re: Stan McChrystal - Good riddance: Americans need to set aside icons like Robert E. Lee...

quote:

---

That's the ONLY way they COULD have won.

---

No, it would’ve prolonged the war, and the south still would’ve lost. The south was essentially under siege the last couple years of the war. The south had to strike a death blow on the north, in the north, in order to win the war.

Lee was a better man than you. Not sure if man is exactly correct for you. The most accurate description would be creepy, pussified furrie. Weirdo for short.

quote:

---

Did overconfidence play into Lee ordering the charge? Sure.

---

And overconfidence is supposed to simply be ignored when evaluating the military talents of a commander?

Sure, it was overconfident. It was also callous. Much like Burnside at Fredericksburg, he didn't give a shite about the lives of his soldiers as long as the field was won.... and just like Burnside not only did he lose the soldiers he didn't win the field, either.

And the entire battle, not just Pickett's charge, should never have been engaged in the first place. He should never have been in Pennsylvania. His traitorous arse should have just stayed in Virginia and wait for the North to become weary of trying to subjugate them, instead of invigorating his enemy. That, also, was a case of overconfidence by a poor judge of circumstances.

quote:

---

Attacking the North pissed off Northerners the same way Napoleon invading and Hitler invading pissed off the Russians, who were then not going to settle for merely expelling their enemies. IT WAS ON.

---

And attacking the South pissed off Southerners in exactly the same way. As this topic illustrates, The "United States" has rarely been united. McChrystal is either an idiot (quite possibly, showing how his career ended), or is purposely writing this article with great hubris to set himself up politically.

Just curious, did any of your ancestors serve in the CSA?

quote:

---

And overconfidence is supposed to simply be ignored when evaluating the military talents of a commander?

---

What great general does not have bouts of overconfidence that turn costly?

Are you arguing that there is no such thing as a great general?

I mean. . .

quote:

---

he didn't give a shite about the lives of his soldiers as long as the field was won

---

That is the job of a general in war.

quote:

---

not only did he lose the soldiers he didn't win the field, either.

---

yeah. He lost.

That is what happens when any general loses.

Napoleon had already embarrassed the rest of Europe before he ended up invading the russian empire. They drew him into the country to harangue his quick strike strategy because he whipped them so badly the first go round. For the smartest guy in the room you really don’t know shite.

Classic example of holding historical figures to modern standards. Let’s see you defend the sexual licentiousness of Martin Luther King Jr., FDR, LBJ, the Kennedy’s etc

Forget that douche. For over 150 years, Lee was universally respected as a great military mind, and unflappable federalist, and an honorable man who didnt particulary support the institution of slavery. It wanst until the SJW era that history was completely rewritten.

quote:

---

Classic example of holding historical figures to modern standards.

---

As they should be.

Having said that, even for his own times (as the linked essay shows) Lee was an uncommonly cruel bastard.

Ignore it completely. Great job. Tell Mags how you owned those racists on TD.