In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Founding Fathers are Next
p3skyking
Member Posts: 23,916 ✭✭✭
American's heroes are under attack.
I wonder if Jackson, T.R. Nixon, Patton, and any other anti-left figures are getting the smear treatment?
I wanted the check the exact wording of "In war there is no substitute for victory" on GOOGLE and this is the first thing that popped up.
Called a snippet, Google is supposedly rotating them.
This is pure propaganda. I would be willing to bet anything Martin Luther King, Gloria Steinem, and Jane Fonda have nothing negative about them.
Here's the snippet:
Image result for there is no substitute for victory
izquotes.com
The most dangerous statement by a military man in modern times was uttered by Gen. Douglas MacArthur when he lectured his political master President Harry Truman in 1951 that in war, ?there is no substitute for victory.?Sep 23, 2012
War: Sometimes there 'is' a substitute for victory - Opinion - Jerusalem ...
www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed.../War-Sometimes-there-is-a-substitute-for-victory
I wonder if Jackson, T.R. Nixon, Patton, and any other anti-left figures are getting the smear treatment?
I wanted the check the exact wording of "In war there is no substitute for victory" on GOOGLE and this is the first thing that popped up.
Called a snippet, Google is supposedly rotating them.
This is pure propaganda. I would be willing to bet anything Martin Luther King, Gloria Steinem, and Jane Fonda have nothing negative about them.
Here's the snippet:
Image result for there is no substitute for victory
izquotes.com
The most dangerous statement by a military man in modern times was uttered by Gen. Douglas MacArthur when he lectured his political master President Harry Truman in 1951 that in war, ?there is no substitute for victory.?Sep 23, 2012
War: Sometimes there 'is' a substitute for victory - Opinion - Jerusalem ...
www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed.../War-Sometimes-there-is-a-substitute-for-victory
Comments
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q="In+war+there+is+no+substitute+for+victory"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
There is a "send feedback" option at the bottom of the page, let's all start using it. [:D]
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q="In+war+there+is+no+substitute+for+victory"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Yep, I did. I doubt it will change anything though.
Your one post could very well daisy chain and get other like minded involved so we can get true search results.
I made sure to mention I would be using bing more. Duckduckgo, I think piggybacks on google. Yahoo does for sure.
Brad Steele
Avoiding a Third World War is an acceptable substitute for victory. China and Russia would not have given up the Korean Penninsula without millions dying in its defense. MacArthur either was so isolated as to not understand, or so so callous as to not care.
America was basically the only nuclear power on the planet. China and Russia would have seen the light pretty quick.
Contrary to the weak sister mantra that might doesn't make right, history has shown time and again in the end, it does and Mao himself said power is won through the barrel of a gun.
Even Curtis Le May was a proponent of using nuclear weapons in Vietnam but by then, the Soviets had weapons of their own.
This thread however is about Pinkos and the pussification of America through demonizing of patriots.
At the time of the Korean War, the Soviets did have nukes. Chinese did not.
BTW:Google and Facebook are all controlled by liberal DEMOCRATs
quote:America was basically the only nuclear power on the planet.
At the time of the Korean War, the Soviets did have nukes. Chinese did not.
Follow me here.
The Russians could have a dozen nuclear piles and a thousand prototype weapons sitting in Moscow. That is not the same as flying to America and dropping one.
The United States had portable sized all up round (AUR) nuclear devices that were air deliverable and proven to work.
Delivery is easily 90% of the value of a nuclear device.
That said, it necessary to take a reasoned look at MacArthur, devoid of emotion and concentrate on the facts known at the time.
1. There is no substitute for victory:
What was 'victory' in the Korean War?
MacArthur was demanding the unconditional surrender of North Korea.
It was not going to happen.
Kim Il-sung had the active support of both Mao and Stalin. Both had warned the US that they would not tolerate a US or UN presence north of the 38th parallel. In fairness to MacArthur, very few believed they would follow through. He was given the go ahead following Inchon and the advance from the south to cross the 38th and this go ahead was signed off on by the JCS, Truman, and the UN.
We have been told that MacArthur had a particular understanding of the Asian mind, but even at the time it is obvious that he (and the aforementioned others) sorely lacked an understanding of Mao. It is imperative to remember the Long March, the near decade of resistance to the Japanese, and the fact that the US supported the Nationalists before, during and following WW2. A long view would understand the perceived threat to Mao's government that US forces at the Yalu River would have been.
MacArthur never fully understood this long view, however, and long after the time Truman, the JCS, and the UN understood he still advocated for the total occupation of the Korean Peninsula. He even went so far as to advocate for the creation of a nuclear wasteland to impede Chinese and Soviet reinforcements from reaching south of the Yalu.
It is then obvious that even after Mao had shown that he was willing to sacrifice 100s of thousands in the defense of the ante-bellum border, and that Stalin had taken the next measured step of inserting Russian pilots in the skies over North Korea, MacArthur still hung onto the notion of victory. He failed to understand, unlike virtually everyone else, that victory in North Korea (similar to our current problems with Kim Il-sung demon spawn) went through Peking, not Pyongyang. Truman understood this, and for all his flaws and pettiness, was forced to fire an icon. It was the right call.
2. Victory:
Absent the occupation of China a surrender from Kim Il-sung was never going to happen. We could have nuked the crap out of North Korea and even parts of China, but that ignored the then obvious fact that once the US/UN crossed the 38th, it had become a war of ideology and not of territory. MacArthur apparently did not grasp this concept, but luckily cooler heads prevailed; heads that did grasp the concept.
Mao and Stalin would never have stepped back from the Yalu, and, frankly, if one thinks the stalemate at the 38th parallel has been a thorn in our side, one can only imagine the resources required had that stalemate been moved north. We will never actually know, of course, but I believe it is very safe to say that in addition to the obvious inability of the US/UN to occupy China, a DMZ at the 38th would not have lasted very long. Mao would never accept it, and given the history of the previous decade, there was no logical reason he should have.
3. Conclusion
So, even though there is a leftist bent to the snippet in the OP, MacArthur 'There is no substitute for victory' is rightly noted as one of the most dangerous statements in modern times. Given his universally recognized oversized sense of self and the prominent position he held, he was unquestionably advocating for a super-power war with the US pitted against a confirmed and growing nuclear power and a country with the largest standing army ever assembled.
We knew Stalin had a deliverable bomb, and we knew he had the TU-4. it was virtually the same bomber we were using in the theater, though the T-50 was definitely an improved variant and more capable. Had MacArthur been given the green light to go nuclear he may very well have done it. Given Stalin's ever increasing presence and influence in the area, it is highly possible our forces on the peninsula would have been subject to a nuclear response.
Where do we go from there? B-47s over Moscow? Over Peking?
Or, do we finally recognize that we have a tiger by the tail, and step back?
MacArthur held the tiger far too long, and while his decades of service are to be commended, his actions over the last 10 years of his active military career cast real doubt as to his connection with reality as compared to his need to be a hero.
It was a very dangerous statement, and Truman had no choice but to relieve the man who made from any position that would allow him to attempt to make good on it.
Brad Steele
That's the way history played out due to Truman.
The island nation of Taiwan, a Cold War, Eastern Europe under Soviet domination for 45 years, the war in Vietnam can all be traced back to not securing a decisive victory in Korea.
We're still paying for Truman's "leadership".
All you have done is parrot what Pinkos push.
That's the way history played out due to Truman.
The island nation of Taiwan, a Cold War, Eastern Europe under Soviet domination for 45 years, the war in Vietnam can all be traced back to not securing a decisive victory in Korea.
We're still paying for Truman's "leadership".
I am parroting nothing, P3. I have briefly laid out the facts on the ground and in the air at the time. Facts that were known at the time by the players both in theater and in DC and the UN.
What would a 'decisive victory' in Korea look like? Obviously it would be speculative, but for one to advocate for such a thing, one must lay out expectations, and a logical path to success.
Please show me/us what that looks like, for as much as I too would have liked to have seen a decisive end to the conflict, I cannot imagine how it would have been achieved without millions of casualties and the occupation of China or an unsustainable standoff at the Yalu River.
I am prepared to be enlightened.
Brad Steele
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/234351/foresight-patton-robert-orlando
Moreover, Patton?s notion of meeting the enemy ?now, rather than later? in retrospect seems not the mere wiles of a warmonger unable to embrace peacetime, but rather a worthy and prudent strategy of a seasoned tactician, even if a gamble. Stalin?s own records prove that he told his leaders to ?play down? the Berlin invasion, aware that it was Europe?s crown jewel. Eisenhower, for all his discernment and skill at war management, did not see the Russians coming as did Patton and Churchill, who both recognized the wisdom of stopping Stalin in his tracks and perhaps offering Eastern Europe a chance at liberation.
Avoiding a Third World War is an acceptable substitute for victory. China and Russia would not have given up the Korean Penninsula without millions dying in its defense. MacArthur either was so isolated as to not understand, or so so callous as to not care.
Members of his own staff, in later years, admitted that a large number of his orders were "conceived in insanity."
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
All you have done is parrot what Pinkos push.
That's the way history played out due to Truman.
The island nation of Taiwan, a Cold War, Eastern Europe under Soviet domination for 45 years, the war in Vietnam can all be traced back to not securing a decisive victory in Korea.
We're still paying for Truman's "leadership".
I am parroting nothing, P3. I have briefly laid out the facts on the ground and in the air at the time. Facts that were known at the time by the players both in theater and in DC and the UN.
What would a 'decisive victory' in Korea look like? Obviously it would be speculative, but for one to advocate for such a thing, one must lay out expectations, and a logical path to success.
Please show me/us what that looks like, for as much as I too would have liked to have seen a decisive end to the conflict, I cannot imagine how it would have been achieved without millions of casualties and the occupation of China or an unsustainable standoff at the Yalu River.
I am prepared to be enlightened.
I'm not going to bother. I don't know what you flew or for who, but you act like Air Force. I think the Navy had some Prowlers and Intruders in Washington at one point, but the rest of the little planes were AF.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
All you have done is parrot what Pinkos push.
That's the way history played out due to Truman.
The island nation of Taiwan, a Cold War, Eastern Europe under Soviet domination for 45 years, the war in Vietnam can all be traced back to not securing a decisive victory in Korea.
We're still paying for Truman's "leadership".
I am parroting nothing, P3. I have briefly laid out the facts on the ground and in the air at the time. Facts that were known at the time by the players both in theater and in DC and the UN.
What would a 'decisive victory' in Korea look like? Obviously it would be speculative, but for one to advocate for such a thing, one must lay out expectations, and a logical path to success.
Please show me/us what that looks like, for as much as I too would have liked to have seen a decisive end to the conflict, I cannot imagine how it would have been achieved without millions of casualties and the occupation of China or an unsustainable standoff at the Yalu River.
I am prepared to be enlightened.
I'm not going to bother. I don't know what you flew or for who, but you act like Air Force. I think the Navy had some Prowlers and Intruders in Washington at one point, but the rest of the little planes were AF.
I was actually a surface puke, spent most of my deployed time in the engine room of a 1200 LB. steam plant on a guided missile cruiser, not that it matters.
So you can't come up with a rational discussion as to what decisive victory would have looked like in Korea.
The reason you cannot come up with a rational end game of decisive victory is because there is not one. Once rational people actually review what was known at the time, they come to the same conclusion as did Truman and the JCS.
Taking over North Korea was not worth getting into a war of attrition with China either in North Korea or in China itself, and the risk of total war against China and probably Russia with the 100s of thousands of US casualties was simply not worth anything that could have been gained.
If you are as smart and insightful as you seem to think you are, you owe it to yourself to move beyond headline history and look into the reality at the time.
I understand fully.
A mere 40 years ago, I too accepted the false reality of MacArthur's greatness. A little reading from unbiased sources, however, exposes one of the greatest myths in American military history.
American Heroes may be under attack, but calling your idol dangerous is an eminently true and verifiable statement.
Brad Steele
American's heroes are under attack.
I wonder if Jackson, T.R. Nixon, Patton, and any other anti-left figures are getting the smear treatment?
I wanted the check the exact wording of "In war there is no substitute for victory" on GOOGLE and this is the first thing that popped up.
Called a snippet, Google is supposedly rotating them.
This is pure propaganda. I would be willing to bet anything Martin Luther King, Gloria Steinem, and Jane Fonda have nothing negative about them.
Here's the snippet:
Image result for there is no substitute for victory
izquotes.com
The most dangerous statement by a military man in modern times was uttered by Gen. Douglas MacArthur when he lectured his political master President Harry Truman in 1951 that in war, ?there is no substitute for victory.?Sep 23, 2012
War: Sometimes there 'is' a substitute for victory - Opinion - Jerusalem ...
www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed.../War-Sometimes-there-is-a-substitute-for-victory
Well, while I don't agree there's anything dangerous about that statement, McArthur was a POS and was actually pretty dangerous if you were a vet or active service member.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
I was actually a surface puke, spent most of my deployed time in the engine room of a 1200 LB. steam plant on a guided missile cruiser, not that it matters.
Actually a matters a helluva lot.
Trying to reason with you Battleship/Surface Warfare types is like trying to reason with a CO2 bottle.
Billy Mitchell tried and proved his case, but STILL got courts martialed.
Let me guess, You're a ring knocker and you sailed out of the Tidewater area. If not, you sure could pass. [;)]
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
I was actually a surface puke, spent most of my deployed time in the engine room of a 1200 LB. steam plant on a guided missile cruiser, not that it matters.
Actually a matters a helluva lot.
Trying to reason with you Battleship/Surface Warfare types is like trying to reason with a CO2 bottle.
Billy Mitchell tried and proved his case, but STILL got courts martialed.
Let me guess, You're a ring knocker and you sailed out of the Tidewater area. If not, you sure could pass. [;)]
ROTC, actually, and a few hundred miles north. Was accepted to flight school, but it turned out due my height I would probably end up flying a four-engined re-purposed airliner from land bases and went the surface route to provide a quicker exit if desired, as I just didn't see ailing pilot as a career choice. Wrestling 40,000 HP out of what was I effect 1940's technology had its moments, provided for the early exit, and kindled the love of the ocean and open water I hold through today.
But to your initial point: So you have been bested by a C02 bottle before?
It must be an airdale thing.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
I was actually a surface puke, spent most of my deployed time in the engine room of a 1200 LB. steam plant on a guided missile cruiser, not that it matters.
Actually a matters a helluva lot.
Trying to reason with you Battleship/Surface Warfare types is like trying to reason with a CO2 bottle.
Billy Mitchell tried and proved his case, but STILL got courts martialed.
Let me guess, You're a ring knocker and you sailed out of the Tidewater area. If not, you sure could pass. [;)]
ROTC, actually, and a few hundred miles north. Was accepted to flight school, but it turned out due my height I would probably end up flying a four-engined re-purposed airliner from land bases and went the surface route to provide a quicker exit if desired, as I just didn't see ailing pilot as a career choice. Wrestling 40,000 HP out of what was I effect 1940's technology had its moments, provided for the early exit, and kindled the love of the ocean and open water I hold through today.
But to your initial point: So you have been bested by a C02 bottle before?
It must be an airdale thing.
Ha! I knew East Coast. I started out with the second and sixth fleets, then for my flying went to the third and seventh. The difference was like night and day.
I always figured the Atlantic sailors were the ones that bought .50 caliber rifles and pickup trucks to compensate for the Pacific sailors being real sailors. [:o)]
I don't debate with the fire bottles. They just inert blow gas.[;)]
Brad Steele
Home port was 32nd street Naval Station, Cruiser/Destroyer Group 5. Every ship of which has long succumbed to the scrapper's torch. Enjoyed my four years back east, but never really fit in. Frankly the USN and I were not a good fit either, it turned out, but I don't regret a minute of my time as a government employee.
Why do you think I volunteered for flight duty. Carrier life on the East Coast sucked. My first three years on FORRESTAL, my last year on the GW, CVN-73 with a two week boatride out on the JFK in '92.
The boat people were exactly the same although the living conditions had improved somewhat. I couldn't taste any JP in the fresh water. Got to shoot a .50 M2 off the side so that was cool.
You would have enjoyed flying a lot more than. We had a blackshoe ringknocker that changed designator to P3 pilot. He was a typical dick, even the other O's on the crew didn't like him. He put his bags at the ladder expecting the enlisted guys to bring them aboard. Our crew was all professionals with our own preflight to do.
We did look out for each other and helped whenever possible. Hell, my TACCO helped me load buoys a few times in Alaska.
Mr. Dick's bags were still on the ramp when we brought the ladder up and took off.
He came around after one deployment and we all ended up as good friends. We still called him Lt. Neidermeyer but not with malice anymore. He turned me on the the Moody Blues Sur la Mer tape in Diego Garcia.
You make friends on ships, but you trust your life to crew members. I've got crewmember friends on FB that have come by and after 30 years it seems like we only parted yesterday. Got every position on the plane covered and we could climb in and go hunt subs tomorrow if needed.
As Arby said yesterday, those were the days my friend, we thought they would never end. And they never will. [:)]
American's heroes are under attack.
I wonder if Jackson, T.R. Nixon, Patton, and any other anti-left figures are getting the smear treatment?
It's already slowly beginning. Jackson is getting bumped to the back of the $20 bill in 2020. I don't know if the official design has been approved yet, but Jackson will not only be on the reverse but his image will be smaller.
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
American's heroes are under attack.
I wonder if Jackson, T.R. Nixon, Patton, and any other anti-left figures are getting the smear treatment?
It's already slowly beginning. Jackson is getting bumped to the back of the $20 bill in 2020. I don't know if the official design has been approved yet, but Jackson will not only be on the reverse but his image will be smaller.
By then the dollar will be devalued with the 2nd amendment being overturned and gutted.America will never be a super power after this.
serf