# Be a smart fighter. Don't be like these guys.



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

If the 2nd American revolution starts here and you're in it, don't waste you ammo. Be smart about what you're firing at. Think tactics with who your with. Remember your fields of fire. Don't shoot you buddy trying to be Rambo. Don't run into fire like a moron pulling your trigger till your magazine runs dry and hitting nothing only to be hit yourself. Don't blow yourself up shooting handheld rocket launchers behind a wall and not clear it. Don't throw grenades with a leather sling thong. Think about your objectives and the best way to achieve them with as little losses.

LiveLeak.com - The Most Intense Videos From Syria! [Graphic]

LiveLeak.com - The Most Intense Videos From Syria! Part 2

LiveLeak.com - The Most Intense Videos From Syria! Part 3

LiveLeak.com - The Most Intense Videos From Syria! Part 4

LiveLeak.com - The Most Intense Videos From Syria! Part 5

LiveLeak.com - The Most Intense Videos From Syria! Part 6

LiveLeak.com - The Most Intense Videos From Syria! Part 7

And remember, a life jacket is not a bulletproof vest with ceramic plates.


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

Three things come to mind... One, what a crap hole.. Two, I'm surprised they could hit anything but not surprised they were shot (spray and pray) and three, they have shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles? 

As was said, let Allah sort it out.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

How this for training


----------



## PrepConsultant (Aug 28, 2012)

If you're goin to be dumb, you had better be tough!! You just can't fix stupid! Which is fine with me. It's just too bad the stupid people aren't killing themselves faster!


----------



## PrepConsultant (Aug 28, 2012)

rickkyw1720pf said:


> How this for training


Sure was a smart monkey!!! Can't say the same for the african dumbasses!!


----------



## PrepConsultant (Aug 28, 2012)

If the truth is known, the monkey is probably the best shot!! Most of them can't shoot for hell! They just point and pull the trigger.. They are probably too stupid to learn how to aim!!


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

I see the same attitude in the US everyday. Most conservatives have a "damn the torpedoes all full ahead" attitude. Add to that the obsession with large magazines.

Remember we won the Revolution by losing battles but making the cost of victory than the cost of the loss. It is also how Robert E. Lee betrayed the South. He knew how the inferior army his father helped command stained victory. He did exactly the opposite and got more men killed in the Civil War than Americans killed in all other American wars combined. That comment is about how the war was fought not why it came about. 

I doubt if 1% of those itching for a fight have read a single book on strategies of war. Maybe 10% have any military training but less on tactical training past following orders.


----------



## Rigged for Quiet (Mar 3, 2013)

As a Southern/Southwestern conservative, who sees no point in a 5 rd magazine, and has extensive military and tactical training I assure you that as for me personally, I ain't itchin' for no more fights. I am, however, not very good at being a victim. In fact, I really suck at it.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> I see the same attitude in the US everyday. Most conservatives have a "damn the torpedoes all full ahead" attitude. Add to that the obsession with large magazines.
> 
> Remember we won the Revolution by losing battles but making the cost of victory than the cost of the loss. It is also how Robert E. Lee betrayed the South. He knew how the inferior army his father helped command stained victory. He did exactly the opposite and got more men killed in the Civil War than Americans killed in all other American wars combined. That comment is about how the war was fought not why it came about.
> 
> I doubt if 1% of those itching for a fight have read a single book on strategies of war. Maybe 10% have any military training but less on tactical training past following orders.


Robert E. Lee betrayed the South?


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

I love that commercial. From what we've seen from them over there it seems pretty accurate too.

There are certainly those itching for a fight without the understanding of what it means. I don't itch, but I know it's something that has to be done at this point if we want our country and freedoms back. Their not going to give them back and the government is out of control of the people in the hands of particular groups who use whatever means they can to sway and placate feeble minds while continually increasing their control of us. How badly we're taxed, their not simply going to stop spending the money and run a smaller more efficient government. Their not going to simply take away the laws that make doing one thing to a government agent or agency a crime while it's justifiable to do it to a citizen. Their not going to stop restricting where we can go and how, what we can have and can't, what we can do and can't in their approval. The only way to get our freedoms and country back is taking it by force. Talking and voting don't matter anymore. 

That a large percentage have no training, no knowledge and little brains is the reality. Throughout history though it isn't much different. Soldiers have to be trained and commanders have to lead them. In the 2nd revolution the way I see, we won't have any chance if our own military and the weapons in part doesn't side with the people and the ability to fight technology with technology, advanced weaponry with advanced weaponry. I hate the thought of fighting our military having been a part of it, seeing the faces of friends and the like who'll than be enemies, but a person has to chose a side and that side decides your actions and your allegiance. The other side is the enemy and they chose to be there.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

roy said:


> Robert E. Lee betrayed the South?


Yep! Compare and contrast the actions of those leading the fight against the king and those leading the fight against the north. You will clearly see Lee's strategy was counter to our Revolutionary fight. Lee's strategy was doomed from the start. That strategy got more men killed in both sides than necessary. I put Lee in the same category as Benedict Arnold.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

Interesting perspective. Lee was Lincoln's first choice to command the union armies. Lee had an almost impossible task. He probably knew it when he took the job. I applaud he for taking the fight to the enemy.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

PalmettoTree said:


> Yep! Compare and contrast the actions of those leading the fight against the king and those leading the fight against the north. You will clearly see Lee's strategy was counter to our Revolutionary fight. Lee's strategy was doomed from the start. That strategy got more men killed in both sides than necessary. I put Lee in the same category as Benedict Arnold.


And this opinion of yours is based on extensive study of the War Of Northern Aggression?

For those, like me, who appreciate Gen Lee, I offer the following link Robert E. Lee Birthday Celebration
Enjoy.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

roy said:


> I applaud he for taking the fight to the enemy.


 Then you must curse the leadership of the Revolutionary War.

Taking the fight to the enemy is exactly the strategy that will lose if it becomes necessary to revolt against Obama and his ilk.

Do you want a fight or do you want to win?


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

Different tactics for different situations.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> And this opinion of yours is based on extensive study of the War Of Northern Aggression?
> 
> For those, like me, who appreciate Gen Lee, I offer the following link Robert E. Lee Birthday Celebration
> Enjoy.


Part of my military and college training was taking advanced classes under a former OSS officer at the masters level. This is one of the semester papers I wrote. I got an "A" on the paper and course. I was also asked to present my paper to the classes at the start of the next semester.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

roy said:


> Different tactics for different situations.


The tactics were superb the strategy was treasonous.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

I suppose you can point out where Virginia relinquished its sovereignty. It had to be sometime after 1787.


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

PalmettoTree said:


> I see the same attitude in the US everyday. Most conservatives have a "damn the torpedoes all full ahead" attitude. Add to that the obsession with large magazines.
> 
> Remember we won the Revolution by losing battles but making the cost of victory than the cost of the loss. It is also how Robert E. Lee betrayed the South. He knew how the inferior army his father helped command stained victory. He did exactly the opposite and got more men killed in the Civil War than Americans killed in all other American wars combined. That comment is about how the war was fought not why it came about.
> 
> I doubt if 1% of those itching for a fight have read a single book on strategies of war. Maybe 10% have any military training but less on tactical training past following orders.


And your point is? Curious comment about magazines... I guess your in the camp of limiting magazine capacity... Or just control.


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

PalmettoTree said:


> Part of my military and college training was taking advanced classes under a former OSS officer at the masters level. This is one of the semester papers I wrote. I got an "A" on the paper and course. I was also asked to present my paper to the classes at the start of the next semester.


Good for you. An A. Just because you receive an academic A doesn't make it right, or correct, just shows that you thought something out and presented it well.

Books smart doesn't make someone life smart.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

roy said:


> Different tactics for different situations.


His tactics were superb. Which is why his strategy got so many men killed. If the goal was to get as many men killed as possible then praise him all you like.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

If you look at it that way Lincoln got all those folks killed. All the South wanted was to be left alone. Did you figure out where Virginia reliquished is sovereignty yet?


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

If you have even been in a fire fight you darn sure wish you had 20-30 rounds in a mag. The bolt action guy anit even in the fight he is providing over watch.
When it get hot sniper shots are a tv script not real world.
Never forget it is center mass fire and take the next target.
We plan to avoid but if we can not we will over whelm


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Fuzzee said:


> If the 2nd American revolution starts here and you're in it, don't waste you ammo. Be smart about what you're firing at. Think tactics with who your with. Remember your fields of fire. Don't shoot you buddy trying to be Rambo. Don't run into fire like a moron pulling your trigger till your magazine runs dry and hitting nothing only to be hit yourself. Don't blow yourself up shooting handheld rocket launchers behind a wall and not clear it. Don't throw grenades with a leather sling thong. Think about your objectives and the best way to achieve them with as little losses.
> 
> LiveLeak.com - The Most Intense Videos From Syria! [Graphic]
> 
> ...


Originally I thought if the US provided weapons to the syrian rebels we would be arming iranain sponsored terrorists. But after watching a few minutes of these videos, I see the real beauty of the program - they will use our weapons to kill themselves! Brilliant! The idiot starting to drop the mortar round down the tube wrong end up! Are ************* really that stupid?
I didn't watch all of the video, is there the footage of the moron throwing the grenade and having it bounce off the wall and end up back at his feet? I saw that on Military.com and it's a hoot. I didn't know one could run that fast in sandals.


----------



## Nathan Jefferson (May 11, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Originally I thought if the US provided weapons to the syrian rebels we would be arming iranain sponsored terrorists. But after watching a few minutes of these videos, I see the real beauty of the program - they will use our weapons to kill themselves! Brilliant! The idiot starting to drop the mortar round down the tube wrong end up! Are ************* really that stupid?
> I didn't watch all of the video, is there the footage of the moron throwing the grenade and having it bounce off the wall and end up back at his feet? I saw that on Military.com and it's a hoot. I didn't know one could run that fast in sandals.


I didn't watch all the videos but I've seen several exploding motars and RPGs on different sites talking about how it is common place for them to 'salt' rounds with high explosives. Now they might be stupid enough to drop it upside down but they might have been victim to this kind of operation, which is usually more of a psy-op than tactical.

My rule for gunfighting: run away as fast as I can.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

Where did I advocate people should be denied any size mag they wanted. I believe my only comment on mag size was regarding the the Ruger gunsite scout. (Not looking to see my exact wording) I said I preferred to have loaded the five round mag because it did not stick out as far as my two 15 round mags. Thus with the 5 round mag was more comfortable to carry. The environment for that carry would be hunting.

If I was expecting to be engaged in a fight I would be carrying my AR-15 loaded to the hilt.

I can make this prediction. Most people that own and have fully loaded 50 round mags will have a jam before needing to reload the mag. Why? Because they will exceed sustained rate of fire.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

Rigged for Quiet said:


> As a Southern/Southwestern conservative, who sees no point in a 5 rd magazine,...


There is your insinuation; here is my actual post:


PalmettoTree said:


> I prefer the 5 round polymer. I like the way it is not in the way.
> 
> If I cannot kill it in five shots I pray it is not hunting me.
> 
> ...


Therefore you are less than honest with your insinuation.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

Piratesailor said:


> And your point is? Curious comment about magazines... I guess your in the camp of limiting magazine capacity... Or just control.


Are you one of those guys that post with two screen names or just perpetuating the lie of some one else?

Again here is my post regarding 5 round mags.



PalmettoTree said:


> I prefer the 5 round polymer. I like the way it is not in the way.
> 
> If I cannot kill it in five shots I pray it is not hunting me.
> 
> ...


Clearly both of you are dishonest about what I wrote.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

roy said:


> If you look at it that way Lincoln got all those folks killed. All the South wanted was to be left alone. Did you figure out where Virginia reliquished is sovereignty yet?


My point was about Lee not Virginia. So you are committing what is known as an argumentative fallacy.

After Lee's failed strategy that got more Americans killed than all other American involved wars combined. Then Lee surrendered.

The war was not about Virginia soverentry.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I believe there is a misunderstanding going on, here.

I also think maybe none of us are professional writers and we sometimes make a position less than perfect.

These things being the case, why not shake hands and drink a beer?


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

I know it is hard when emotionally attached to a position to admit it was wrong. I am only pointing out the difference between winning battles and losing wars vs. losing battles and winning wars.

The difference between our Revolutionary strategy and Lee's strategy are clear. One ended in victory the other defeat.

The title of this thread is "... don't be like these guys" I am just holding out two more examples of "Be a smart fighter." Like our revolutionary fighters. "Don't be like" Lee's "guys."


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

PalmettoTree said:


> I know it is hard when emotionally attached to a position to admit it was wrong. I am only pointing out the difference between winning battles and losing wars vs. losing battles and winning wars.
> 
> The difference between our Revolutionary strategy and Lee's strategy are clear. One ended in victory the other defeat.
> 
> The title of this thread is "... don't be like these guys" I am just holding out two more examples of "Be a smart fighter." Like our revolutionary fighters. "Don't be like" Lee's "guys."


With all due respect, sir (that's military talk), your opinion is just that - an opinion. Which is neither more valid, nor less valid than anyone else's.
Have a nice day now, hear?


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> My point was about Lee not Virginia. So you are committing what is known as an argumentative fallacy.
> 
> After Lee's failed strategy that got more Americans killed than all other American involved wars combined. Then Lee surrendered.
> 
> The war was not about Virginia soverentry.


Actually, the war was about Virginia's sovereignty and Lee was a Virginian. He was actually against Virgina leaving the union and slavery.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

roy said:


> Actually, the war was about Virginia's sovereignty


 No it was about states rights but the right being fought over was slavery. Therefore slavery cost all states their rights and the problem continues with out of control federalism.all of which have nothing to do with the discussion



roy said:


> and Lee was a Virginian.


 True where a man is from is not a function of a good or bad strategy.



roy said:


> He was actually against Virgina leaving the union and slavery.


 True which is evidence he was a man willing to compromise his principles.

None of your post has anything what so ever regarding the best strategy for a Confederate victory. Which is what this discussion is about. This discussion began with Middle East examples of ways not to fight. I offered two examples from this country' fought in this country, of strategies one that won our freedom another that lost our states rights but freed slaves.

Selecting out the two war stratified the Revolutionary War strategy worked. Robert E Lee's father was a part of that winning strategy. Robert E Lee studied at West Point where that strategy was proudly studied. This is proof enough that Lee knew better than to deploy the strategy that turned a war into a horrifying tragedy.

As for the comment on opinions. Everyone has one. There are correct and incorrect opinions. Valid arguments free or argumentative (logical) fallacies are how such things are settled between people that are not emotionally attached to a side.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

State means nation. Virginia was a sovereign country. Slavery was an integral part of the constitution. There was no constitutional way do end it. Lee was a Virginian and a man of honor. He chose to fight for his country right or wrong. A couple of more incompetent Union generals and he might have one. One the winning side we have folks like Sherman who gave use the concept of total warfare, war on civilians.


----------



## Nathan Jefferson (May 11, 2013)

With all due respect, even if (I don't want to take sides, but lets pretend IF) Lee's strategy was the wrong one and he would have used the revolutionary strategy or more guerilla like tactics; the south was doomed to fail. Now that is my own opinion, but it is strongly backed by one, and I consider it the most important fact to think about.

The south lacked the one thing that EVERY other revolution/civil war/etc force had if they were victorious, at least for the past several hundred years since the invention of modern arms. 

That is - outside support from a foreign power. Right now the US is doing that for Syria, did it for Libya, have done it for tons of other countries. The Rooskies did it for dozens of states. The US wouldn't be the US without France, sure we saved their bacon in WWI and WWI, but the only reason we were able to was because they saved ours in the 1700's.

The south thought Europe would break the blockades and bring goods and trade. They were wrong, that fact alone cost them the war.

And if the US were to come into another civil war, the 'insurrectionists' would lose without outside support. And who is going to help them? China? Mexico? Russia? Our Nato allies would likely not help, and if they did it would be for 'the etablishment'...


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

To suggest Gen. Lee's strategy throughout the War for Southern Independence was a war of attrition is simply not factual. I think you might be confusing him with U.S. Grant (the Yankee drunk) who plainly stated his strategy as such to Lincoln when he was given command of the Army of the Potomac. Gen Lee knew the Army of Northern Virginia was considerably smaller and was considerably more constrained by supplies than the Yankee aggressors. He knew the only way he could possibly beat the Yankees was to fight an intelligent campaign following the principles of making the Yankee victories more expensive than the Confederate defeats - the same strategy you outlined above I believe. When Gen Lee was first given command of the Army of Northern Virginia the newspaper editorials in Richmond were widely against his command as they thought he was "too timid". - Hardly a characteristic of a General fighting a war of attrition.

The only place I can recall Lee ever employing a strategy of using overwhelming force was in the last two days of the Battle of Gettysburg. To compare Gen Lee to Benedict Arnold only because of his decisions on July 2nd and 3rd 150 years ago seems ridiculous to me. Not to mention, Gen Lee did not know the whole strategic situation at Gettysburg at the time as well as we do now.

Here are just a few of the facts at the end of battle on July 1, 1863 that influenced General Lee's decisions over the next two days:

1 - Gen Lee did not know he was facing the whole Army of the Potomac. His cavalry officer, Gen Stewart, had ridden too far in advance of Gen Lee's army and had completely missed all signs of Meade moving the entire Army north.

2 - Gen Lee ordered Gen Ewell to "take those heights _if practical_", pointing at the hills commanding the town. Gen Ewell had roundly defeated the Union cavalry holding the town on the first day of battle. Gen Ewell, being a lazy ass, chose not to occupy the hills at the end of the first day. During the night, the Union came in and fortified their very weak positions in the hills and that did prove to be a deciding factor in the battle.

3 - Early in the morning on July 2nd, Gen Lee ordered Gen Longstreet to attack the flank of the newly fortified Yankee positions. Gen Longstreet set about with a long series of marches and counter-marches to try and confuse the Yankees. By the time Gen Longstreet attacked it was late in the afternoon. The Yankees had used their time to move even more troops into position, while Gen Longstreet's troops were tired before the battle even began due to their long marches all day and the extreme heat. Had Gen Longstreet followed Gen Lee's intentions and attacked as soon as possible, they would have easily taken the Devil's Den and the Peach Orchard and would have likely taken Little Round Top. That would have put them in a perfect position to roll up the Yankee line the following day.

4 - Gen Lee's decision to attack the center of the Yankee line on July 3rd was a major blunder. It was a bad decision and it did cost him the battle. But since Gen Lee never claimed to be anything more than human, I hardly think that makes him into a traitor.

Also to lay the responsibility for all of the Confederate casualties at the feet of Gen Lee is also wildly inaccurate. At the height of his command, Gen Lee only commanded about 1/3 of the total number of troops fighting under the Stars and Bars. There was a western theater in the war and Gen Lee was never part of the fighting there. If you do your research, you will discover the western theater was far bloodier than Northern Virginia. Hell, out there the Yankees burned down entire cities and murdered thousands of unarmed women and children (Atlanta, Chattanooga, Memphis...)

I say this as a guy that has lived my entire life in Minnesota. I was fed all of the Yankee lies growing up in school. But it does not take too much effort to do a little research on your own and come to understand that the South was 100% right in their desire for independence and Gen Lee was maybe the greatest American that ever lived. It seems fitting now that his Arlington House is the most hallowed ground in America.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

roy said:


> State means nation. Virginia was a sovereign country. Slavery was an integral part of the constitution. There was no constitutional way do end it. Lee was a Virginian and a man of honor. He chose to fight for his country right or wrong. A couple of more incompetent Union generals and he might have one. One the winning side we have folks like Sherman who gave use the concept of total warfare, war on civilians.


Virginia signed both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution that makes them a state. Virginia was admitted to the union in 1788.

Words have meaning and context. If you are saying in the context above Virginia was still not a state then we disagree on the fundamental meaning of words. I doubt you will find few if any Constitutional scholar that agree with you. But that aside my reading of the above referenced documents say Virginia was a state.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> Virginia signed both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution that makes them a state. Virginia was admitted to the union in 1788.
> 
> Words have meaning and context. If you are saying in the context above Virginia was still not a state then we disagree on the fundamental meaning of words. I doubt you will find few if any Constitutional scholar that agree with you. But that aside my reading of the above referenced documents say Virginia was a state.


Technically, they are a Commonwealth. - That whole "words have meaning" thing again.


----------



## Rigged for Quiet (Mar 3, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> I see the same attitude in the US everyday. Most conservatives have a "damn the torpedoes all full ahead" attitude. *Add to that the obsession with large magazines.*Remember we won the Revolution by losing battles but making the cost of victory than the cost of the loss. It is also how Robert E. Lee betrayed the South. He knew how the inferior army his father helped command stained victory. He did exactly the opposite and got more men killed in the Civil War than Americans killed in all other American wars combined. That comment is about how the war was fought not why it came about.
> 
> I doubt if 1% of those itching for a fight have read a single book on strategies of war. Maybe 10% have any military training but less on tactical training past following orders.





PalmettoTree said:


> *Where did I advocate people should be denied any size mag they wanted. I believe my only comment on mag size was regarding the the Ruger gunsite scout.* (Not looking to see my exact wording) I said I preferred to have loaded the five round mag because it did not stick out as far as my two 15 round mags. Thus with the 5 round mag was more comfortable to carry. The environment for that carry would be hunting.
> 
> If I was expecting to be engaged in a fight I would be carrying my AR-15 loaded to the hilt.
> 
> I can make this prediction. Most people that own and have fully loaded 50 round mags will have a jam before needing to reload the mag. Why? Because they will exceed sustained rate of fire.





PalmettoTree said:


> There is your insinuation; here is my actual post:
> 
> _Here you chose to post a quote from a completely different thread, for reasons only you can provide._
> 
> Therefore you are less than honest with your insinuation.


You sir, are less than honest in your style of argument.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

Nathan Jefferson said:


> With all due respect, even if (I don't want to take sides, but lets pretend IF) Lee's strategy was the wrong one and he would have used the revolutionary strategy or more guerilla like tactics; the south was doomed to fail. Now that is my own opinion, but it is strongly backed by one, and I consider it the most important fact to think about.
> 
> The south lacked the one thing that EVERY other revolution/civil war/etc force had if they were victorious, at least for the past several hundred years since the invention of modern arms.
> 
> ...


I do not disagree with you about the south being doomed. There were many factors that were foolish calculations by the south. We should not have picked the fight. Slavery was the least of what was lost; if i remember correctly all countries in the Americas abolished slavery by 1890. The north had better supply support in every important category. Europe had no interest in supporting the south because the slave population had become self sustaining.

For years these the war college has scrubbed the identities of north and south and each student must write a strategy for each side. Never has Lee's stand along the northern Virginia line been accepted as the preferred strategy.

The over riding reason Lee's strategy is rejected is he did not test the north's supply chain. It kept the north close to it's supply chain and reinforcements. It did the opposite for the south. The south was industrially poor but that is all the more reason to pull the north away from its industrial, personnel, and esprit de corps support.

Lee's strategy not only was logistically wrong it left the south exposed from the west and east. So the net result of Lee's strategy was it maximized death, maximized the plunder of the south, and created an emotional hatred of the north by southers.

Most that write Lee's strategy should be to decide the forces into hit and run tactics from the mountains with the focus on taking supplies. The Easter forces would would draw the north into swamps.

Most say the only chance the south had was to capture the north's supplies. The plan would be that more northern troops left unarmed and add the numbers of slaves that would follow them would further strain their logistics.

I think you get the picture.

All Lee did was protect Varginia; maximize deaths; and leave all other southern states unprotected. Those are the facts.

Even if you all disagree with me about Lee you better think before getting into a shooting war. Don't be like Lee's guys.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

Rigged for Quiet said:


> You sir, are less than honest in your style of argument.


I do not drink from my words. I believe in your right to have any size mag. I see most people with them and their fire habits exceeding the sustained fire rate resulting in jams. Large mags encourage successive rates of fire with less accuracy. Are you failure with slide fire stocks?

I believe in your right to use an AR with any size mag equipped with a slide fire stock and a suppressor. I think most will run out of ammo and damaged their gun.

All my statements have been about proper use if any and all firearms.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

PalmettoTree said:


> As for the comment on opinions. Everyone has one. There are correct and incorrect opinions. Valid arguments free or argumentative (logical) fallacies are how such things are settled between people that are not emotionally attached to a side.


And of course yours are correct and any differing opinion is incorrect.
Bless your heart.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> And of course yours are correct and any differing opinion is incorrect.
> Bless your heart.


No, I just argue my opinion with the facts that formed it.

I admit the part that surprised me those that defended Lee without actually defending his strategy. Lee had superbe lieutenants (not in rank but the generals that reported to him.). The way they deployed their artillery was legendary.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> No, I just argue my opinion with the facts that formed it.


Then please state your facts sir. You asserted that General Lee was a traitor. You asserted General Lee fought a war of attrition. You laid the responsibility of all of the casualties for the war at General Lee's feet. So far all of your posts I have read in this thread are either generalities (without anything to back them up) or sweeping pronouncements from an opinion poll done at some university (and I do not care if that is West Point). If you have some info that I am previously unaware of, please lay it out otherwise I take it that you are full of shit.


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

Can't we get back to bashing Muslims? 

The problem with the civil war was generals with 1812 tactics fighting with 1860's weapons.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Montana Rancher said:


> Can't we get back to bashing Muslims?


Hell yeah! - I'm game! Just start the thread!


----------



## www.BigBugOutTrucks.com (Mar 14, 2013)

There is no time to explain the mentality here! 










Fuzzee said:


> If the 2nd American revolution starts here and you're in it, don't waste you ammo. Be smart about what you're firing at. Think tactics with who your with. Remember your fields of fire. Don't shoot you buddy trying to be Rambo. Don't run into fire like a moron pulling your trigger till your magazine runs dry and hitting nothing only to be hit yourself. Don't blow yourself up shooting handheld rocket launchers behind a wall and not clear it. Don't throw grenades with a leather sling thong. Think about your objectives and the best way to achieve them with as little losses.
> 
> LiveLeak.com - The Most Intense Videos From Syria! [Graphic]
> 
> ...


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> Virginia signed both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution that makes them a state. Virginia was admitted to the union in 1788.
> 
> Words have meaning and context. If you are saying in the context above Virginia was still not a state then we disagree on the fundamental meaning of words. I doubt you will find few if any Constitutional scholar that agree with you. But that aside my reading of the above referenced documents say Virginia was a state.


Yes words have meaning and you should look up "state". Virginia was a sovereign (you might look up sovereign, too) state when it joined the United States under the Articles of Confederation, was a sovereign state when it left that union to join the United States under the present constitution. I again ask, where, exactly, did Virginia relinquish it sovereignty? What would have happened had only 9 states joined the United States under the present constitution?


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

The fact is Lee's strategy got the most men possible slaughtered. It permitted the easy walk through "scorched earth" tactic that was employed by the north. One Lee knew was coming.

Just as one traitor might turn on his compadres for special treatment lee did this to the rest of the south. Virginia had the choice to join or not join the south. Lee had the choice to join or not join the Confederate Army. Both chose to join but neither suffered for that choice Lee made sure of that with his strategy. Lee should be considered as a hero by Virginians buy not by southerners. He saved one and betrayed the other. It is clear by the treatment of both during and after the war.

That is my opinion based on the facts before, during and after the war. Agree with me or not; I have found few publicly change their opinions immediately if ever when emotionally attached. I'll leave it to others to consider my position and accept or reject. I have no control over either. 

As one has already stated some are tiring of our argument. We are not likely to find common ground to agree. I hope several things was learned by some.

There is a difference between tactics and strategies. Strategies are chosen to win a particular war. Tactics are chosen to successfully complete the selected strategy. Be careful not to mix the two. Always keep the strategy secret even in the face of public scorn. A change in leadership at the top often results in a change in strategy. When evaluating the strategy of others keep this in mind.

With this I move on.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

As a neutral Brit, my take on the Revolutionary War is that the Brits with their professional elite army would probably have won eventually, but had to be shipped back to Europe prematurely to deal with the French.
As for the American Civil War, it was a bad call by the South to start it without taking into account the fact that the North with its superior numerical manpower, industry and navy would inevitably win in the end.


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

Inor said:


> To suggest Gen. Lee's strategy throughout the War for Southern Independence was a war of attrition is simply not factual. I think you might be confusing him with U.S. Grant (the Yankee drunk) who plainly stated his strategy as such to Lincoln when he was given command of the Army of the Potomac. Gen Lee knew the Army of Northern Virginia was considerably smaller and was considerably more constrained by supplies than the Yankee aggressors. He knew the only way he could possibly beat the Yankees was to fight an intelligent campaign following the principles of making the Yankee victories more expensive than the Confederate defeats - the same strategy you outlined above I believe. When Gen Lee was first given command of the Army of Northern Virginia the newspaper editorials in Richmond were widely against his command as they thought he was "too timid". - Hardly a characteristic of a General fighting a war of attrition.
> 
> The only place I can recall Lee ever employing a strategy of using overwhelming force was in the last two days of the Battle of Gettysburg. To compare Gen Lee to Benedict Arnold only because of his decisions on July 2nd and 3rd 150 years ago seems ridiculous to me. Not to mention, Gen Lee did not know the whole strategic situation at Gettysburg at the time as well as we do now.
> 
> ...


Please forgive my pedantic nature. I found your position to be well thought out and presented. However Lee's cavalry commander was J.E.B. Stuart not Stewart. Please forgive my quibble concerning your excellent post.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Jim,
That's pretty much my take on it...most of the recent ( modern era) civil wars are faction against faction rather than state against and as such Fuzzees advice makes sense. If for no other reason than one could simply be minding their own business (not involved) and still find themselves having to fight their way out of a sticky situation.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

retired guard said:


> Please forgive my pedantic nature. I found your position to be well thought out and presented. However Lee's cavalry commander was J.E.B. Stuart not Stewart. Please forgive my quibble concerning your excellent post.


Damn spellcheck... :-D


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

They rewrite History to suit liberals so you can make up just about any case you want depending on who's version of facts you use. I know this from modern times battle I was involved in are reported and recorder-ed in such away I not really sure I was there.
How can any person alive today judge the conduct of a war fought that long ago under those conditions not realistic
Lucky Jim One major way to win a war is make the price to darn high for the other side to fight it.
Our current leaders need to remember that.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

A famous quote that's very true....History is written by the victor.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I tried to stay out of this War of Northern Aggression debate, but I can no longer stand idly by while a bunch of misguided idjits banter nonsense. I feel the need to set the record straight, once and for all.

The North did not beat the South, pure and simple. Grant stole Lee's sword in the dead of night, and Lee was too much of a gentleman to ask for its return.

Now that you know the truth, please feel free to pass it along at every opportunity.

:grin:


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

This is all I know about the civil war:
It was started because the south was not allowed to sell their cotton on the international market. They had to sell to the northern mills at a fraction of the price that was available on the international market. They decided to secede from the US - a right provided by the 10th amendment - Lincoln declared war without congressional approval - another violation of the constitution - When the southern commander of the ship in the harbor asked that the northern army vacate the sovereign land of the state he was told by the fort commander that his men would starve before handing it over and then later told that the fort would fire upon the ship and sink it before starving. The ship opened fire on the foreign force inside the fort to rid their sovereign land of the occupiers.

Not one unlawful act by the South precipitated the civil war. The unlawful acts of a president caused that war and he along with his generals are responsible for the great loss of life that took place. The abolition of slavery did not become an issue until late in the war. While it was surely on the minds of northern citizens it was not a presidential concern until the war was causing more deaths and taking more time to end than the north had considered.

I was born in Washington (the sovereign state) and have never lived in the south. If you study the actions of the federal government leading up to the war you will find as I did that it was over profit not slavery.


----------



## Rigged for Quiet (Mar 3, 2013)

Denton said:


> I tried to stay out of this War of Northern Aggression debate, but I can no longer stand idly by while a bunch of misguided idjits banter nonsense. I feel the need to set the record straight, once and for all.
> 
> The North did not beat the South, pure and simple. Grant stole Lee's sword in the dead of night, and Lee was too much of a gentleman to ask for its return.
> 
> ...


And jes who the hell sez we is done anyways?


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

PaulS said:


> This is all I know about the civil war:
> It was started because the south was not allowed to sell their cotton on the international market. They had to sell to the northern mills at a fraction of the price that was available on the international market. They decided to secede from the US - a right provided by the 10th amendment - Lincoln declared war without congressional approval - another violation of the constitution - When the southern commander of the ship in the harbor asked that the northern army vacate the sovereign land of the state he was told by the fort commander that his men would starve before handing it over and then later told that the fort would fire upon the ship and sink it before starving. The ship opened fire on the foreign force inside the fort to rid their sovereign land of the occupiers.
> 
> Not one unlawful act by the South precipitated the civil war. The unlawful acts of a president caused that war and he along with his generals are responsible for the great loss of life that took place. The abolition of slavery did not become an issue until late in the war. While it was surely on the minds of northern citizens it was not a presidential concern until the war was causing more deaths and taking more time to end than the north had considered.
> ...


 You are forbidden to teach that in public schools. It was about evil white men and slaves now back to reeducation camp for you.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Yeah, I don't play well with programmed education and to prove it I was the first contract student to graduate from my high school. I went to school the first day to sign up for my classes and get contracts from my teachers for completion, and then back the last day of school to do the final tests.

I completed the contract work while supporting myself and living away from home and aced the tests.
after a few years away from school I continued my education and finished with a MS in theology.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

PaulS said:


> This is all I know about the civil war:
> It was started because the south was not allowed to sell their cotton on the international market. They had to sell to the northern mills at a fraction of the price that was available on the international market. They decided to secede from the US - a right provided by the 10th amendment - Lincoln declared war without congressional approval - another violation of the constitution - When the southern commander of the ship in the harbor asked that the northern army vacate the sovereign land of the state he was told by the fort commander that his men would starve before handing it over and then later told that the fort would fire upon the ship and sink it before starving. The ship opened fire on the foreign force inside the fort to rid their sovereign land of the occupiers.
> 
> Not one unlawful act by the South precipitated the civil war. The unlawful acts of a president caused that war and he along with his generals are responsible for the great loss of life that took place. The abolition of slavery did not become an issue until late in the war. While it was surely on the minds of northern citizens it was not a presidential concern until the war was causing more deaths and taking more time to end than the north had considered.
> ...


You would think we would learn our lesson about electing Illinois lawyers to the Presidency...


----------



## Nathan Jefferson (May 11, 2013)

Inor said:


> You would think we would learn our lesson about electing Illinois lawyers to the Presidency...


I'm glad I wasn't drinking when I read that!

Cheers!


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Incidentally I haven't seen the 2012 film 'Lincoln' starring Daniel Day-Lewis yet, but a review in the national Daily Mail earlier this month said it _"misleadingly and over-selectively portrays the Republican President as a modern bleeding-heart liberal,..... with Day-Lewis intoning speeches by the great man in a reedy tenor..."_
Wow I never knew Lincoln was a squeaky-voiced hand-wringing wishy-washy liberal, but it must be true if Hollywood says so..

PS- and it was crazy to choose a British actor to play him, it was an insult to the many American actors who could have done it, but there's anti-patriotic pinko Hollywood for you, we've got the same sort of lefty creeps running the film and TV industry over here in Britain.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

PaulS said:


> This is all I know about the civil war:
> It was started because the south was not allowed to sell their cotton on the international market. They had to sell to the northern mills at a fraction of the price that was available on the international market. They decided to secede from the US - a right provided by the 10th amendment - Lincoln declared war without congressional approval - another violation of the constitution - When the southern commander of the ship in the harbor asked that the northern army vacate the sovereign land of the state he was told by the fort commander that his men would starve before handing it over and then later told that the fort would fire upon the ship and sink it before starving. The ship opened fire on the foreign force inside the fort to rid their sovereign land of the occupiers.
> 
> Not one unlawful act by the South precipitated the civil war. The unlawful acts of a president caused that war and he along with his generals are responsible for the great loss of life that took place. The abolition of slavery did not become an issue until late in the war. While it was surely on the minds of northern citizens it was not a presidential concern until the war was causing more deaths and taking more time to end than the north had considered.
> ...


Very well put!
Some people seem to think that presidents abusing and ignoring the Constitution is a new thing. It is not. One of the biggest rapers of the Constitution in history was Abraham Lincoln.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

Compared to Lincoln most the others are pikers.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Very well put!
> Some people seem to think that presidents abusing and ignoring the Constitution is a new thing. It is not. One of the biggest rapers of the Constitution in history was Abraham Lincoln.





roy said:


> Compared to Lincoln most the others are pikers.


Lincoln was a monster who got his just deserts.


----------

