- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Army is considering changing the name of Fort Liberty back to Fort Bragg
Posted on 2/9/25 at 11:10 am to MontanaTiger
Posted on 2/9/25 at 11:10 am to MontanaTiger
quote:
At Least Fort Moore is now named after a true American hero, Hal Moore, of “We Were Soldiers” fame.
Put Benning back the way it was; open a new post for General Moore.
Posted on 2/9/25 at 11:12 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Now we can resume our “Back at Bragg” stories!
Posted on 2/9/25 at 11:15 am to AU86
Not only was Hood a bad general, he had little ties to Texas. And once the Civil War ended he left the state, never to return.
I'd leave ours with the new name. Or pick Roy Benavidez instead.
I'd leave ours with the new name. Or pick Roy Benavidez instead.
Posted on 2/9/25 at 11:16 am to EagleEye99
quote:
The whole name change thing was a huge waste of money
Based on the last two weeks, I think it may have been an opportunity to launder some more Federal dollars to the Democratic Party coffers. I don't think the Democrats really give a frick about the names.
Posted on 2/9/25 at 11:21 am to RougeDawg
quote:
Based on the last two weeks, I think it may have been an opportunity to launder some more Federal dollars to the Democratic Party coffers. I don't think the Democrats really give a frick about the names.
Posted on 2/9/25 at 11:50 am to SallysHuman
quote:It certainly is quite melodramatic to act as if changing the name of a place is so shattering of past men and women that it must be avoided.
Bound by common experience and tradition- associated with the name of the place they came through, but sure... be rude.
Posted on 2/9/25 at 12:04 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
It certainly is quite melodramatic to act as if changing the name of a place is so shattering of past men and women that it must be avoided.
I don't know why you're coming at me... no one said it was shattering. What it is, is unnecessary, done to sow division, intentionally fraying the common thread of history and service and disrespectful to those who came through said places.
EABOD
Posted on 2/9/25 at 12:09 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
It certainly is quite melodramatic to act as if changing the name of a place is so shattering of past men and women that it must be avoided.
Is it not quite melodramatic to also act as if they needed a name change in the first place...to the estimated tune of $62.5MM (I'm sure that initial estimate by Congress was way low)? I can understand rebranding by a corporate or private entity, but Army bases? What's the point of doing so outside the "feels" and Orwellian impact to erase and rewrite history or as pointed out above another way to put some of your and my money back in their pockets?
This post was edited on 2/9/25 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 2/9/25 at 2:38 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Big Scrub TX
How did I know you’d be opposed to this?
Posted on 2/9/25 at 3:31 pm to armtackledawg
quote:
This is one area where I am on the other side. Proud Southerner, but why should the US Army name anything after Confederate generals?
As others have mentioned, it was part of a reconciliation effort around the 50ish year anniversary of the war. I believe each state where a base was located had a council to select the name. Typically the group would select the most notable military leader from their respective state.
This was probably because state identities carried a lot more weight back then, and also to keep every base from being named Ft Lee.
I can also vouch for the aspect that each base takes on an identity that’s larger than the original namesake. It’s forged by the units stationed there and transcends generations of Soldiers.
When you change the name, you disrupt the chain of the identity being passed on to future generations of Soldiers. This tactic is associated with woke culture, but I think it’s actually a Marxist tactic- To break a culture by erasing its identity makes it more susceptible to other narratives.
We’ve recently seen proof that the left/deep state will go to extremes to peddle their narrative. I believe renaming the bases was
part of the plan. If for no other reason than, it should be changed back just to remove the impact of the leftists.
Posted on 2/9/25 at 3:33 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
We should get all of our historical statues back as well.....it was all a big propaganda shite show.....
Popular
Back to top

0





