Why we fight

[AC]

<a href="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=3405669348838274375" target="_blank">http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=3405669348838274375</a>

[AC]

So Grumpy,

Should the US make war on Iran, and if so, why?

[Vermouth]

I saw this movie when it came out on video. Eisenhower's speech is very powerful.

On Jan. 17, 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered his farewell address to the country. Writing in longhand - one of the more arresting images in the film is the tablet on which he wrote his famous speech, scratched-out words and all - Eisenhower took stock of the nation, its recent wars and its military might. "In the councils of government," warned this president and former general of the Army, "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/movies/20figh.html

The movie was aimed at drawing emotion. I thought No End in Sight was better ... like it had less of an agenda, but who knows.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[conley]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

yeah it sure is quiet around here....

i have only seen 'why we fight' and not 'no end in sight'

i thought why we fight wasn't that great...mostly just a bunch of news clippings spliced together

on the other hand i came away very impressed with eisenhower

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

yeah it sure is quiet around here....

i have only seen 'why we fight' and not 'no end in sight'

i thought why we fight wasn't that great...mostly just a bunch of news clippings spliced together

on the other hand i came away very impressed with eisenhower

I don't think he was a particularly good general. His talents lay more in managing people. It's no surprise that he made a good president. I should look for some Ike memorabilia on Ebay. That stuff is cheap and would make a nice addition to my collection o' stuff.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

have to agree with mr d if you were to rank ww2 generals he would be lucky to be mid tier.  the greatest military mind of the modern era was clearly rommel.

[HomieDontPlay]

Kind of irrelevant. In his job, at that time, he had a major impact. I think he was brilliant. Most field generals are propped up by huge staffs who do all their thinking for them. It's hard to know if they actually hatched any of the tactics that made them famous.

[conley]

yes...i meant i was impressed with his speech warning of the coming military industrial complex

i have no idea if he was a good general or not...these things seem very subjective

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Kind of irrelevant. In his job, at that time, he had a major impact. I think he was brilliant. Most field generals are propped up by huge staffs who do all their thinking for them. It's hard to know if they actually hatched any of the tactics that made them famous.

Irrelevant to what?

I agree that he had a major impact but it was in directing the Anglo-American effort. He was not a talented strategist and judging by how poorly the Allied campaign in Western Europe was conducted I would have to say that not too many men under him were stellar either.

[HomieDontPlay]

Kind of irrelevant. In his job, at that time, he had a major impact. I think he was brilliant. Most field generals are propped up by huge staffs who do all their thinking for them. It's hard to know if they actually hatched any of the tactics that made them famous.

Irrelevant to what?

I agree that he had a major impact but it was in directing the Anglo-American effort. He was not a talented strategist and judging by how poorly the Allied campaign in Western Europe was conducted I would have to say that not too many men under him were stellar either.

You're just pissed off because the fascists lost. Sorry. 'Dems da breaks, as day be say'n up in har.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

Kind of irrelevant. In his job, at that time, he had a major impact. I think he was brilliant. Most field generals are propped up by huge staffs who do all their thinking for them. It's hard to know if they actually hatched any of the tactics that made them famous.

Irrelevant to what?

I agree that he had a major impact but it was in directing the Anglo-American effort. He was not a talented strategist and judging by how poorly the Allied campaign in Western Europe was conducted I would have to say that not too many men under him were stellar either.

You're just pissed off because the fascists lost. Sorry. 'Dems da breaks, as day be say'n up in har.

no i don't think that is the case, rather i believe that mr d recognizes that the germans were as militarily superior to their adversaries as the romans to theirs at the height of their power.  the germans lost due to the arrogance/miss calculations of hitler and inevitable attrition.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Kind of irrelevant. In his job, at that time, he had a major impact. I think he was brilliant. Most field generals are propped up by huge staffs who do all their thinking for them. It's hard to know if they actually hatched any of the tactics that made them famous.

Irrelevant to what?

I agree that he had a major impact but it was in directing the Anglo-American effort. He was not a talented strategist and judging by how poorly the Allied campaign in Western Europe was conducted I would have to say that not too many men under him were stellar either.

You're just pissed off because the fascists lost. Sorry. 'Dems da breaks, as day be say'n up in har.

Yeah, that's it. No italics? What's going on?

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Kind of irrelevant. In his job, at that time, he had a major impact. I think he was brilliant. Most field generals are propped up by huge staffs who do all their thinking for them. It's hard to know if they actually hatched any of the tactics that made them famous.

Irrelevant to what?

I agree that he had a major impact but it was in directing the Anglo-American effort. He was not a talented strategist and judging by how poorly the Allied campaign in Western Europe was conducted I would have to say that not too many men under him were stellar either.

You're just pissed off because the fascists lost. Sorry. 'Dems da breaks, as day be say'n up in har.

no i don't think that is the case, rather i believe that mr d recognizes that the germans were as militarily superior to their adversaries as the romans to theirs at the height of their power.  the germans lost due to the arrogance/miss calculations of hitler and inevitable attrition.

Precisely. I would add that they made little use of their allies and potential allies. There was never a serious attempt at cooperation with Japan and the Italians often had to scrounge for equipment when Germany could have given them the surplus equipment it had but couldn't issue for lack of troops.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

the germans really did not have much in the way of allies.  the Romanians and Hungarians who historically hated each other and the Italians who basically march to war backwards with their hands up.  did not anticipate the brits response to poland and could not be dissuaded from turning east.