Aren't all Souther Californians Mexicans anyway?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Southern Californians are Mexicans.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Macedonians are greeks, just like the Spartans and Athenians. Practically the same thing. Same language, same culture.Vilham wrote:
Actually ive read 4 books on his life.. good for you to not know anything about him that you can even get him mixed up with a Greek whom he hated more than anything.
Pretty sure the greeks had farms. Pretty sure not all greeks were poets and inventors. Same language, same gods. They sound like greeks to me. But w/e, potato potato(sound the second potato out differently).Vilham wrote:
WRONG WRONG WRONG! You couldnt be more WRONG.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Macedonians are greeks, just like the Spartans and Athenians. Practically the same thing. Same language, same culture.Vilham wrote:
Actually ive read 4 books on his life.. good for you to not know anything about him that you can even get him mixed up with a Greek whom he hated more than anything.
Macedonians were seen as barbarians as the Greeks, they had little culture or democracy like the Greeks, the Macedonians were miners and farmers, not poets and inventors.
Thats like comparing Europe to Africa in this day and age.
Actually different language, slightly different gods.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Pretty sure the greeks had farms. Pretty sure not all greeks were poets and inventors. Same language, same gods. They sound like greeks to me. But w/e, potato potato(sound the second potato out differently).Vilham wrote:
WRONG WRONG WRONG! You couldnt be more WRONG.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Macedonians are greeks, just like the Spartans and Athenians. Practically the same thing. Same language, same culture.
Macedonians were seen as barbarians as the Greeks, they had little culture or democracy like the Greeks, the Macedonians were miners and farmers, not poets and inventors.
Thats like comparing Europe to Africa in this day and age.
Patton could have kicked Alexander's ass back to either Macedonia.
Slim too - and Sherman, Grant, Wellington, and Washington.
Slim too - and Sherman, Grant, Wellington, and Washington.
Sherman, Grant, Patton and Washington were actually all surprisingly BAD generals. America sure as hell had much better generals than them.KillerKane0 wrote:
Patton could have kicked Alexander's ass back to either Macedonia.
Slim too - and Sherman, Grant, Wellington, and Washington.
Not a chance. Those four were among America's greatest - and some of the world's greatest.
Washington defeated the British with a fraction of the forces, and by winning only two battles (Trenton and Yorktown). Frederick the Great himself said Washington's actions at Trenton were some of the most brilliant in military history.
Grant and Sherman beat the Confederacy by waging aggressive, destructive conflict. To this day, Sherman is still reviled by many White Southerners in Georgia and the Carolinas. African-Americans see him as a liberator - in fact, he may be one of history's greatest liberators. Grant deserves credit for taking on Lee and winning while others had failed miserably.
Patton - well - used blitzkrieg on the Nazis in ways that they could only dream about. In Normandy, he raced his army around the Germans' southern flank, liberated Brittany and Paris, and closed the Falaise Gap (with a little help from Canada and Poland). He saw the German counterattack in the Bulge coming and prepared to counter it - his response bordered on clairvoyance - he had the right area and direction before it had even happened. Lastly, he beat Montgomery across the Rhine and didn't use any artillery or aerial bombardment to do it. A masterpiece of planning and execution.
Washington defeated the British with a fraction of the forces, and by winning only two battles (Trenton and Yorktown). Frederick the Great himself said Washington's actions at Trenton were some of the most brilliant in military history.
Grant and Sherman beat the Confederacy by waging aggressive, destructive conflict. To this day, Sherman is still reviled by many White Southerners in Georgia and the Carolinas. African-Americans see him as a liberator - in fact, he may be one of history's greatest liberators. Grant deserves credit for taking on Lee and winning while others had failed miserably.
Patton - well - used blitzkrieg on the Nazis in ways that they could only dream about. In Normandy, he raced his army around the Germans' southern flank, liberated Brittany and Paris, and closed the Falaise Gap (with a little help from Canada and Poland). He saw the German counterattack in the Bulge coming and prepared to counter it - his response bordered on clairvoyance - he had the right area and direction before it had even happened. Lastly, he beat Montgomery across the Rhine and didn't use any artillery or aerial bombardment to do it. A masterpiece of planning and execution.
the hannibal from the A team yay
and lt. dan from forest
and lt. dan from forest
There are SO MANY BETTER people to choose from than fucking Che Guevara. . .CameronPoe wrote:
Ernesto 'Che' Guevara
http://www.antorcha.org/foto/che-5.jpg
He quite literally wrote the book on guerrilla warfare. Intelligent, selfless, disciplinarian, tactical genius, the master of the few versus the many. The pinnacle of his achievements: victory at the battle of Santa Clara, Cuba, which turned the tide of the Cuban civil war in favour of the rebels.
Give me a break. . . . ."pinnacle of his achievements, victory at blah blah blah". . . .lol!!
George Washington, Napolean, Churchill, Zukov, Stormin Normin, Montgomery, Patton, Doug McArthur, Andrew Jackson, Sun Tzu, Alex the Great, Caesar, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Muhammed (yes the prophet was a military commander), King William I, William Wallace, Omar Bradley, Erwin Rommel, Saladin, Richard "the lionheart" I, Trajan, Hammurabi, Cyrus the Great, Scipio Africanus (fought the Carthaginians), Hannibal etc etc etc etc
and these guys litterally wrote the book on military commanding and how to win over and over again!! Che Guevara is a blip on the rader, the stain on Monica's dress if you will. . . .
These are guys I just thought of off the top of my head for christs sake. . . .Let me guess, your other favorite "military leader" is Yasser Arafat. . .
and you pick Che Guevara. . . .you truely are liberal and utterly confused/need to retake military history!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-03-02 01:21:55)
fadedsteve, I agree with your list of great military leaders, but Cam has a good motive to choose Che. True, the ones you mentioned commanded their troops in many successful campaigns, but you shouldn't underestimate Guevaras tactics.
Che is a remarkable figure in guerilla warfare and tactics. As guerillas are often vastly outnumbered and have a limited amount of supplies, Che implemented the use of psychology, terrain and equipment with finesse. Equipment was often aquired by stealing. Many times the bullets that killed the enemy, had belonged to the enemy.
Large armies have had big problems with armies practising guerilla warfare. Chechnya (although the concert-hall attack made them terrorists, the bastards), The Finnish wars (Yes, guerilla warfare tactics were used against Soviets during WWII), Vietnam, Castro/Guevara in Cuba etc..
Guerillas - Always underestimated, always a thorn for Superpowers.
I choose Che.
Che is a remarkable figure in guerilla warfare and tactics. As guerillas are often vastly outnumbered and have a limited amount of supplies, Che implemented the use of psychology, terrain and equipment with finesse. Equipment was often aquired by stealing. Many times the bullets that killed the enemy, had belonged to the enemy.
Large armies have had big problems with armies practising guerilla warfare. Chechnya (although the concert-hall attack made them terrorists, the bastards), The Finnish wars (Yes, guerilla warfare tactics were used against Soviets during WWII), Vietnam, Castro/Guevara in Cuba etc..
Guerillas - Always underestimated, always a thorn for Superpowers.
I choose Che.
I need around tree fiddy.
No more shown by the troubles we're having in Iraq.DonFck wrote:
fadedsteve, I agree with your list of great military leaders, but Cam has a good motive to choose Che. True, the ones you mentioned commanded their troops in many successful campaigns, but you shouldn't underestimate Guevaras tactics.
Che is a remarkable figure in guerilla warfare and tactics. As guerillas are often vastly outnumbered and have a limited amount of supplies, Che implemented the use of psychology, terrain and equipment with finesse. Equipment was often aquired by stealing. Many times the bullets that killed the enemy, had belonged to the enemy.
Large armies have had big problems with armies practising guerilla warfare. Chechnya (although the concert-hall attack made them terrorists, the bastards), The Finnish wars (Yes, guerilla warfare tactics were used against Soviets during WWII), Vietnam, Castro/Guevara in Cuba etc..
Guerillas - Always underestimated, always a thorn for Superpowers.
I choose Che.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
True. Rebels/Insurgents/Militia/Guerillas, not terrorists. I know you didn't say it, but I have a feeling that someone is bound to say something, therefore I clarified.Spark wrote:
No more shown by the troubles we're having in Iraq.DonFck wrote:
Stuff (made shorter to prevent megaquote)
A terrorist = Attacks civilian targets to create disorder.
A guerilla = Attacks military targets with whatever weapons he has available.
Israel = Attacks civilian targets to kill guerillas <-- But that's off topic and another story altogether.
I need around tree fiddy.
Only with weapons from the XXth Century. Using horses, pikes and swords ATG would have kicked his ass.KillerKane0 wrote:
Patton could have kicked Alexander's ass back to either Macedonia.
Slim too - and Sherman, Grant, Wellington, and Washington.
We are having trouble in Iraq because the UN/USA abide(s) by strick ROE's!!DonFck wrote:
True. Rebels/Insurgents/Militia/Guerillas, not terrorists. I know you didn't say it, but I have a feeling that someone is bound to say something, therefore I clarified.Spark wrote:
No more shown by the troubles we're having in Iraq.DonFck wrote:
Stuff (made shorter to prevent megaquote)
A terrorist = Attacks civilian targets to create disorder.
A guerilla = Attacks military targets with whatever weapons he has available.
Israel = Attacks civilian targets to kill guerillas <-- But that's off topic and another story altogether.
If we lifted the ROE's, the Iraq war would be over before the end of the year. . . .
You know it and I know it!!! When you fight an enemy with one hand tied behind your back, you have a harder time defeating them!!! Just ask the guys who fought in Vietnam!! We werent allowed to bomb the fucking North. . . I mean did they want to win or what?? Obviously not cause we left with our tail between our legs!!
Watching Iraq infold I dont want to have a repeat performance(of vietnam), and leave when the job isnt completed. Bottom line is guerillas can be defeated, you just have to allow your troops to stoop to the guerillas level and fight how they do. . . . which is dirty!! Thats why we did so well in Afghanistan cause our special forces fight a lil' dirtier than our regular troops! Unfortunately, we are unable to complete the job cause Pakistan wont allow US troops on her soil!! Therefore we have to sit and wait for al-Qaeda/Taliban come to us. . .which they are doing peacemeal cause they know they will get killed!
However, I dont admire or have any sort of fondness of Che. I know is is this "hero" of revolution etc. But wouldnt you say the George Washington mastered the art of guerilla warfare!!! I mean we fought dirty against the British and won, that was the first time essentially a guerilla army defeated a trained conventional force. So Che can suck my dick! I will take George Washington any day over that asshole!
btw last time I checked the CIA had him axed!! So he's not that suave. . .Bolivian forces captured and killed his ass. . . . . George Washington became the President of a future world superpower. . . No contest of who was more influential and more important on the world stage. . .sorry but Che is a douchebag
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-03-02 04:56:56)
You are correct, Washington mastered guerilla warfare, but so did Che. As for being a future country leader, Che was appointed Minister of Industries in Cuba, but preferred later on to conduct guerilla campaigns instead in Congo and Bolivia, where he was finally captured and killed.
Cuban guerillas playing it dirty? Not any dirtier than any other army conducting wars, nicer even. I'd say nukes, napalm and mustard gas pretty much take the cake on playing it dirty.
Q: Do you disapprove of Che being a great military leader because you deeply disapprove of the values he stands for?
Cuban guerillas playing it dirty? Not any dirtier than any other army conducting wars, nicer even. I'd say nukes, napalm and mustard gas pretty much take the cake on playing it dirty.
Q: Do you disapprove of Che being a great military leader because you deeply disapprove of the values he stands for?
I need around tree fiddy.
grr i dont wanna read so much
VLAD III DRACULA IS MY FAVORITE!!!
He fought against the Osman(s?) and every prisoner became a Pole into the breast or butt
He liked to Kill People and torture them
He drank blood
I <3 VLAD
VLAD III DRACULA IS MY FAVORITE!!!
He fought against the Osman(s?) and every prisoner became a Pole into the breast or butt
He liked to Kill People and torture them
He drank blood
I <3 VLAD
I just think there are WAY MORE guys who could be someones favorite military leader other than him. He has his place in history, but he is no where near some other guerilla fighters in history(namely George Washington if we are talking great leaders).DonFck wrote:
You are correct, Washington mastered guerilla warfare, but so did Che. As for being a future country leader, Che was appointed Minister of Industries in Cuba, but preferred later on to conduct guerilla campaigns instead in Congo and Bolivia, where he was finally captured and killed.
Cuban guerillas playing it dirty? Not any dirtier than any other army conducting wars, nicer even. I'd say nukes, napalm and mustard gas pretty much take the cake on playing it dirty.
Q: Do you disapprove of Che being a great military leader because you deeply disapprove of the values he stands for?
With Cams rationale, one could say Zarqawi was a great military leader. He evaded the strongest military for years even before the Iraq war, and evaded them still another 4 years while running al-Qaeda!!! But I hate their politics, their tactics and their motivation for doing the things they did. . . so no I wouldnt rank Che as a great military leader, nor would I say Zarqawi is a great military leader. . . they are great thugs/bullies/terrorists nothing more. Blips on the radar my friends just blips, skid marks of military history!!
Although I am pretty sure there are monuments built for Che if Im not mistaken. . . Hey, he riled up people who were disinfranchised, fought a successful campaign in Cuba, WALA a "hero". . .in the modern world he does symbolize revolution. . although those who study history know there are more influential leaders of the past before him.
This just came to me. . . .wouldnt William Wallace blow Che Guevara out of the water in terms of importance to their respective causes. . . .If we want to talk true guerilla fighters and their movements
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-03-02 05:28:47)
Wrong FS. Che was a pioneer. He left a blueprint for all modern guerrillas to follow. He beat the largest stronger conventional military of Cuba, which was backed by the USA and other western powers, and helped carve out a non-aligned state that has successfully fought off outside interference for nearly 50 years.fadedsteve wrote:
With Cams rationale, one could say Zarqawi was a great military leader. He evaded the strongest military for years even before the Iraq war, and evaded them still another 4 years while running al-Qaeda!!! But I hate their politics, their tactics and their motivation for doing the things they did. . . so no I wouldnt rank Che as a great military leader, nor would I say Zarqawi is a great military leader. . . they are great thugs/bullies/terrorists nothing more. Blips on the radar my friends just blips, skid marks of military history!!
Although I am pretty sure there are monuments built for Che if Im not mistaken. . . Hey, he riled up people who were disinfranchised, fought a successful campaign in Cuba, WALA a "hero". . .in the modern world he does symbolize revolution. . although those who study history know there are more influential leaders of the past before him.
This just came to me. . . .wouldnt William Wallace blow Che Guevara out of the water in terms of importance to their respective causes. . . .If we want to talk true guerilla fighters and their movements
Zarqawi is a failure. He did nothing new. He was not a man of honour or disipline. His politics were in nobody's interests but his own. The same cannot be said of Che. William Wallace failed: he was hung drawn and quartered and didn't even get to witness a free Scotland, a Scotland that was free for not very long I might add.
A blip on the radar doesn't generally adorn millions of t-shirts. I don't see anyone building statues to Zarqawi.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-02 05:39:12)
Mahatma Gandhi.
King Karl XII Gusav
Cuba, a non-aligned state? Forgot about this huge country with harsh winters and lots and lots of nukes pointed at US and A? Cuba was just a staging area for the soviets back in the days.... Forgot this incident at the Bay of pigs...? Oh you never heard of that one......CameronPoe wrote:
Che was a pioneer. He left a blueprint for all modern guerrillas to follow. He beat the largest stronger conventional military of Cuba, which was backed by the USA and other western powers, and helped carve out a non-aligned state that has successfully fought off outside interference for nearly 50 years.
PLUS I hate communists.... Always acting like they're the greatest thing since sliced bread... even that was probably a communist invention according to them....
As for the greatest military leader...? They're all pretty good... Maybe not Nelson, he got lucky two thirds of the Armada was sunk or had to make for the nearest port due to bad weather... So he only needed to exterminate a few, weathered remnants of the armada... If the Armada didn't face that storm, Trafalgar would have likely turned out very different....
Actually the greatest military leaders were the field officers, who literally led their men into battle and out again.... They're the unsung heroes of any war.... Generals may think they are god's greatest gift to mankind, but its the soldiers and their squad leaders who actually had to come up with the actual plan on how to win the engagement...
If the US hadn't placed missiles capable of striking Russian cities in Turkey, there would have been no Cuban missile crisis. Should have been called the Turkish Missile crises.
The bay of pigs incident was incited by the upper ruling classes who lost out when Cuba was nationalised.
The bay of pigs incident was incited by the upper ruling classes who lost out when Cuba was nationalised.
Amen to that.DocZ wrote:
Actually the greatest military leaders were the field officers, who literally led their men into battle and out again.... They're the unsung heroes of any war.... Generals may think they are god's greatest gift to mankind, but its the soldiers and their squad leaders who actually had to come up with the actual plan on how to win the engagement...