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

...and hear the lamentation of their women?

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

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



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.

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.

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

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


Amateurs.


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

/achoo

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.

Smedley Butler was our greatest general next to Washington.

Amateurs.

"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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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

So, Holden Caulfield changed his name to Lucian K. Truscott IV?

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.

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.

Ain't laughing

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.

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.