| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - March 20 2006 : 5:20:43 PM
For those so quick to charge conspiracy and betrayal and all of that in the Custer fiasco, you might want to read Cobra II, just out, about the latest Iraq War and occupation.
Absent any unit being slaughtered, it reads in many ways as confused and luck driven as 1876's army, and this conclusion bolstered by quotes from officers and men both. The world's best military up against one of the worst, and while the end result can't be said to have been in doubt, there were several times when there could have been serious numbers of US battle casualties where we could (maybe)have lost an M1 to the enemy, although unlikely they could have used it.
Friendly fire, flying blind, things not prepared for, confused command, good officers falling apart, nothing seems to have changed in many regards. Oh, except officers momentarily falling apart aren't called cowards and worse. |
| 2 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 27 2007 : 10:38:00 PM
Hello!, Still awaiting an example from the Wizard of Oz. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 22 2007 : 6:19:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
For those so quick to charge conspiracy and betrayal and all of that in the Custer fiasco, you might want to read Cobra II, just out, about the latest Iraq War and occupation.
While I may agree with you regarding the battle being a fiasco, I can not agree that anyone (with even a driblet of intelligence) would agree with your theory conspiracy and betrayal. Mind you, I am not referring to the shock and disillusioned citizen of 1876 who assumed that Indians were nothing more than savages and, therefore, incapable of besting the U.S. army. I am referring to contemporaneous perspectives.
Could you give an example of "those so quick" to charge this clandestine conspiracy that resulted in Custer's defeat? All this time I assumed Custer lost because the Indians won. |
|
|
