| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 24 2010 : 10:22:52 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by cutter
Seems to me that all the information concerning the battle has been picked over as much as the
battlefield itself. The amount of new details are few, and so there is a finite amount of material to work with.
So in order to reveal something new, that might shed new light on what happened that day, one
has to dig deeper, and inspect more in detail everything all over again. All information should be
used, from all participants, from what ever source, not unlike a jigsaw puzzle.
This is where established theories may hurt more then help. A person gets it in his head that this
or that happened in a certain way, and any other theory is vulgar poppycock, case closed. It
closes avenues of discussion, and research. That doesn't do anyone any good except the author
of the theory.
I've always thought the idea that if Custer himself came back to life and said what really happened at LBH, half the experts would disagree flat out, established theory being what it is.
So, since one guess is as good as another, it depends on how educated the guess is that wins the
day.
My only problem with the Wallace thread is the wording, I do think it could have been more
diplomatic, other then that, all is fair game.
Cutter, I could not agree more. I also agree with you that "diplomacy" is critical in discussions, written and oral. I,admittedly, have been guilty of writing in a style that appears, (sometimes)to be acrimonious while trying to stress a point. What is amazing to me,however, is that minuscule portion of the forum that insist to opine that I simple create information to justify my perspective. In actuality, my perspective was formulated by my readings of various sources.
If you will notice, my information is continuously supported by quotes in informational from other sources. My perspective is not based on my personal dislikes or likes. It is based upon studies which establishedthis view. I will not repeat these sources because they are listed and I have discovered a very profound anomaly in forum usage: they "who who do not wish to see, will not.I noticed that you had no serious problem with my perspective making only the very valid point of "diplomacy." When your eyes are un-jaundiced by pre-conceived, anti-personal dislikes, and not hampered by an inability to accept perspectives that are not in accord with own, one can see forever. |
Edited by - joe wiggs on May 24 2010 10:36:46 AM |
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2010 : 12:31:38 PM
|
| You mean like "Why did Wallace Lie". |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
cutter
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2010 : 2:18:22 PM
|
| Yeah, well, like I said, I'm sorry I butted my nose into this thing..... |
They who govern best, govern least. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - May 26 2010 : 12:35:48 PM
|
The original topic of this thread was "Benteen's orders". However, as usual, the topics here always are diverted into direct attacks upon those who would dare to post any "new topics" that already has been discussed, albeit here or anywhere else. Thus the foregoing quotes by AZ during this thread to prove this point:
quote:
I should add that I'm one who thinks Benteen should never been sent off (at the time he was sent) in the first place. Then there would have been no need for a "Come Quick" note. Benteen would have been with Reno, together perhaps actually "driving" the village and giving Custer the time he evidently needed to figure out how he was going to give Reno that promised support.
Oh--what might have been!!!! Brent - Posted May 12 2004
What paradigm in one’s thoughts does this form? That Custer should have kept his regiment together perhaps? Yet, from everything we know, and as another well known poster here once told us, (movingrobewoman) that this splitting of the regiment into battalions to form the conventional three pronged attack was ‘standard practice’ at that time. Still in the face of all of this to this day, here we have the brilliant AZ going against the conventional wisdom of the US. Cavalry in 1876. Sorry Brent, but you were wrong then and you still are!
quote:
The argument here is taking longer than the battle, itself. Could someone explain, if Benteen were two miles from Reno Hill and, therefore, about five miles from Custer Hill (if I remember correctly), what would Benteen have found had he made the 50 minute trip--or 40 minute, or even 30 minute?
Next question: What would have happened to Reno's command sans Benteen's reinforcement of it? Heavyrunner Posted - May 17 2004
The first questions Hr asked has never fully been explored. It wasn’t 5 miles from Reno hill to LSH, its about 4. And as AZ should be more than willing to admit, with the rested horses Benteen had, he should have been able to have traversed that distance in about 15 to 20 minutes! Indeed, what should he have found, then? That he chose NOT to do so speaks volumes of the man. And no, it had absolutely nothing to do with (as some would have it) saving Custer, as much as it had to do with defeating the Indians and placing them on reservations. While some would like to see the “saving Custer” aspect of this. The “what if” can never fully be appreciated because no one can explore it because it is ’something new’ and ’off the wall’ and so far out in ’left field’ that were someone to actually attempt it, that perhaps, just perhaps Captain Benteen would have been more of a hero than what he appears to be today. And perhaps, just perhaps, had Reno had the presence of mind God gave him, when he collected his wits about him, after attaining the hill, and seeing that the Indians didn’t follow him, would attempt to send out some party to make contact with either Benteen or Custer and in the process have actually reinforced “again” a situation that was never reinforced.
And that last question Hr asked; it was never intended to be, and you have the answer to it already!
quote:
The Reno Court of Inquiry was limited to Reno and the actions that influenced the choices he made. For example Yates actions did not influence Reno so he is not important to the Reno Court pf Inquiry. Custer as commander, main body commander, Benteen as battalion commander, Mathey as pack train commander and Mc Dougall as rear guard commander.
I agree that a court martial could delve into more details but it is still a single person focus. They don't usually put dead persons on trial so the Army would face a dilemma. I believe the best case would be an investigation done outside the Army.
AZ Ranger Posted - November 26 2009
A standard AZ Ranger answer to everything. Yet, the RCOI and the contents therein do produce a lot more than one mans version of events, one man’s indictment, and one man’s ‘single person focus’, because to get at the answers they had to ask more than one man, concerning more than one event, that had more than a ‘single person involved’ about what caused the deaths of those men. And to get at those answers they had to put those dead men to the forefront of the Inquiry and ask direct questions about them, thus ‘putting them “on trial” because that was the only way of producing the evidence against Major Reno.
quote:
“Benteen has Custer’s last message put away in his pocket when he comes to Reno’s rescue on Reno Hill. Viewing the remnants of Reno’s men coming up the hill, demoralized, scared, wounded, Benteen must be perplexed as to what to do. Looking around he sees no sign of Custer; Reno doesn’t know where Custer is. Benteen decides to stay put and help organize these men into a fighting force once again. Was Benteen right or was he wrong in ignoring the last message from Custer? Even if Benteen had decided to go in search of Custer, could Reno have legally ordered Benteen to stay? bhist Posted - May 28 2004 (Pohanka, Fox & Sills)
Of course this was used by AZ to show that three, count em, (3), well known LBH historians agreed that Benteen was not at fault. Yet the way the question was asked, and the way in which the message is opinioned, is faulty at best. For example: “Looking around he sees no sign of Custer; Reno doesn’t know where Custer is.” This assumes that neither of them knows where Custer is or for that matter went to. Yet, Reno in his official report tells a quite different story. There it is understood that Custer was to go downstream and flank the village, this from his own Report, Reno clearly understood! Yet, this ’little bit’ of misinformation is translated into the question you now see…” Reno doesn’t know where Custer is.” Reno’s own men, by their own admission, and most of these were officers in Reno’s command observed either Custer or Custer’s men going down the right bank of the river, and they knew this at that time! And they didn’t inform anyone about this at that time? That the court failed to follow up these vital pieces of information is reprehensible. That they failed to call Reno and/or Benteen on the fact that Reno, in his official report stated otherwise, that he knew where Custer went to, is a misstatement of fact in the question above. There is also one final thought. Benteen at the court did mention a curious thought. That he, Custer, was supposed to “come back to him”. This implies a certain knowledge of what Custer was doing. It more than implies that Benteen knew more than what he was telling. And if he knew more than what he was telling, then he also knew where Custer was and didn’t need anyone to tell him. And in fact he admitted after the COI was over that the court tried to get things out of him, but that “they didn’t know how”. This not only by direct implication means that Benteen either 1) lied to the court or 2) mislead them! Which means that he did know ‘certain facts’ and he didn’t tell them and they ‘didn’t know how to get it out of him’ or didn’t try, or they did - and we can’t see it.
Then we have this:
quote:
That has been my point with Joe all along that he disrespects troopers and officers without proof. When you start a thread "Why did Wallace lie" it is assumed that he lied and we only need to discuss the motive. He defames Wallace then when asked to provide proof he fails to provide. You can discuss it without defaming the person and then draw your own conclusions with what is presented.
That seems to me be a better approach. If Joe wants to start a thread "Why did Wallace Lie" then I will ask him to prove he lied. AZ Ranger Posted - May 21 2010
The pinnacle of idiocy. Each and every trooper needs to be looked at not from the position of the respect you wish to grant upon them, including the venerable Benteen. Benteen’s guilt over the many years after caused him to say many things to bring shame upon himself. But none would listen to him, and they still wont. They won’t because of the idiocy of people who can’t see the truth of what Benteen really wanted. He knew the fault and the blame was his, and his alone! He knew! And he told of it!!! And he shared this with anyone who cared to listen… at the Court of Inquiry, with friends, with colleagues etc… What he didn’t share, was what he did or didn’t do! That would have brought the wrath of an ungrateful nation down upon his head, and that wasn’t what he wanted. Absolution is a much needed thing in one’s life, even when you know what you did was wrong, and in this need, Benteen was no different than anyone else. Indeed, what was “Benteen’s orders”?
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 26 2010 : 10:12:53 PM
|
Your problem, benteen, aside from not having standing to condemn US officers in combat, is that like Wiggs you're deficient in reading ability. What opinion Reno or Benteen held at the RCOI may well be different from the opinion they held on June 25th, three years previous. This is unexceptional and indicative of no attempt to deceive. Even Lee understood it. Reno did not know on June 25th what Custer's plan was, and this doesn't wobble any falsehood meters because nobody else did either. He concluded after the battle that Custer had attempted to go down river and support by attack in a different area,although the day of the fight he seems to have been under the initial impression Custer would support from the rear for whatever reason. He did not damn Custer, and was forgiving that the first possible ford was further downriver than anyone, apparently, had thought, and in any case Custer had been overwhelmed in the attempt.
Again, unless you have been in combat and have comparable experience, you probably shouldn't dis people who have. It's good to imagine yourself under oath and having to explain your reasons for Benteen's condemnation in public by you before a litigator suing for libel or slander. Would you come off as knowing of what you speak? Or as a poseur trying to sound tough with the safety of anonymity? If so, the jury, to send that necessary message and to allow the media to use that cliche again, would feel free to award the Benteen or Reno estate an exorbitant amount to be reduced by higher courts, but you get my point. I doubt many officers in Vietnam would relish having actions under their command receive the half educated analysis as Reno and Benteen have for 134 years, or whatever it is.
What rested horses did Benteen have? Enough for the three companies? Because the ones they were on were tired, per Godfrey, after their ride on bad land, far worse than Custer or Reno's route featured. Between Reno Hill and LSH is first Sharpshooter Hill and Weir Point. No military genius, I'd bet anyone would be a fool to ride like zephyr into god knows what waiting behind those large hills, and Weir did not when he went, wisely.
And the land between Weir Point and LSH is god awful, as Custer discovered. Custer made a point discussing, in regards to the Yellowstone fight, how novices don't seem to realize that cavalry cannot rush around and be expected to fight when they arrive.They have to arrive in shape and not hosed, and covering that land in twenty minutes is a giggle and in shape to remain useful cavalry a howler. Those four miles and hundred odd feet are as the crow flies between the monuments.The distance on the ground could easily be twenty percent longer or more, depending on route taken, and that likely under fire from all sides. The best horse land is the hogbacks not consistent with the crow's rout and where they'd be picked off easily from cover on either side. They apparently were, in point of fact, anyway.
Benteen was thinking Lee somehow knew of Reno's night abandonment plan and would try to get it, but there's no evidence he lied at all. Lee also failed to get in the Boston meeting with Martin for its exceptional media value, but I suspect that's because Martin hadn't needed that embellishment yet since it didn't appear for decades after the battle when he may have needed it for his stage work
Explanation points don't add substance to your hollow screams, and have the same effect as people who laugh at their own jokes who fear nobody would laugh without that cue. Well founded fear, in general. There's zip evidence beyond wishful thinking for your position on any of this. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on May 26 2010 10:16:13 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - May 27 2010 : 10:50:39 AM
|
First of all Dc, I did not direct my address to you. However, since you chose to answer the way you did. And out of deep respect for you and your opinion, which as always I have considered usually correct when it comes to matters along the LBH, but care not for your privations of opinions of others today, including my own, and would request that you not go there.
The last first.
As I indicated previously, your insults aren't needed, and I likewise, in respect to you, shall not return any. And after cleaning up those parts of your paragraph that only highlighted the personal attack nature of your post, one gets this:
quote:
Explanation points don't add substance to your... zip evidence beyond wishful thinking for your position on any of this.
Its interesting you would say this Dc. Very interesting indeed. For most of this is not my own, but it came from members of this board, much as Az's own quotes did. I just didn't use those quotes because of the time consuming lengths that would have made the post way to long. In the first instance, Brent's post, I was referencing Movingrobewoman's post where she said:
quote:
Gosh, a poll that actually assesses blame to someone OTHER than GAC and Major Marcus Reno! The more I read about LBH (and when it comes to that battle, I am a novice--I am more interested in GAC the PERSON), the more I am convinced that it was the US Army and its policies, in their infinite wisdom, that caused the debacle at LBH. As I have read it in other forums and books, GAC was using, with the three-pronged attack, a method tried and true throughout history, one hammered into his head whilst at West Point, specified in Upton's "Cavalry Tactics", and as ... gosh, who was it again, mentioned--a GREAT way of dealing with a FOREIGN enemy, not one of the Sioux's cunning and individualistic fighting techniques. In addition, Custer knew that Reno had failed him, perhaps all of Terry's command, when he did not complete the scouting mission that he was assigned from the Far West, and was powerless to change, due to Army protocol, the battle order--that the Major would take the initial offensive to the united tribes' village, leaving Custer unable to change orders or risk court martial himself (although I am constantly wondering that had GAC WON, would anyone have cared if he re-arranged his men). An army that does not change itself, does not allow for some command creativity is asking for a loss--and unfortunately, at LBH, it was a magnificent one. And now, just learning that Sheridan MIGHT have known just how huge the gathered village might have been, as soon as 6.08.76, and DID not notify Terry ... yep, Reno messed up ... Custer had some blame in the debacle, but I look at the US Army and say "shame on you!" movingrobe Posted - November 12 2003
The point of her post, while "all taken" together, whether I, you or AZ agree with it or not, the fact remains that she was correct in what she said about "the three-pronged attack."
Now to revisit what I quoted and said:
quote:
I should add that I'm one who thinks Benteen should never been sent off (at the time he was sent) in the first place. Then there would have been no need for a "Come Quick" note. Benteen would have been with Reno, together perhaps actually "driving" the village and giving Custer the time he evidently needed to figure out how he was going to give Reno that promised support.
Oh--what might have been!!!! Brent - Posted May 12 2004
"What paradigm in one’s thoughts does this form? That Custer should have kept his regiment together perhaps? Yet, from everything we know, and as another well known poster here once told us, (movingrobewoman) that this splitting of the regiment into battalions to form the conventional three pronged attack was ‘standard practice’ at that time. Still in the face of all of this to this day, here we have the brilliant AZ going against the conventional wisdom of the US. Cavalry in 1876. Sorry Brent, but you were wrong then and you still are!"
While you, AZ or I can argue till the proverbial hell freezes over about whether or not Custer did the right thing or not when he split his regiment up, the fact remains that it was 'standard practice' to do so in 1876 when fighting the Indians, and is a rather moot point, and wishful thinking on anyone's part to think he should have, the very point of my rebuttal.
"What rested horses did Benteen have?" Prove that they were not. These gait speeds have been well hashed over time and time again on other boards, by none other than AZ himself. The best speed that Benteen made on the 'side trip' as claimed by any man on that trip was a "trot", hardly a gait speed that woulda, shoulda, coulda, blown those horses, a fact that Az himself would, should and could know. I have rode horses DC, so I do know, and no one can pull the wool over my eyes here. I am an experienced rider, and have been since I was knee high to a grass hopper.
"And the land between Weir Point and LSH is"... WIDE OPEN!!! There is absolutely nothing there to hinder anyone from seeing anything in front of them! And in that regard a fast gait speed would not have been impossible to fathom. Why? Because Custer's own men reported that he and his men did it. The reported gait speed for Custer and his men down that right bank by those who survived was never reported as anything less than a "gallop". And several said that they "galloped all the way"! "Didn't stop"! So again, your assertions about that ground are baseless, and must assume that I have not been there. I have. And I can tell you, that if I were given a horse, I could easily gallop it from Reno Hill to LSH in 15 to 20 minutes, and I wouldn't be using the road.
As for the RCOI, I stand by my statement:
"the RCOI and the contents therein do produce a lot more than one mans version of events, one man’s indictment, and one man’s ‘single person focus’, because to get at the answers they had to ask more than one man, concerning more than one event, that had more than a ‘single person involved’ about what caused the deaths of those men. And to get at those answers they had to put those dead men to the forefront of the Inquiry and ask direct questions about them, thus ‘putting them “on trial” because that was the only way of producing the evidence against Major Reno."
As for your defense of your Captain Benteen. The man did say after the COI was over that the court tried to get things out of him, but that “they didn’t know how”. This not only by direct implication means that Benteen either 1) lied to the court or 2) mislead them! Which means that he did know ‘certain facts’ and he didn’t tell them and they ‘didn’t know how to get it out of him’ or didn’t try, or they did - and we can’t see it. The very fact that Benteen 'witheld evidence' crucial to the understanding of events there on June 25th 1876, speaks volumes against the character of the man. And as AZ himself should tell us, is a 'no -brainer' when it comes to any witness who does this, as to the penalty, the name, and the so called 'honor' of that individual. While you and others see the 'military' as something 'honorable' and something to look up to, I do not. This nation was not founded upon the standing military we see today, but it was founded upon the citizen soldier, and the two in concept are quite different than what most imagine. Only 100 years spanned the time from 1776 to 1876, and not much difference in firearms (single shot rifles) nor tactics (horses and Napoleonic type line formations) was used. The strategy and the tactics used were vastly different than they are today, and I don't see any military man today adding anything of value in the fields of skill or knowledge, and least of all ability when it comes to analyzing, let alone understanding this battle in "modern military terms". Even Sheridan, Sherman and others contemporary to the times could not accomplish what these rank amatuers today who claim military status try to do. And I will condemn any man I choose, be they soldier, sailor or candlestick maker, if they were wrong. Being a military person does not make them immune to the process of law. Being a military person does not make them immune to the condemnation of choosing the wrong action in battle. Being a military person does not make them immune to the condemnation of their actions in combat, whether officers or not, My Lai, Abu Ghraib come to mind, less we forget or are willing to forget and let it happen again, apparently like you are, and Like your irresponsible statement strongly implies: "unless you have been in combat and have comparable experience, you probably shouldn't dis people who have." This kind of thinking wasn't what built this nation. Nor was there ever to be a 'standing army'! But now since we have one, we can easily forgive the sins of those who are there, for they can do no wrong when they wear or have worn the uniform of the USA, right? Tell that to Lt. William Calley. Tell that to those people who committed those crimes at Abu Graib. Tell that to the soldier who killed his wife and fled to Mexico a while back. While you choose to put these all of these people on a pedestal of honor, I do not. While you choose to say each and every one of them deserves 'respect' and 'honor', I do not, for they were & are merely human, like you and me. They were & are not the Gods you nor anyone else needs to put on a pedestal to 'honor', 'bow to', nor worship, nor may I add, does any one of them require or desire it. And they day they do, God help this nation.
And Lest I forget DC, you will note, I didn't say, in my original post that either Benteen or Reno should have came to Custer's "rescue", that in deference to a certain individual who knew and showed us the difference.  |
Edited by - Benteen on May 27 2010 10:54:18 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 27 2010 : 5:32:03 PM
|
Look up 'explanation', then 'exclamation.'
No, sorry, that's entirely garbage. From Reno Hill nothing whatever beyond Sharpshooter or Weir Pt. can be seen in the direction of Custer's demise. In any case, nobody with Custer survived going from Reno Hill to LSH. The land is not wide open, but riven by deep gullies and hills obvious and memorable to anyone who has ever been there, but can blend into blandness in certain photos. The question isn't whether you could gallop a horse those 4 miles in fifteen minutes, but if you or anyone could gallop on the horses in the shape of Benteen's in that time and arrive with them in shape to act as cavalry. I doubt you could do either. You're full of it.
If you're not a combat vet, you have no standing - because you have no ability - to critique a combat officer's moves in battle, and can only quote those there. You don't know what it's like, as I do not. Despite all the smoke and blather, you need only answer the question: have you served, and have you served in combat? This, so anyone can judge your posts. I have no trouble saying I have not served. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2010 : 10:18:51 AM
|
Like a great many others who come to forums like this, there have been and are people in my family who have served. Quite naturally it is understood, one does not ask, and it isn’t told what went on in graphic detail on the field of battle. It is a respect that the young learn early, and it is that respect, that you seek, like a child to understand. And in doing so you misplace, like a child, the true nature of that respect - one does not ask, and one isn’t told.
You equate someone calling Benteen or any other combat vet a coward or something similar, as them not having that right if they have not served in combat themselves. And yet, like a child, who does not understand, will proudly display disdain for someone, anyone you don’t know, who does accuse, because of this assumed fact. What it does for you is limit the field. What it does for you, like a child throwing a temper tantrum, is say:
“My Daddy is better than yours because he was a soldier and yours wasn’t. And, you have no right to talk about my Daddy that way because he saw women and children butchered and murdered and men blown to bits while yours sat behind some desk in Scranton, Pa. Your Daddy is worthless, and has no right to call anyone a coward because he wasn’t there, but my Daddy was and he says different, and my Daddy’s always right.”
Like a child who never grew out of that bullying stage of life, you still persist in what psychologist call ’transference’. YOU require them to PROVE their worth to YOU, before they can…“pass by YOU” or YOU’LL beat them up with YOUR words of insanity! What you don’t realize you stupid idiot, is that each and every person you do this to, you do irreparable harm to their psyche. You bring back haunting images - flashback images of memory that they do not want to ever remember, that they just want to forget about and go on and live their lives without having nutcases like you, and your childlike behavior reminding them of. The dead men stacked like cord wood along the roads to Bastogne for miles and miles and miles. And these were our men! Our men! And they froze to death! They were not killed by German bombs, bullets or shells. Of having to sleep under the truck, right under the engine on the snow to keep warm, because the officers, your so proud to claim, knows everything, went around to make sure no one slept inside the trucks. Yes, its about survival you stupid sob. And I don’t have to prove to you or anyone else that I ever served a day in my life or not. But the next time you ask this stupid asinine question of the next person, just remember, it isn’t as simple and as easy for them to answer as your simple child like brain thinks it is. Perhaps, just perhaps, young one - out of deep respect, it would do you well not to ask, and they not tell.
I have learned a lot about those who do “tell” over the years. Usually, they are men from Vietnam, sadly so, I fear. One supposes that they never quite found fulfillment in an ungrateful nation, so they go online and brag it up, although in not enough graphic detail to know, for obvious reasons, as I stated. And then there are those who pretend, for one reason or another, to be, or to have been in the service. A damning situation for all who have ever experienced it. Of course its most difficult to discern between the Vietnam vets and the posers. But those who have been there know, and even those who have not been there, can easily discern who is lying. But this situation should not be used as an excuse to ’vet’ anyone else under “ANY OTHER“ circumstances. As I said, those who play pretend are easily discerned and are usually vetted by those who do know, then and there. And if they are not, they should be. Anyone claiming “military experience” past or present should be vetted. Put up or shut up. It’s as simple as that. But, it gives you no reason what-so-ever DC to EVER pry into others private lives about their thoughts who make no such claim, as “your transference” and insistence on that subject, as outlined and documented by explanation and exclamation above so vividly demonstrates. Now go run along and play somewhere safe little man, perhaps like the middle of the street, and lets see who has “no standing”.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2010 : 1:15:25 PM
|
I pretend to no standing. I never served. I am a coward. I finished third grade. That's all I've ever claimed. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar, easily proven. There is nothing about this that elevates me in my own or anyone else's estimation.
If you have never served, or never served in combat, neither you nor anyone else who never served has the right to imply failure to perform in combat to those who have. Like me, you can only quote others there and their opinions, because our's, while easily formed and perhaps true by coincidence, aren't valid.
Nobody needs to prove worth to me, and I've never remotely suggested such a thing. They have to prove - when they say someone in combat fell apart - they know what they're talking about by experience, since it's a personal accusation and means the person making it knows what was lacking or not. Also, the accused are dead and unable to defend themselves. You've said that about Reno here and on other forums, and I don't believe you have standing to do so. So, yet again: have you ever served in uniform in combat?
If you choose not to answer, you've answered. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on May 28 2010 1:16:35 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2010 : 3:49:04 PM
|
I do not have to dignify that with any kind of response to you.
What gives you the power and the authority to think you have power and control over me, to order me to give you my personal information. You have none, and I grant you none.
I care not what you think of me, for your words are as baseless and meaningless as your childlike nature proves. And I will continue to accuse whomever I wish.
I will continue to cherish the freedom of speech unhindered by the likes of you, so go impose your finite Barney rules of etiquette upon the other little boys and girls & those who give a damn, because I don’t. FINI |
Edited by - Benteen on May 28 2010 3:51:29 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 30 2010 : 10:49:32 AM
|
quote:
The pinnacle of idiocy.
quote:
I do not have to dignify that with any kind of response to you.[/quote]
[quote]I care not what you think of me, for your words are as baseless and meaningless as your childlike nature proves. And I will continue to accuse whomever I wish.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 30 2010 : 10:58:33 AM
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That has been my point with Joe all along that he disrespects troopers and officers without proof. When you start a thread "Why did Wallace lie" it is assumed that he lied and we only need to discuss the motive. He defames Wallace then when asked to provide proof he fails to provide. You can discuss it without defaming the person and then draw your own conclusions with what is presented.
That seems to me be a better approach. If Joe wants to start a thread "Why did Wallace Lie" then I will ask him to prove he lied. AZ Ranger Posted - May 21 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pinnacle of idiocy. Each and every trooper needs to be looked at not from the position of the respect you wish to grant upon them, including the venerable Benteen. Benteen’s guilt over the many years after caused him to say many things to bring shame upon himself. But none would listen to him, and they still wont. They won’t because of the idiocy of people who can’t see the truth of what Benteen really wanted. He knew the fault and the blame was his, and his alone! He knew! And he told of it!!! And he shared this with anyone who cared to listen… at the Court of Inquiry, with friends, with colleagues etc… What he didn’t share, was what he did or didn’t do! That would have brought the wrath of an ungrateful nation down upon his head, and that wasn’t what he wanted. Absolution is a much needed thing in one’s life, even when you know what you did was wrong, and in this need, Benteen was no different than anyone else. Indeed, what was “Benteen’s orders”?
Since your quote was my response to agreement with Cutter and directed to him and not you regarding Joe's choice of words in his thread title about Wallace and then you only address Benteen who demonstrates idiocy?
Does this sound familiar?
"First of all Dc, I did not direct my address to you."
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on May 30 2010 11:02:58 AM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 19 2011 : 7:59:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I pretend to no standing. I never served. I am a coward. I finished third grade. That's all I've ever claimed. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar, easily proven. There is nothing about this that elevates me in my own or anyone else's estimation.
If you have never served, or never served in combat, neither you nor anyone else who never served has the right to imply failure to perform in combat to those who have. Like me, you can only quote others there and their opinions, because our's, while easily formed and perhaps true by coincidence, aren't valid.
Nobody needs to prove worth to me, and I've never remotely suggested such a thing. They have to prove - when they say someone in combat fell apart - they know what they're talking about by experience, since it's a personal accusation and means the person making it knows what was lacking or not. Also, the accused are dead and unable to defend themselves. You've said that about Reno here and on other forums, and I don't believe you have standing to do so. So, yet again: have you ever served in uniform in combat?
If you choose not to answer, you've answered.
I respect your acknowledgement that you are a "coward" and that you have "never served" your country. I am only mystified as to why you chose to brag about it. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - June 22 2011 : 6:57:43 PM
|
dc, if I had a dollar for every time you touted your military background (or lack there of) and the times you used the word "Coward" to describe yourself (on more than one forum)I could spend the summer in Europe! LOL |
Edited by - joe wiggs on June 22 2011 7:00:34 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 22 2011 : 7:03:44 PM
|
Ps. You don't have to copyright your three forums, I've checked them out and no one's there!   |
Edited by - joe wiggs on June 22 2011 7:05:03 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 12 2011 : 10:18:25 AM
|
| Seems cowardly to me to hide out and hope no one checks out your posts. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 16 2011 : 7:56:41 PM
|
| Actually, your anticipated arrival belies your unfounded accusation that I "hoped" no one would respond. Actually I knew you would (in time) and so you have. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's Orders
