that is cause for termination.

That's it, end of story. Everything else is just window dressing.
 
2012-11-19 06:55:05 PM  
I was done reading as soon as I realized the author thinks generals take care of their own uniforms.
 
2012-11-19 07:02:59 PM  
not a phony hero, not a phony war.
 
2012-11-19 07:06:45 PM  
 
2012-11-19 07:22:31 PM  

swangoatman: hdhale: RexTalionis: [i1212.photobucket.com image 500x693]

I'll see your Sherman and raise you a Grant:

[faculty.css.edu image 247x253]

No bullshiat--grab the enemy, kill them. Detested pomp and strutting about. The perfect foil for Robert E. Lee, Grant would have been a brilliant commander in any era.

My grandfather was there when Lee surrendered to Grant. Here is his words directly from his diary...
"Uncle Billy was too busy down south burning his way toward us to take the sword from Lee so Dear Father rode in on his horse,looking tired, Unshaven,boots tinged with mud and blood he took Lee's sword then returned it. He told us men not to brag in our glory but to share in the pain of our fellow Americans ,who we were once again brothers too. We later ate the best popcorn and coffee we had ever had. It was then that I found the most incredible mushrooms. Johnny Reb taught me how to smoke it. It is to this that I owe my longevity. It was then too that I first raped my Captains ripe ass,all the way back to New York City. Good Times"


Hello, newly favorited poster.
 
2012-11-19 07:35:41 PM  

tshauk: Col. Lewis Millet


Thank you for that, a true hero
 
2012-11-19 07:35:42 PM  
This whiny fark is Lucian Truscott's grandson? Jeezus tapdancing Christ...
 
2012-11-19 07:56:09 PM  
LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV, read his Grand Father's wiki. Look for Grad Kid wiki and fell flat. Another arm chair wanna be. Col. Lewis Millet, farkin balls of steal. Nothing wrong with a psychotic. As long as he's pointed toward the enemy.
 
2012-11-19 07:59:30 PM  

One Bad Apple: Slaxl: we need Generals that are psychotic in their drive to kill enemy soldiers and subjugate enemy nations

...and hear the lamentation of their women?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 530x340]


I'm pretty sure that's "Peel the lamination off the women"


You are all wrong, it is...
"and make love to the woman who cleans your laminate"
 
2012-11-19 08:18:54 PM  
We really can't fight wars like we did in the olde days
Too many media types now running around on the battlefield releasing uncensored material.
 
2012-11-19 08:42:10 PM  

unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.


Because that is the level, like it or not, that the average 'Merican functions on. It's easy to understand.


www.planet-familyguy.com
 
2012-11-19 08:43:52 PM  

netcentric: Petraeus looks like a CPA or someone who does your taxes on the side. He's a wussbag.
Dinner party General

Now this guy, he'll shoot you with a tank round, then run your body over. Then stop and get out and stab your flat corpse. Then radio the Airforce to napalm the area once he is clear.

[farm9.staticflickr.com image 500x333] 


/Tal Russo
//doesn't do dinner parties
///you farked with our consulate?
////update your status from 'hide' to 'run'


The General you're looking for is James Mattis, aka the current reincarnation of Mars the War God. "I come in peace," he told them. "I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fark with me, I'll kill you all."

Link
Link
 
2012-11-19 09:14:25 PM  
General Failure reading drive CIA.
 
2012-11-19 09:28:41 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: We need a general who walks into the psychiatrist's office and says "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL."


Apparently, you can find all the generals you need dumping garbage.
 
2012-11-19 09:45:09 PM  
Ugh. That rant was painfully stupid.
 
2012-11-19 10:17:23 PM  

Tumunga: AssAsInAssassin: We need a general who walks into the psychiatrist's office and says "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL."

Apparently, you can find all the generals you need dumping garbage.



Well, the alternative, according to TFOP's author, is to look around for meanest, nastiest, ugliest mother-rapers and father-stabbers...


/"The Farking Opinion Piece" 
//I love the moron's deep insult: "General Petraeus probably flosses."
///"Owal hyzhiene? Dat stubff is*whistle* faw pussies*whistle*!"
 
2012-11-19 11:08:14 PM  

Fissile: The War Nerd explains why Lucian Truscott IV is full of shiat Long, but a good read.


Thanks for posting that.
 
2012-11-19 11:23:03 PM  
So he knocks generals who work on their uniforms, and likes Patton, who was basically Mr. Designs-his-own-uniforms...
 
2012-11-19 11:43:01 PM  

swangoatman: hdhale: RexTalionis: [i1212.photobucket.com image 500x693]

I'll see your Sherman and raise you a Grant:

[faculty.css.edu image 247x253]

No bullshiat--grab the enemy, kill them. Detested pomp and strutting about. The perfect foil for Robert E. Lee, Grant would have been a brilliant commander in any era.

My grandfather was there when Lee surrendered to Grant. Here is his words directly from his diary...
"Uncle Billy was too busy down south burning his way toward us to take the sword from Lee so Dear Father rode in on his horse,looking tired, Unshaven,boots tinged with mud and blood he took Lee's sword then returned it. He told us men not to brag in our glory but to share in the pain of our fellow Americans ,who we were once again brothers too. We later ate the best popcorn and coffee we had ever had. It was then that I found the most incredible mushrooms. Johnny Reb taught me how to smoke it. It is to this that I owe my longevity. It was then too that I first raped my Captains ripe ass,all the way back to New York City. Good Times"


I thought Grant was a drunk and had one of the most corrupt presidential administrations we've had. Hmph, shows what I learned in class.
 
2012-11-20 12:20:42 AM  

JackieRabbit: Right in the first paragraph, I started thinking this guy didn't know what he was talking about. I think we can safely say that our first strutting peacock of a general was probably Geo. A. Custer. Then came Teddy Roosevelt and I'm sure many others in between.


Or Washington. Our strutters go way back.
 
2012-11-20 12:35:18 AM  
Never mind.
 
2012-11-20 12:58:22 AM  

ADHD Librarian: One Bad Apple: Slaxl: we need Generals that are psychotic in their drive to kill enemy soldiers and subjugate enemy nations

...and hear the lamentation of their women?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 530x340]


I'm pretty sure that's "Peel the lamination off the women"

You are all wrong, it is...
"and make love to the woman who cleans your laminate"


Nicely done.
 
2012-11-20 01:18:59 AM  

AccuJack: [wh40k.lexicanum.com image 644x599]


Amateurs.



"My penis is a wolf head
Your argument is invalid"?

/achoo
 
2012-11-20 02:44:50 AM  

DeathCipris: mbillips: Well, if there's anyone whose opinion I respect on what makes a good general, it's journalist and author Lucian K. Truscott IV. I mean, his granddaddy was a successful general. That kind of thing is genetic.

I hope he'll do a column soon on how HE would have won the Iraq war way faster than that preening wanker Petraeus.

This Lucian guy is a douche of the highest caliber, who if pressed, knows nothing in the field of strategy and waging war.


It's pretty obvious he knows nothing about the difference between fighting WWII and fighting an asymmetrical war like Petraeus had to fight in Afghanistan. I'd like to see his suggestion for storming the beaches of a nation that lacks them, or island-hopping across the Tigris-Euphrates river under a hail of RPG fire.
 
2012-11-20 04:21:33 AM  
I'm sure by now this has become a pretty healthy Pile on Lucian thread, but I'll throw my hat in the ring anyway...

1. I have to start by saying I don't understand his obsession with how US generals dress. Lucian Truscott IV Jr. Sr. Esq. Abridged seems to have confused our current military for the Confederate army, circa 1864, when it was acceptable to wear what amounted to rags (albeit for a different reason than fashions sake). If spending inordinate amounts of time shining medals and measuring the distance between ribbons qualifies Petraeus as a preening, pompous ass, then I've got to say my primary MOS may have been Infantry, but my secondary MOS (along with everyone else in my company, at least) was Preening, Pompous Ass.
I don't know what distorted lens Lord Truscott is looking through when he meatgazes at the military, but he's obviously not seeing the part where everyone is required to spend time and make their uniforms look immaculate. We had formations every so often where all we did was get our Class A's perfect and then show them off to our company commander. That's it. No other purpose than to look pretty. And when I came down with a jacket with a couple improper creases? Guess what, Lord Truscott, I spent the rest of the afternoon running water cans to the end of a field, dumping them out into the dirt, crawling back through the mud, then filling up the water can and doing it again. All. Afternoon. Long. If your reason for hating on Petraeus is because his Class A's look spectacular, you've got to widen that hate to include a whole lot more than the good general.

2. Reading through (and maybe I missed something), it appears that Lord Triscuits experience with Petraeus amounts to "part of the fall of 2003," one interview (afaik), and probably several photo-ops that Truscott viewed online wherein Petraeus was actually taking care to look good which cemented the idea in Truscott's mind that Petraeus was a human peacock. I can't claim any personal encounters with Petraeus. I've only been in the same room as him once (under less than favorable conditions), but some of my superiors had the chance to meet him, and they had nothing but praise. I believe that is the ultimate distinction for a leader, and what Viscount Truscott fails to grasp in his article is if the opinion of the men who serve under a military leader is extraordinarily high, then that leader can't really have failed too hard to do what he's supposed to do; lead.
Truscott makes the incredibly broad claim that there haven't been any good, non-showboating generals since the last "real" general who just happens to be his grandfather (what an odd coincidence). He points out three or four big name four-star generals since WWII, and this is somehow supposed to prove that the additional 160-odd four-star generals in the Army since 1945 were also pieces of shiat. Unless this guy is the ultimate war biographer, and has researched every last general on that list, if even ONE of them was a good, stand-up combat leader (and I'm willing to bet he overlooked more than a few), then he has done a massive disservice to not only every last general, but all the men who served under their command (there are a couple officers I know personally whose honor I would physically fight for if someone made the claims about them that Truscott is making about Petraeus).
Like I said, my experience with Petraeus is limited, but from what I can tell, so is Baron Truscott and his one interview and month long Iraq visit. I will say this. When I was in Iraq at the same time as Petraeus, and we felt constrained and hampered by extremely restrictive ROEs (which I'm sure Petraeus had a hand in), we weren't appreciating the whole counter-insurgency system. We wanted to fight, and the rules weren't letting us. However, when the peace was shattered about six months in, and Baghdad went farking bananas, Petraeus was down to drop the motherfarking hammer. It's due to Petraeus, in his non-tack spitting glory, that the ROE was lifted (not loosened, but entirely erased) and we were let off the leash to fight unrestricted, kinetic warfare the way we had been trained. It's due to that change in policy that I most likely owe my life. Pretty good for a pompous school-boy of a general.

3. I won't harp on it for long, because it's late and I'm tie-tie, and I'm sure most other people here have hit the nail on the head more than once, but claiming that there haven't been any "real" wars since WWII, and that somehow Iraq/Afghanistan are phony or fake is the final nail in the coffin for Duke Truscotts op-ed. True, we didn't go to Iraq or Afghanistan solely to fark shiat up, but it really takes someone whose never been in either place, and was never in any danger of going, to cast aspersions on the conflict and claim that all the combat that has gone on in either place (and there is a LOT of it that isn't seen on CNN) doesn't count, and doesn't make it a "real" war. Any time there's sustained combat, it's a war, your highnessness. Just because there's no Lord Truscott fighting this one (as the current Lord Truscott prefers to critique the uniforms of the warlike plebs rather than endure the inconveniences of warfare such as occasional danger and consorting with the riff-raff and ruffians of the armed forces), doesn't mean combat is now less lethal, less damaging, or less dangerous than any other "actual war" in human history.
 
2012-11-20 07:43:56 AM  
In a 'civilized' society, the preening peacock will always be the favorite, in any job. It's how civilization collapse and make way for new civilizations. It's their 'death gene'.

As for the rest of the article, the guy put in his time and made some good decisions and probably saved a lot of American lives. Also, our goal was not to conquer Iraq, it was to avenge an imagined slight to an insane puppet president's father... and to make Blackwater fat with taxpayer dollars. That ALL it was about and it's not the military's fault.

There is nothing the Right seems to hate more than a real war hero. I guess because so many leader on the Right were draft dodgers.
 
2012-11-20 06:54:04 PM  

Tuskan_Roeder: [point-by-point]


i.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.com
 
Displayed 170 of 170 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report