My post is pretty simple. Not sure what your driving at.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
U.S. Navy SEAL snipers had passed on multiple opportunities to fire.
- Thread starter jficquette
- Start date
My post is pretty simple. Not sure what your driving at.
Quote from trefoil:
Your pointless rant is noted.
Some facts, please.
In the book cited by the OP, Eisenhower says the Phillipines were in a hopeless situation. If you disagree, provide some beef. Anyone can rant and make stupid ad hominems like the ones in your post.
Then, don't you pull the troops out? At least, don't you have some shipping to get trained troops out so they can fight again?
Eisenhower was in the Phillipines in the thirties. He didn't make any effort to alleviate that situation? It's bad leadership, plain and simple. What could have been done? I'm sure they discuss that at West Point. Maybe you could make some calls. I'm obviously too stupid.
Sorry to bother you genius.
Don't be sorry. I am completely unfamiliar with this Phillipines thing.
In the book cited by the OP, Eisenhower says they were in a hopeless situation. From your reply, I gather that this could be interpreted as self-serving.
So, a little detail? What, exactly, is bringing you to this conclusion? Secondly, what does this have to do with jc's claim that FDR (not Eisenhower) caused hundreds of thousands of additional casualties?
I'm going to assume, on the basis of mere logic, that this has something to do with FDR being complicit in Eisenhower's inaction on the Phillipines?
In the book cited by the OP, Eisenhower says they were in a hopeless situation. From your reply, I gather that this could be interpreted as self-serving.
So, a little detail? What, exactly, is bringing you to this conclusion? Secondly, what does this have to do with jc's claim that FDR (not Eisenhower) caused hundreds of thousands of additional casualties?
I'm going to assume, on the basis of mere logic, that this has something to do with FDR being complicit in Eisenhower's inaction on the Phillipines?
Eisenhower was not in command. McArthur was. We stranded 80,000 troops. Those that weren't killed in combat were tortured. At the end of the war,it was documented the Japanese faked airraids, herded prisoners into slit trenches, doused them with gasoline, and set them on fire.
Now, whose fault was that? I'd say, the C in C. McArthur could only do what was ordered. It has to fall on the C in C.
BTW, the Seal snipers waited, in position, for 15 hours. They had acquired the targets the whole time, while awaiting orders. If it was McCain, or Bush 41, they wouldn't have time for a sip of water.
Don't ask.
As an aside, military service and all. I met an elderly gentleman over 20 years ago who belonged to the CC that Francis Ouimet won the US Open. He told me about speaking to Cardinal, can't remember if it was Cushing, but anyway,the bigwig in Boston in the early 60's, and this happened at Brookline. The Cardinal had told this fellow that JFK was confiding in him his uneasiness with the Vietnam situation, and he was going to pull the advisors out. It would be a sentiment you would attribute to someone who had men under his command die in combat.
Who got us in deep, where so many of my friends died? A politician w/no military experience.
Now, whose fault was that? I'd say, the C in C. McArthur could only do what was ordered. It has to fall on the C in C.
BTW, the Seal snipers waited, in position, for 15 hours. They had acquired the targets the whole time, while awaiting orders. If it was McCain, or Bush 41, they wouldn't have time for a sip of water.
Don't ask.
As an aside, military service and all. I met an elderly gentleman over 20 years ago who belonged to the CC that Francis Ouimet won the US Open. He told me about speaking to Cardinal, can't remember if it was Cushing, but anyway,the bigwig in Boston in the early 60's, and this happened at Brookline. The Cardinal had told this fellow that JFK was confiding in him his uneasiness with the Vietnam situation, and he was going to pull the advisors out. It would be a sentiment you would attribute to someone who had men under his command die in combat.
Who got us in deep, where so many of my friends died? A politician w/no military experience.
Quote from flytiger:
Eisenhower was not in command. McArthur was. We stranded 80,000 troops. Those that weren't killed in combat were tortured. At the end of the war,it was documented the Japanese faked airraids, herded prisoners into slit trenches, doused them with gasoline, and set them on fire.
Now, whose fault was that? I'd say, the C in C. McArthur could only do what was ordered. It has to fall on the C in C.
BTW, the Seal snipers waited, in position, for 15 hours. They had acquired the targets the whole time, while awaiting orders. If it was McCain, or Bush 41, they wouldn't have time for a sip of water.
Don't ask.
As an aside, military service and all. I met an elderly gentleman over 20 years ago who belonged to the CC that Francis Ouimet won the US Open. He told me about speaking to Cardinal, can't remember if it was Cushing, but anyway,the bigwig in Boston in the early 60's, and this happened at Brookline. The Cardinal had told this fellow that JFK was confiding in him his uneasiness with the Vietnam situation, and he was going to pull the advisors out. It would be a sentiment you would attribute to someone who had men under his command die in combat.
Who got us in deep, where so many of my friends died? A politician w/no military experience.
Interesting, but not sufficient. If MacArthur was the field commander, and was actively being attacked, I can't imagine that some order not to resist, which appears to be what you're charging, would have come direct from FDR.
Actually, it's a little hard to make out exactly what the charge is here. If stranded, then it would mean that either
a) they should be pulled out, or
b) sufficiently supported.
But the bit about the Seals acquiring targets and being unable to do anything about it implies a more active involvement by FDR than mere negligence or bad judgment. So, is it negligence, bad judgment, or an actual order that prevented MacArthur from countering the Japanese?
Any field commander, I would think, would have let the Seals do their thing, and FDR wouldn't have been that intimately involved in the intricate details of the resistance, so...well, I'm not sure where that leads.
Reading up on it online, I see the air force was destroyed Dec 8 (source here), one day after Pearl Harbor. Given that that would have given Japan prohibitive air superiority, I'm not real sure what you think could have been done that early in the war, in a place that far away. As it seems you have decent info, what exactly do you think could have been done that quickly?
The Seals I was referring to were the ones that snuffed out the Pirates. I was pointing out the indecision of the current CinC.
What should have been done in the Phillipines was exactly what you said. Get them out, or adequately arm them to defend themselves.
It was no secret that the Japanese were bent on conquest. Mitchell argued that fact and was drummed out of the Army in the 20's. Eisenhower was not in the Phillipines when War broke out. You keep dwelling on him. He was a Major. But given the fact the country wasn't armed properly, it would have been prudent to either withdraw, or at least retreat to defensible positions.
The destruction of Pearl Harbor is another story, subject to speculation. But , who was the CinC? How many died?
It is only a recent development that we are so concerned with casualties. The previous posters point about FDR must be considered. Having such an inexperienced CinC at this time,in a time of war, is extremely worrisome. That is not arguable. You may be very comfortable: I, and many others,are not. Because you can't bring corpses back to life like this is Universal Studios.
What should have been done in the Phillipines was exactly what you said. Get them out, or adequately arm them to defend themselves.
It was no secret that the Japanese were bent on conquest. Mitchell argued that fact and was drummed out of the Army in the 20's. Eisenhower was not in the Phillipines when War broke out. You keep dwelling on him. He was a Major. But given the fact the country wasn't armed properly, it would have been prudent to either withdraw, or at least retreat to defensible positions.
The destruction of Pearl Harbor is another story, subject to speculation. But , who was the CinC? How many died?
It is only a recent development that we are so concerned with casualties. The previous posters point about FDR must be considered. Having such an inexperienced CinC at this time,in a time of war, is extremely worrisome. That is not arguable. You may be very comfortable: I, and many others,are not. Because you can't bring corpses back to life like this is Universal Studios.
Sorry about the misunderstanding about the Seals.
I dwelt on Eisenhower because he was brought up by jc, and the only thing I could find in the book he cited that might have questioned FDR's judgment was about the Phillipines.
In re the rest, a little Constitutional background: the Prez is supposed to be very constrained in his command of the military. It was never envisioned that wars would be fought without a declaration from Congress.
The design of the Federal government was that Congress, the lower house at that, raises the actual money. So, no President could raise money for an army without them. Congress also declares war. If you go back and look, you'll also notice there's a very interesting sunset clause in appropriations for an Army: they had to be renewed every two years, at least, by the Congress. Because, of course, the term of a Congressman is two years. So, if an army was to be supported by tax dollars, a Congressman had to vote that appropriation for that army up or down at least once in his term.
No such clause exists for the Navy, since they were seen as essential to the defense of the country and its international interests. Invasion by land would be taken care of by the state militias: the National Guard.
Only after a declaration of war was the President to get involved, and then only as an administrator; actual field decisions would of course be left to the commanders in the field. This is all in the Federalist Papers, in the numbers that deal with all these issues.
As for Obama holding back the Seals, I don't see it. My impression, and the impression of a lot of people by the way, is that he would have been attacked no matter what he did, for something. You guys had to come up with something to say, so you come up with him holding back the Seals. Given what actually happened, I don't think you're going to get much traction.
Going all the way back to the Phillipines, I don't see where FDR is complicit in what happened there. The Japanese struck very quickly, and had the element of surprise.
Your man Mitchell was drummed out in 1926 and he died in 1936, so once again, where FDR fits in, I have no idea. Your beef lies with Calvin Coolidge, who actively sought his court-martial. FDR doubtless could be fingered with making a bad decision in not bringing Mitchell back in, but I could easily envision the politics of that back then: it would have made FDR very unpopular with a large segment of the military establishment, who probably considered Mitchell a dangerous nut. So FDR was guilty of what many other Presidents have been guilty of before and since: believing too much in what their military "experts" have to say. But that's a very tough nut to crack, for anyone.
BTW, having read up on Mitchell and his report on how the Japanese would attack (http://boards.history.com/topic/Pearl-Harbor-Forum/General-Billy-Mitchells/300032518) I have to say I'm seriously impressed. Too bad the folks back then didn't think so.
I dwelt on Eisenhower because he was brought up by jc, and the only thing I could find in the book he cited that might have questioned FDR's judgment was about the Phillipines.
In re the rest, a little Constitutional background: the Prez is supposed to be very constrained in his command of the military. It was never envisioned that wars would be fought without a declaration from Congress.
The design of the Federal government was that Congress, the lower house at that, raises the actual money. So, no President could raise money for an army without them. Congress also declares war. If you go back and look, you'll also notice there's a very interesting sunset clause in appropriations for an Army: they had to be renewed every two years, at least, by the Congress. Because, of course, the term of a Congressman is two years. So, if an army was to be supported by tax dollars, a Congressman had to vote that appropriation for that army up or down at least once in his term.
No such clause exists for the Navy, since they were seen as essential to the defense of the country and its international interests. Invasion by land would be taken care of by the state militias: the National Guard.
Only after a declaration of war was the President to get involved, and then only as an administrator; actual field decisions would of course be left to the commanders in the field. This is all in the Federalist Papers, in the numbers that deal with all these issues.
As for Obama holding back the Seals, I don't see it. My impression, and the impression of a lot of people by the way, is that he would have been attacked no matter what he did, for something. You guys had to come up with something to say, so you come up with him holding back the Seals. Given what actually happened, I don't think you're going to get much traction.
Going all the way back to the Phillipines, I don't see where FDR is complicit in what happened there. The Japanese struck very quickly, and had the element of surprise.
Your man Mitchell was drummed out in 1926 and he died in 1936, so once again, where FDR fits in, I have no idea. Your beef lies with Calvin Coolidge, who actively sought his court-martial. FDR doubtless could be fingered with making a bad decision in not bringing Mitchell back in, but I could easily envision the politics of that back then: it would have made FDR very unpopular with a large segment of the military establishment, who probably considered Mitchell a dangerous nut. So FDR was guilty of what many other Presidents have been guilty of before and since: believing too much in what their military "experts" have to say. But that's a very tough nut to crack, for anyone.
BTW, having read up on Mitchell and his report on how the Japanese would attack (http://boards.history.com/topic/Pearl-Harbor-Forum/General-Billy-Mitchells/300032518) I have to say I'm seriously impressed. Too bad the folks back then didn't think so.
jficquette - the guy who would criticize Obama no matter what.
Here you have a perfect outcome. All pirates killed, and the captain safe and on the way to be reunited with his family.
Yet there's the dimwitted jficquette, bitching and whining about what who knows.
Had this been accomplished under Dubya, jficquette would be begging to give him a reach-around.
Here you have a perfect outcome. All pirates killed, and the captain safe and on the way to be reunited with his family.
Yet there's the dimwitted jficquette, bitching and whining about what who knows.
Had this been accomplished under Dubya, jficquette would be begging to give him a reach-around.