Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House > Terrorists: Have we fought such an enemy before?

View Poll Results: What General from the past would do the best job of fighting the W.O.T,?
General Eisenhower 0 0%
General Sherman 1 4.17%
General MacArthur 1 4.17%
General Grant 0 0%
General Patton 12 50.00%
General Custer 1 4.17%
General Washington 1 4.17%
General Lee 1 4.17%
General 'Stonewall' Jackson 0 0%
Other choice-I will post, giving my reason for choosing. 7 29.17%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-22-2009, 07:24 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
markerdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Desert Southwest,Nevada
Posts: 381
Default

Gen. Blackjack Pershing gets my vote. He knew how to handle the insurection on Mindanao. Pigskin and entrails work wonders on terrorists ..........markerdown

__________________

USAF, Retired .. "From My Cold Dead Hands!"

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." ........ Edward R. Murrow

markerdown is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 07:26 PM   #12
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
c3shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Third bunker on the right,Central Virginia
Posts: 16,311
Liked 8375 Times on 3624 Posts
Likes Given: 1288

Default

Another vote for Gen. Pershing- or a lowly Major named John Singleton Mosby.

__________________

What we have heah is.... failure to communicate.

c3shooter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 07:26 PM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
skullcrusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ohio,Ohio
Posts: 10,949
Liked 17 Times on 12 Posts

Default

I honestly believe that the Generals we have now would do a great job if Congress did not handcuff them. Keep the politicians out of the workings and unleash the beast. It makes me sick when any elected official gets in the way of the military doing their job.

Plus, Lee is out. He lost.

__________________

From C3Shooter:
Skullcrusher, you are evil, sick, demented, twisted- and my hero!


Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonium View Post
...without the Second, we cannot protect the rest!
skullcrusher is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 07:36 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I see you, and you will not know when I will strike
Posts: 24,301
Liked 3474 Times on 1607 Posts
Likes Given: 3590

Default

Yeah, it's clear. But you asked this:

Quote:
What General from the past would do the best job of fighting the W.O.T,?
Then you gave me the option of choosing someone else - which I did.

Now, if you want to get down to brass tacks, let us do so.

The War on Terror is one that can not be fought under conventional terms. That leaves out your conventional military tactics and conventional use of armor, planes, airstrikes and hard weapons like your navy sitting off shore and raining shells into a city all night before the troops move in.

There is no formal enemy, there is no formal flag, there is no formal costume or insignia.

You have a belief system that is driving a populace to fight what they perceive as a great devil.

"Hearts and Minds" and in noway a disservice to men like Jack and his brothers in paint, is not going to work with these people. They use fear, intimidation, assault, rape, murder and torture on their own people.

What do you think they would do to their God Chosen Enemy?

Generals like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee would be so far in over their heads with such a war, they would get annihilated with the swiftness.

You think burning a few farms, taking a few prisioners & parking cannons out in front of the lines is going to intimidate this foe? Not likely.

This same group outlasted the Russian Red Army for what, a dozen years? This isn't a hit and git battle. This is a campaign.

Custer, at least, wasn't afraid of Collateral Damage - but that guy was so enamored with his own legacy that he was, for intensive purposes, driven to achieve inspite of common sense. You can cross him off the list.

Then you get into the more modern Generals. They all fought hard, they all fought well, but you take a look at some of the real events that took place on their watch that would be what it would take to defeat this kind of opponent ( Taejon Prison, Chosin Reservior, Taegu Executions, My Lai, Tiger Force Resume', and The Phoenix Program ) and you will find MASSIVE public outcry that the soldiers were not fighting an "American Fight".

Generals overseeing those units quickly backstepped any knowledge or involvement. These "lone groups of soldiers" were described as "desperate" or "not well led" or "inexperienced" or "rogue". But, they got results - and they made an impact.

You want a list of generals that could make the kind of impact it would take to break such a foe? You need a general that is not afraid of collateral damage, not afraid of public opinion, and not afraid to fight the enemy on their own terms.

You need to be discussing the likes of: Julius Caeser, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, rulers that made decisions based on conquering, not on placating.

You want recent evidence of this type of warlord?

Read about Pol Pot. Read about Charles Taylor of Liberia. Read about Mohammed Farah Aidid ( he should be familiar, he was the source of the raid that launched Black Hawk Down ).

These people were warlords. They were dispicable, evil, cruel, unfeeling, sociopaths that ruled with the sword and placated to no one. They also got results that others have not. They had the peace of fear in the areas under their command. They did not exhibit weakness, nor did they allow themselves to be challenged.

To beat this enemy, to truly beat them, someone has to have the balls to take the leash off of the US troops, bar the cameras and the news reporters and let them conduct a war on the same level as the aggressors.

That will never happen - and inserting one General into the mix, with today's troops won't change that either.

It's not that today's troops lack the ability to win this war once and for all, it's that today's soldiers lack the backing that is necessary to fight the enemy in the same type of combat.

JD
__________________
Dillinger is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 07:37 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I see you, and you will not know when I will strike
Posts: 24,301
Liked 3474 Times on 1607 Posts
Likes Given: 3590

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markerdown View Post
Gen. Blackjack Pershing gets my vote. He knew how to handle the insurection on Mindanao. Pigskin and entrails work wonders on terrorists ..........markerdown
That was proven to be false bro. But it's a great story.

JD
__________________
Dillinger is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 07:50 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
skullcrusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ohio,Ohio
Posts: 10,949
Liked 17 Times on 12 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dillinger View Post
Yeah, it's clear. But you asked this:



Then you gave me the option of choosing someone else - which I did.

Now, if you want to get down to brass tacks, let us do so.

The War on Terror is one that can not be fought under conventional terms. That leaves out your conventional military tactics and conventional use of armor, planes, airstrikes and hard weapons like your navy sitting off shore and raining shells into a city all night before the troops move in.

There is no formal enemy, there is no formal flag, there is no formal costume or insignia.

You have a belief system that is driving a populace to fight what they perceive as a great devil.

"Hearts and Minds" and in noway a disservice to men like Jack and his brothers in paint, is not going to work with these people. They use fear, intimidation, assault, rape, murder and torture on their own people.

What do you think they would do to their God Chosen Enemy?

Generals like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee would be so far in over their heads with such a war, they would get annihilated with the swiftness.

You think burning a few farms, taking a few prisioners & parking cannons out in front of the lines is going to intimidate this foe? Not likely.

This same group outlasted the Russian Red Army for what, a dozen years? This isn't a hit and git battle. This is a campaign.

Custer, at least, wasn't afraid of Collateral Damage - but that guy was so enamored with his own legacy that he was, for intensive purposes, driven to achieve inspite of common sense. You can cross him off the list.

Then you get into the more modern Generals. They all fought hard, they all fought well, but you take a look at some of the real events that took place on their watch that would be what it would take to defeat this kind of opponent ( Taejon Prison, Chosin Reservior, Taegu Executions, My Lai, Tiger Force Resume', and The Phoenix Program ) and you will find MASSIVE public outcry that the soldiers were not fighting an "American Fight".

Generals overseeing those units quickly backstepped any knowledge or involvement. These "lone groups of soldiers" were described as "desperate" or "not well led" or "inexperienced" or "rogue". But, they got results - and they made an impact.

You want a list of generals that could make the kind of impact it would take to break such a foe? You need a general that is not afraid of collateral damage, not afraid of public opinion, and not afraid to fight the enemy on their own terms.

You need to be discussing the likes of: Julius Caeser, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, rulers that made decisions based on conquering, not on placating.

You want recent evidence of this type of warlord?

Read about Pol Pot. Read about Charles Taylor of Liberia. Read about Mohammed Farah Aidid ( he should be familiar, he was the source of the raid that launched Black Hawk Down ).

These people were warlords. They were dispicable, evil, cruel, unfeeling, sociopaths that ruled with the sword and placated to no one. They also got results that others have not. They had the peace of fear in the areas under their command. They did not exhibit weakness, nor did they allow themselves to be challenged.

To beat this enemy, to truly beat them, someone has to have the balls to take the leash off of the US troops, bar the cameras and the news reporters and let them conduct a war on the same level as the aggressors.

That will never happen - and inserting one General into the mix, with today's troops won't change that either.

It's not that today's troops lack the ability to win this war once and for all, it's that today's soldiers lack the backing that is necessary to fight the enemy in the same type of combat.

JD
Very well said, JD. For our soldiers to have to think about which weapon they can and can't use to engage a charging extremist who is weilding a knife is just plain stupid. That soldier manning the .50 cal machine should be able to send a few into that islamic extremist without concern for his standing in the military. Seriously, what's the point of having superior firepower if it could land the soldier in the stockade and be scrutinized by Congress?

As I said earlier, UNLEASH THE BEAST. Let our well trained soldiers do what they do best, and it could be over quickly, imo.
__________________

From C3Shooter:
Skullcrusher, you are evil, sick, demented, twisted- and my hero!


Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonium View Post
...without the Second, we cannot protect the rest!
skullcrusher is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 08:09 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
markerdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Desert Southwest,Nevada
Posts: 381
Default

It was publicised as being false, but there is some truth to the story. In 1939 the US made an uneasy truce with the moro insurgents on mindanao, and needed them as allies agains the spread of japanese imperialism. The actions of the phillipine gov and the US leading up the phillipine independence was swept aside with war looming.

The prolbem still exist today on the southern phillipine islands as well as southern thailand. The issue is nobody has the guts to use Blackjacks "supposed " methods to deal with the issue of islamic terorists.

The world has gotten too sensitive or civilized to resort to such "barbaric" actions. One thing, the world forgot to tell the terrorist or they ain't buyin' on what the rest of the world is sellin'. That's why we see the proliferation of terrorism.

And no, for all you health consious anti-terrorists, immitaition bacon grease don't count . So put the sizzle-lean back in the freezer..............markerdown

__________________

USAF, Retired .. "From My Cold Dead Hands!"

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." ........ Edward R. Murrow

markerdown is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 08:12 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
IGETEVEN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tornado \"Just Blow Me\" Alley,Oklahoma U.S.A.
Posts: 8,424
Liked 26 Times on 21 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dillinger View Post
Yeah, it's clear. But you asked this:



Then you gave me the option of choosing someone else - which I did.

Now, if you want to get down to brass tacks, let us do so.

The War on Terror is one that can not be fought under conventional terms. That leaves out your conventional military tactics and conventional use of armor, planes, airstrikes and hard weapons like your navy sitting off shore and raining shells into a city all night before the troops move in.

There is no formal enemy, there is no formal flag, there is no formal costume or insignia.

You have a belief system that is driving a populace to fight what they perceive as a great devil.

"Hearts and Minds" and in noway a disservice to men like Jack and his brothers in paint, is not going to work with these people. They use fear, intimidation, assault, rape, murder and torture on their own people.

What do you think they would do to their God Chosen Enemy?

Generals like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee would be so far in over their heads with such a war, they would get annihilated with the swiftness.

You think burning a few farms, taking a few prisioners & parking cannons out in front of the lines is going to intimidate this foe? Not likely.

This same group outlasted the Russian Red Army for what, a dozen years? This isn't a hit and git battle. This is a campaign.

Custer, at least, wasn't afraid of Collateral Damage - but that guy was so enamored with his own legacy that he was, for intensive purposes, driven to achieve inspite of common sense. You can cross him off the list.

Then you get into the more modern Generals. They all fought hard, they all fought well, but you take a look at some of the real events that took place on their watch that would be what it would take to defeat this kind of opponent ( Taejon Prison, Chosin Reservior, Taegu Executions, My Lai, Tiger Force Resume', and The Phoenix Program ) and you will find MASSIVE public outcry that the soldiers were not fighting an "American Fight".

Generals overseeing those units quickly backstepped any knowledge or involvement. These "lone groups of soldiers" were described as "desperate" or "not well led" or "inexperienced" or "rogue". But, they got results - and they made an impact.

You want a list of generals that could make the kind of impact it would take to break such a foe? You need a general that is not afraid of collateral damage, not afraid of public opinion, and not afraid to fight the enemy on their own terms.

You need to be discussing the likes of: Julius Caeser, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, rulers that made decisions based on conquering, not on placating.

You want recent evidence of this type of warlord?

Read about Pol Pot. Read about Charles Taylor of Liberia. Read about Mohammed Farah Aidid ( he should be familiar, he was the source of the raid that launched Black Hawk Down ).

These people were warlords. They were dispicable, evil, cruel, unfeeling, sociopaths that ruled with the sword and placated to no one. They also got results that others have not. They had the peace of fear in the areas under their command. They did not exhibit weakness, nor did they allow themselves to be challenged.

To beat this enemy, to truly beat them, someone has to have the balls to take the leash off of the US troops, bar the cameras and the news reporters and let them conduct a war on the same level as the aggressors.

That will never happen - and inserting one General into the mix, with today's troops won't change that either.

It's not that today's troops lack the ability to win this war once and for all, it's that today's soldiers lack the backing that is necessary to fight the enemy in the same type of combat.

JD
Beau my man, that's the God awful truth, plain and simple right there. Your enemy must fear you and respect you and right now, due to bureaucracy, ignorance, and a lack of an aggressive, no rules barred backing and support from our Government, it seems to be the other way around. Thank you again JD, for the real truth and incite, that most people do not see, or just will not see. Toot that damn horn, brother!

Jack
__________________
Jack

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

"There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter." - Hemingway

“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.”
IGETEVEN is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 08:14 PM   #19
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Yes, this guy did:

Jefferson engaged muslims in the Barbary Wars which came about as a result of American ships no longer flying the British flag. The Brits had paid the jizya tax to keep muslim privateers at bay, but the nascent United States had not.

Rather than pay the tax, Jefferson instead opted to kick the snot out of the sob's until they decided to leave us alone.

Jefferson had been told something to the effect "No offense, but any non-believer [of islam] is considered sub-human and thus may be killed or sold into slavery without guilt, their cargo freely taken, and their ships burned." Jefferson found this hard to believe and obtained a copy of the koran (the same one Keith Ellison used in his swearing-in ceremony) to read verify this for himself.

__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 08:19 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,437
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

I agree that Rommel is tactically better than any of those listed. But if I'm fighting terrorists and I get ONE commander for the job, it is Temujin (aka Ghengis Khan) I dare anyone to be a terrorist under his watch. Brilliant tactician and ruthless.

__________________
user4 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
New badger and mushroom psychological warfare tactics used on enemy combatants IGETEVEN The Club House 19 08-15-2009 10:20 PM
You just can't appease Terrorists BigO01 The Club House 26 09-22-2008 04:40 AM
Enemy Agents Blockade Ammo Manufacturer ScottG Legal and Activism 6 07-04-2008 07:29 PM
The Enemy Within npbwbass The Club House 8 06-13-2008 10:00 AM



Newest Threads