HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » One general liked wearing...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:43 PM

One general liked wearing ribbons, the other won World War II. (PHOTO)

Can you guess which ones?


94 replies, 10088 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 94 replies Author Time Post
Reply One general liked wearing ribbons, the other won World War II. (PHOTO) (Original post)
RandySF Nov 2012 OP
Hekate Nov 2012 #1
ananda Nov 2012 #2
Horse with no Name Nov 2012 #6
Joey Liberal Nov 2012 #30
Manifestor_of_Light Nov 2012 #67
former9thward Nov 2012 #71
thucythucy Nov 2012 #35
dchill Nov 2012 #64
a la izquierda Nov 2012 #89
kiva Nov 2012 #42
Drunken Irishman Nov 2012 #58
vaberella Nov 2012 #61
Drunken Irishman Nov 2012 #62
kiva Nov 2012 #76
truebluegreen Nov 2012 #60
rexcat Nov 2012 #46
truebluegreen Nov 2012 #52
Cleita Nov 2012 #7
Kennah Nov 2012 #12
dsc Nov 2012 #19
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #9
Cleita Nov 2012 #10
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #22
Cleita Nov 2012 #23
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #28
Cleita Nov 2012 #31
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #50
Cleita Nov 2012 #54
PatSeg Nov 2012 #37
Odin2005 Nov 2012 #25
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #29
Hippo_Tron Nov 2012 #43
DURHAM D Nov 2012 #11
donco Nov 2012 #56
Hekate Nov 2012 #84
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #3
BumRushDaShow Nov 2012 #4
yardwork Nov 2012 #5
bluestate10 Nov 2012 #8
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #13
Hippo_Tron Nov 2012 #36
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #40
Posteritatis Nov 2012 #26
LiberalAndProud Nov 2012 #14
DURHAM D Nov 2012 #15
Ernesto Nov 2012 #16
Kennah Nov 2012 #17
Blue_Tires Nov 2012 #94
Journeyman Nov 2012 #18
xtraxritical Nov 2012 #59
GoCubsGo Nov 2012 #20
ReRe Nov 2012 #33
GoCubsGo Nov 2012 #38
ReRe Nov 2012 #63
GoCubsGo Nov 2012 #68
ReRe Nov 2012 #75
ThoughtCriminal Nov 2012 #21
Posteritatis Nov 2012 #27
No Vested Interest Nov 2012 #32
Iggo Nov 2012 #39
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #41
JVS Nov 2012 #77
Odin2005 Nov 2012 #24
Victor_c3 Nov 2012 #34
MADem Nov 2012 #45
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #47
-..__... Nov 2012 #53
MADem Nov 2012 #44
FarCenter Nov 2012 #48
-..__... Nov 2012 #49
Kingofalldems Nov 2012 #51
Lint Head Nov 2012 #55
orpupilofnature57 Nov 2012 #57
larocks4552s Nov 2012 #65
glacierbay Nov 2012 #66
quietwrite Nov 2012 #69
Angleae Nov 2012 #70
Ernesto Nov 2012 #72
Angleae Nov 2012 #78
PavePusher Nov 2012 #81
sammytko Nov 2012 #73
PavePusher Nov 2012 #80
pinboy3niner Nov 2012 #87
Trailrider1951 Nov 2012 #74
whistler162 Nov 2012 #88
southernyankeebelle Nov 2012 #79
PavePusher Nov 2012 #83
southernyankeebelle Nov 2012 #91
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #85
southernyankeebelle Nov 2012 #90
PavePusher Nov 2012 #82
jberryhill Nov 2012 #86
Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2012 #92
apocalypsehow Nov 2012 #93

Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:46 PM

1. I like Ike

Wish I still had the campaign button that passed through my hands as a little kid! He was a good president, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:50 PM

2. Ike was a feel good prez for some people..

.. but he didn't do much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:00 PM

6. Do what??

http://www.nps.gov/features/eise/jrranger/5accompX.htm

1. He Kept America at Peace.

Eisenhower was confronted with major Cold War crises every year he was in office: Korea, Vietnam, Formosa, Suez, Hungary, Berlin, and the U-2. While more than once America seemed on the brink of war and those around him clamored to drop the Bomb, Eisenhower always kept a level head. He dealt calmly and rationally with each situation, always finding a solution that avoided war without diminishing America's prestige.

2. He Ended the Korean War.

He alone had the prestige to persuade Americans to accept a negotiated peace and convince the Chinese that failure to reach an agreement would lead to dire consequences. Eisenhower considered this to be his greatest presidential accomplishment.


3. He Balanced the Budget, Not Just Once, But Three Times.

Despite much pressure to do otherwise, he also refused to cut taxes and raise defense spending. His fiscal policy contributed to the prosperity of the 1950's.

4. He Sponsored and Signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.

This gave birth to America's interstate highway system. Eisenhower worked hard to get the bill passed and it was his favorite piece of legislation.

5. He Sponsored and Signed the Civil Rights Bill of 1957.

This was the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. Much to Eisenhower's dismay, Congress amended the bill and critically weakened its effectiveness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:20 PM

30. He also didn't want to integrate blacks into the Army

And he had an affair with his enlisted driver - he ended up promoting his female DRIVER from sergeant to captain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joey Liberal (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:42 PM

67. He had another affair too.

With Oveta Culp Hobby, wife of Gov. Hobby of Texas and head of the Women's Army Corps. It was supervised by Hap Arnold. Jacqueline Cochran, famous aviatrix, said "I will not take orders from a woman who does not know her ass from a propeller."



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joey Liberal (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:28 PM

71. False.

Truman issued the order to desegregate the armed forces but is was largely ignored. Eisenhower enforced it and the last all black army unit was disbanded in 1954.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:35 PM

35. He also

1. Overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala, leading that nation into decades of civil war with more than one hundred thousand civilians murdered by right wing death squads, with the support of the US government;

2. Overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and re-installed the Shah, leading to the imprisonment, torture, and murders of tens of thousands of people, with the support of the US government;

3. Opposed democratic elections in Vietnam, as agreed to in Geneva, instead supporting right wing dictator Diem and thus paving the way for the destruction of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia,

4. Elevated right wing paranoid Richard Milhouse Nixon to the vice presidency, setting him up to be president, enough said;

5. Was a huge sponsor of the military industrial complex, that is until he was about to leave office, at which point he made one, count 'em one speech, opposed to said complex....

I could go on...

Eisenhower was a great general, but Stevenson would have made a better president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:43 PM

64. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #35)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 06:59 AM

89. Beat me to it. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:51 PM

42. He also

- refused to risk his own popularity to stop McCarthy until the senator began intruding into army affairs.

- approved a CIA mission to (along with the Brits) overthrow Mohammad Mosaddegh - the democratically elected leader of Iran - and replace him with the Shah...and that went ever so well. You can directly trace the hostage crisis from the 1970s and much of the problems we have with Iran in general to that event.

- approved another CIA mission to overthrow another democratically elected leader, Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán of Guatemala. Ike's buddies, including the Dulles brothers, were heavily invested in United Fruit company, and the US essentially backed a takeover of *again* a democratically elected government to save US investors. In the end, this intervention and the ensuing US support of future dictators eventually cost the lives of thousands of Guatemalan people.

- oversaw the CIA planning of the invasion of Cuba that JFK eventually approved.

- yes, he put Warren on the court, but no one, including Ike's brother, believe that Eisenhower thought Warren was a strong supporter of civil rights. Warren was the governor of California during WWII, when Japanese and Japanese-Americans were interned in concentration camps, a move Warren supported. I like Warren, and he did great good, but Ike was by all accounts surprised and none too please with Warren's decisions, including Brown v Board.

- as for other Cold War events: yes, he ended the Korean War but Truman was limited by another Republican darling, General McArthur, in his attempts to end the war. I would hardly say that the U-2 crisis with Powers or US involvement in Vietnam after the French withdrawal were positives to put in Ike's column. In fact, I honestly don't see that Eisenhower did well with any of the events/places you listed, though I'm up for education so please let me know what you see as his positives (really not snarky, just want to know).

So no, I really don't agree that Eisenhower was all that; and honestly, the only reason Eisenhower was in Europe was because FDR thought Marshall was too valuable at overall planning to just use in Europe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiva (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:19 PM

58. And the only reason Eisenhower was seen as 'liberal' is because the country was liberal.

He had no choice but to embrace the FDR doctrine when it came to social programs. Had Eisenhower come out against Social Security & a great deal of other FDR policies, he would've been tossed from office. Eisenhower was a product of his time ... like Clinton in the 90s. Both tied to the ideology of an era ... neither could really afford radical adjustment. It's why I think Eisenhower is overhyped and Clinton gets too much criticism for his centrist leadership in the 90s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #58)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:22 PM

61. Somewhat liberal...

Racism and segregation was alive and well. Gays would never come out. Abortion was illegal. Let's just say---not as Liberal as we would be considered now. And if any of those issues were brought up in politics then---they would be closed issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #61)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:29 PM

62. True. I guess liberal in terms of social programs...

Even FDR had some awful conservative streaks when it came to social policy - namely his refusal to end lynching, even though he promised to do so during his campaign. He didn't because he didn't want to piss off the southern Democrats. His record on civil rights would be considered atrocious by today's standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #58)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:41 PM

76. I agree.

Eisenhower was lucky in that he had no political baggage so he could adapt to the country's ideology, a luxury that most politicians don't have.

Too many people have only heard about Ike's warning about the military-industrial complex and somehow think that made him a liberal...not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiva (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:19 PM

60. Yep--Ike's quote about putting Earl Warren on the Supreme Court was

"The biggest damn mistake I ever made."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:58 PM

46. His administration helped...

overthrow several democratically elected leaders of countries in Central and South America for business interests. Also overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 and put in a brutal dictator. It was a complacent time and education in this country was woefully inadequate in math and science to such a degree that the Soviet Union put the first successful satellite into space. It took us years to catch up. I could go on but I hope you get the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:16 PM

52. Adding to above comments on the overthrow of Iran's

democratically-elected President Mossadeh in 1953, more than one scholar dates the hatred of the U.S. (the Great Satan) and the radicalization of many Muslims to that event. Before that they respected us and wanted to emulate us because we weren't colonialists.

A couple of things to note:
1. the CIA did it, just a few years after that agency was formed;
2. they/we did it for oil.

Some things never change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:03 PM

7. He didn't do much?

He ended a war, the Korean War, that could have gone the way of Vietnam and gave us peace for the rest of his term in office.
He gave America prosperity in the fifties by refusing to cut taxes, but he did cut military spending.
He brought the first legislation for civil rights.
He created the interstate highway system. Up until then travel between states was an adventure and often not a good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:15 PM

12. He invented the Internet

OK, not exactly, but he created ARPA, which led to the Internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:35 PM

19. He appointed Warren and Brennan two of the best SCOTUS justices ever

and he sent troops to Little Rock two very important things that changed the country for the better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:08 PM

9. Oh, for the days of tolerable Republicans

Too bad such a situation really was a fluke in American history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:10 PM

10. Ike really wasn't a Republican.

People wanted someone to end the Korean War and his name came up. He ran as one because the Democratic ticket was already full.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:47 PM

22. Untrue: HST met with Ike, offered to step aside to let Ike run, and Ike told HST he was a Republican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:00 PM

23. He was an Independent who decided to run as a Republican because

he would have had to run against Adlai Stevenson in the primaries. He figured he would stand a better chance against Adlai in the General Election. The rest is history. I was there and pretty much knew the politics. I don't know what revisionist shit is out there these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:16 PM

28. According to the story reported in the New York Times by Arthur Krock on 7 November 1951,

Supreme Court Justice Douglas said Truman had told him, in the presence of Supreme Court Justice Vinson, that he (HST) had offered Eisenhower the Democratic nomination for President in a November 5 meeting at Blair House, and that Eisenhower had rebuffed the offer on the grounds that he was a Republican from a long-term Republican family

Contemporary news accounts, with named sources, usually are not regarded as revisionist. You can find the tale in McCollough's Pulitzer Prize biography Truman and also in the biography Eisenhower: Soldier and President by the very well-regarded historian of the twentieth century, Stephen Ambrose

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #28)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:23 PM

31. Whatever. Like I said I was alive then and followed the elections. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #31)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:13 PM

50. I was alive and aware in 1953, too, but I wouldn't say "Whatever" to STEPHEN AMBROSE!

I was for Ike, even as a kindergartener, but my parents voted for Adlai.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #50)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:17 PM

54. Sometimes even the best journalists get it wrong. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:38 PM

37. That sounds pretty much like what I've heard

I saw a biography on Eisenhower and it said that both parties wanted Ike as their candidate and Eisenhower went with the Republicans. Had things been different, I suppose he could have been a Democratic president and his agenda probably would have been very similar.

I was alive as well, but too young to remember much of anything other than the "I Like Ike" campaign buttons. Best campaign slogan ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:10 PM

25. He ran as a Repub because he worried that they would nominate an anti-UN isolationist...

...and feared that the isolationist would win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:19 PM

29. Sure he was a Republican...

They were sane back then. He was asked to run as a Democrat, refused because he was a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:55 PM

43. Ike absolutely was a Republican on foreign policy

Eisenhower's criticism of Truman's containment policy was the beginning of the now ubiquitous Republican mantra: "Democrats are pussies on foreign policy, elect us and we'll bomb the shit out of everybody we don't like." If Ike wasn't actually a Republican, he would've never put that shithead John Foster Dulles and his brother at the helm of his foreign policy team.

You're right that he wasn't much of an economic conservative like Bob Taft, and socially he was pretty middle of the road. But if Eisenhower was looking for an explanation for the military industrial complex he was warning us about, he should've look in the mirror. He was one of the key players in starting the vicious cycle of presidential candidates having to prove how "tough" they are to get elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:14 PM

11. I still have a couple of I Like Ike buttons.

They sure are small compared to today.

While working the polls during early voting I wore it one day along with my Never Again button. They are both great conversation starters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:18 PM

56. I,m looking at

one now...looking at an angle it say" i like Ike",then looking at another angle its a picture of Ike.I found it in an old shoe box that belonged to my mom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:07 PM

84. Hello? President Eisenhower moved to integrate public schools in the South

I was in grade school myself at the time, and what I saw on the 5:00 news impressed me deeply. The US President cared enough about this issue (which my mother had to explain to me in terms a child could understand) to actually call up troops to help brave children go to school past barricades of scary-faced adults trying to keep them out.

Certainly my life has presented me with information and complexities far beyond that first impression, but the case remains: President Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) began the desegregation of Southern schools.

Hekate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:54 PM

3. Betray-us lost two wars. Ike won the Big One - n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:56 PM

4. Just shows how warlike we've become since WWII. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:58 PM

5. Petraeus is bush league. Pun intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:06 PM

8. Notice the difference in the number of stars.

Has the military become like every corporation in America, where there has to be so many vice-presidents with stars that the meaning of a star becomes small?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:18 PM

13. Ike had five

That rank is only open in war time, actually declared by congress.

That is O-10 and translates to General of the Army.

Of course Ike did not punch his combat card, in today's military he'd be lucky to get to Major General, two star...I suspect Colonel would have been the ceiling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:38 PM

36. I was listening to Thomas Ricks author of "The Generals" talking about this...

Eisenhower started out World War II as a Lieutenant Colonel. Obviously, during World War II the military grew to an unprecedented size and there was more opportunity for quick advancement than ever, but that's not the whole story.

The reason Ike moved up so fast is that George Marshall fired Generals who didn't perform well and gave someone else a chance to do better. Ike was one of those people who benefited greatly from this performance over seniority approach that Marshall took. Ricks says that the military almost never does this today, and Generals stay at their posts regardless of performance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #36)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:46 PM

40. He is correct... hubby and I used to talk of this

regarding the Navy, his service, and how the sub service was the closest to the performance over seniority school, but it still mattered who you knew... which in WW II did not. They cashiered so many officers between 1941 and 1943, and made so many six week wonders, that the moder military would have a cow.

Davis H Patreaus would not have remained in the service, for example, and neither would have McKrystol. Both made a few early mistakes that would have cost them their career.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:15 PM

26. ... What? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:18 PM

14. We should acknowledge that Petraeus commands great skill.

Noun 1. self-aggrandizement - an act undertaken to increase your own power and influence or to draw attention to your own importance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:29 PM

15. My Aunt worked for the Republican party for many years.

She was actually a Bircher. She (and all of her friends) absolutely hated Ike. In fact, they hated him as much as they hated FDR. One of their big complaints was that he left all of the Democrats in place at Justice and DOD. Of course the thing they hated the most was his Supreme Court appointees like Warren.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:30 PM

16. Is it any wonder............

that Marines make fun of Army uniforms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:31 PM

17. These generals also like to play dress up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kennah (Reply #17)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 07:08 PM

94. Yeah, I was going to mention Patton

Generals and other senior officers have some leeway on how much "swag" they want to show off...Patton was certainly proud of his accomplishments, and damn sure wanted everyone else to know it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:35 PM

18. To be fair, you should show Ike in military dress uniform, when he was General of the Army. . .



As you can see, he's wearing almost twice as many medals here with his full complement of stars.

And lest anyone think Petraeus is being unfairly compared to a simple, modest man, here's a picture of the general who won the Civil War:



To be fair to the peacock, however, it should be noted that Generals Grant and Eisenhower actually worked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:19 PM

59. I was going to say that I don't see any pictures on your post but they suddenly

 

appear when I "reply to post".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:44 PM

20. To be fair...

Eisenhower liked to wear his ribbons, too:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoCubsGo (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:30 PM

33. At least for official military photos

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:38 PM

38. Which is what the Petraeus photo in the OP is.

The Eisenhower photo is not. Not trying to defend Petraeus. But, that comparison is unfair. Just sayin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoCubsGo (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:30 PM

63. I don't think it's that unfair....

.... because Eisenhower was a humble man, not as self-absorbed and flaunting as Petraeus is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #63)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:43 PM

68. I think the whole OP was unfair.

I agree that Petraeus is a self-absorbed asshole, far more than Eisenhower. But, to show one who is posed for an "official" photo, where the norm is to display all the bling, and compare him to another who is not, IS unfair. So is laying any "loss" in Iraq--if it was a loss, at the feet of Petraeus. It is just as unfair as claiming that WWII was won because of Eisenhower. It wasn't. Eisenhower was a part of it, but he was by no means the whole reason the Allies won. Just ask the nearly 9 MILLION Soviet troops who died fighting right along with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoCubsGo (Reply #68)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:39 PM

75. Peace

GoCubsGo. I see where you're coming from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:45 PM

21. General Zhukov also had something to do with winning WW-2

No shortage of decoration there.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #21)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:15 PM

27. Seriously; wording of the OP is a little silly. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #21)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:24 PM

32. Can you imagine

All the noise- clanking - those medals on Zhukov's chest must have made when he sauntered around?
Seriously - I laughed out loud at this photo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to No Vested Interest (Reply #32)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:40 PM

39. I need video of Zhukov sauntering.

That would make my day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #21)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:48 PM

41. Zhukov actually defeated the Wehrmacht...Ike mopped up some depleted divisions of teenagers



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #21)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:41 PM

77. Yup. Why not do both?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:09 PM

24. I like Ike!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:33 PM

34. I hate to ask, but I wonder what he did to get his CAB (Combat Action Badge)

The CAB was first awarded around the time of 2003-2004. I think it was safe to say that this guy was far removed from ground combat at that point in his career. He was probably sitting on some FOB while mortars landed 1000 meters away

However, in his defense, half of those medals are automatic. You get one for serving in Europe, you get another for serving in the Army during a time of war, you get another ribbon for going to Iraq, you get another one because you didn't get into trouble for the first 5 years of your career, you get another one because you were in the Army,.... you get the idea. Most are automatic.

Hell, I was in only 5.5 years active and I have an easy 4 rows of ribbons - and I didn't do anything above and beyond what my peers did. I was just an average run of the mill sort of officer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Victor_c3 (Reply #34)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:58 PM

45. He went to Iraq, maybe?

This guy wasn't quite an "In the rear with the gear" sort, but he managed his career very artfully and minimized his exposure to actual danger.

He did get shot--on the firing range, when some idiot dropped their weapon, or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Victor_c3 (Reply #34)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:01 PM

47. Close actually

The most that has been publicly documented about Petraeus in real, actual combat is a mortar shell that landed near him in Iraq in 2003.

Yet he came away from the conflict with a Bronze Star for Combat Valor.

It's not uncommon to see a valor award on an upper level military officer, but a lot of those were earned in their days at lieutenants or, for former enlisted Mustang officers, their time as low-ranking 'straight-leg' grunts.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/patraeus-allegedly-earned-a-bronze-star-for-combat-valor-without-firing-his-rifle-2012-11#ixzz2Cc8iGm5I

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Victor_c3 (Reply #34)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:17 PM

53. Listing of Petraeus' Decorations and badges

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus#Decorations_and_badges

most are campaign and service awards, and a number of foreign state decorations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:56 PM

44. If you know what you're about, your top three will more than suffice.

It's so much easier on the uniforms, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:01 PM

48. Wearing medals is silly; your achievements and awards go on your LinkedIn page.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:05 PM

49. They're both doing it wrong...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:13 PM

51. I bet Petraeus carried a swagger stick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:17 PM

55. And they both had mistresses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:18 PM

57. And like a father, he used his farewell Address to Warn us .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:48 PM

65. The man on the right, of course

 

Ike was a great man. One of the few decent Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:09 PM

66. General Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

he was a soldiers soldier and a soldiers General.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:06 PM

69. For both

wearing wedding bands didn't seem as important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:16 PM

70. To be fair, Patreaus doesn't have a choice as to which ribbons to wear on his service jacket.

You wear them all. If he denies one when it's awarded he is no longer promotable and his career ends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angleae (Reply #70)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:57 PM

72. Wrong!

When I was finishing my USMC time ('68), I had a private who wore nothing more than his purple heart ribbon when at work for me. However, his ribbon also had 2 gold stars on it..... This means that he was wounded 3 times.
NOBODY ever gave him any shit. He was a real hero in our eyes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ernesto (Reply #72)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:43 PM

78. It is for an official photo like the one posted.

AR 640-30 section 7

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ernesto (Reply #72)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:26 PM

81. Do you think uniform regs (and uniforms) might have changed a bit over the last 40+ years?

 

I can assure you they have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angleae (Reply #70)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:04 PM

73. They changed that for the air force a few years back, didn't have to wear them all, don't

Know if it's the same for army.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sammytko (Reply #73)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:25 PM

80. It's changed again.

 

All or none, now.

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afi36-2903.pdf

Pg. 48, para. 4.9.1.3.3

Pg. 58, para. 4.12.1.3.2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #80)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:03 AM

87. In Petraeus' case, he doesn't have room on his uniform breast to display them all

He has something like 40+ individual medals (many with multiple oak leaf clusters). It looks like he leaves out his foreign government awards, which are lowest in order of precedence, and his State Dept. awards.

I looked at one of the top ribbon vendors' rack-building sites and found that they don't even include a lot of the stuff Petraeus has been awarded.

I haven't seen a photo of Petraeus wearing minis. Wonder what that would look like!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:08 PM

74. Yes, and one of those men is a right wing politician

The other one is a Warrior and a Humanitarian.
I like Ike.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trailrider1951 (Reply #74)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 06:45 AM

88. And the other got us involved in Vietnam

started the embargo of Cuba, and sanctioned the assasination of the elected Prime Minister of Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:49 PM

79. General Ike was a true leader who didn't play the political games. Boy he

 

had to deal with Patton, McCarthy a couple of loose cannons. But evidentally Patreaus never was in a combat. Does anyone know that for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #79)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:34 PM

83. If you think one gets to Eisenhower's military rank without "play(ing) the political game"....

 

You are woefully misinformed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #83)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 07:58 AM

91. You are probably right. The difference is Ike didn't give up his soul to become a general with

 

the power. He earned his way. Every general has to have some type of understand to get through the political mine field. I think the president back during WWII ran the country and was commander-in-chief. The republicans tpday give way to much power to the generals and they are running the crazy house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #79)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:13 PM

85. You have it backwards

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Ike never in combat.

As a two star Patreous was on the receiving end, albeit not directly, of mortar fire. He even got a bronze star with V for it.

That does not mean that he is not a political animal. One thing this war did not do was to get rid of the political peace time military. Patreous would not have made it in the WW II military and Ike would not have made beyond Colonel in today's military.

Ike started the war as a Lt. Col...Patreaus started with two stars and division command.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #85)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 07:55 AM

90. Your right about that Patreaus would never have made it in WWII. You know the military

 

in the period of WWII time period were a different breed of soldier then today. Not that the soldiers of today are bad soldiers because they aren't. But back then the soldiers life was totally different. Even down to the barracks and living situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:33 PM

82. You are ascribing out-of-context meaning to two arbitrary and non-equivalent photos.

 

This link has several photos with Ike wearing many more ribbons.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=3&cp=7&gs_id=l&xhr=t&q=Eisenhower&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&tbo=d&site=&source=hp&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS432&oq=Eisenho&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=7be683e4f9339ce6&bpcl=38625945&biw=1280&bih=579

Note that in Ike's time, the US Army had a lot less "fruit salad" on the books. Ribbons had a bit more meaning then.

Also, Petraous's photo is for probably for an official personnel file (that's the style appearance), Ike's appears to be in more of an actual work setting.



(My credentials are 22+ years in the U.S. Air Force.)


But feel free to just make stuff up based on no evidence whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:43 AM

86. Admiral Ackbar has them both beat



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 06:53 PM

92. And, both of them had mistresses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 06:55 PM

93. Yep. Rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread