![[mccookgazette.com]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/nameplate31.png)
|
|
Fair and Breezy ~ High: 87°F ~ Low: 57°F Wednesday, May 16, 2012 |
|
The General's PrayerPosted Monday, February 2, 2009, at 3:39 AM
"May I say General," O'Neill recalled years later, "that it isn't a customary thing among men of my profession to pray for clear weather to kill fellow men." Patton responded, "Are you teaching me theology or are you Chaplain of the Third Army?" The prayer was, "Almighty and merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of thy great goodness, to restrain these immoderate rain with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for battle. Graciously hearken to us soldiers who call upon thee that, armed with thy power, we may advance from victory to victory and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies, and establish thy justice among men and nations. Amen." Patton had a quarter million of the prayers printed up and distributed to the men on Christmas Eve, 1944. A day earlier, on the 23rd of December, Patton had traveled to Luxembourg City, to the ancient Roman Catholic chapel in the Fondation Pescatore. Removing his helmet with its three stars, Patton prayed, as Patton lived, "Sir, this is Patton talking. The last fourteen days have been straight hell. Rain, snow, rain, more snow-and I'm beginning to wonder what's going on in your headquarters." Patton went on to say how he was there to "annihilate the Germans and the godless Hitler." Patton then asks God to choose sides, and says, "Give me four clear days..." and that he needed those four clear days to, "send von Rundstedt and his godless army to their Valhalla. I am sick of this unnecessary butchery of American youth..." General Patton was a key ingredient to the Allies winning the war. It was Patton who came to the rescue when the War in North Africa started off so badly at Kasserine. It was Patton that marched the third Army across France, and of course, the Battle of the Bulge. In the famous prayer above, Father O'Neill prayed that we would crush "oppression and wickedness". I wanted us to remember Patton, a man who led men in battle, a man charged with the lives of many, and he prayed to God. I wonder what General Patton would say today regarding the War on Terror. That is a terrible name by the way, the War On Terror. This was is against Islamic Fascists. I wonder how Patton would react to our efforts so far? Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics Risking My Life Is The Bravest Thing You Do(77 ~ 12:03 PM, Oct 30)
Hayseed
Paybacks and Nuttiness
I Am Ready For REFORM!
Lib Kicker
|
Email link
Read comments (13)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Hello Sam,
Good to see someone still remembers Patton.
As a boy, a slightly older friend brought his INDIAN motorcycle to the field at threshing time.
During the war he ended up with Patton, with an inside situation, often riding shotgun with a Thompson as Patton's security.
When the Germans's attacked at the Bulge, Patton was fully engaged to the south, with his army on a north-south line. He ordered his staff to begin planning a pivot upon the army's center, while remaining engaged with the Germans, to launch an attack northward across the flank to cut the German forces off on the back of the Bulge.
He then left for a Big Brass conference.
He was greeted by Ike, with his new 4th star, who complained that every time he got another star, he got attacked.
Patton's reply, "That's right Ike, you get the new star and I get to bail your rear out of trouble again. Here is what I'm going to do.
"The rest of these guys to the west just have to stop the Germans. I'm coming into their flank and cutting them off from the rear."
Naturally the Brits' Montgomery objected that no such maneuver had ever been attempted, let alone succeed.
Patton's response, "I know Monty, Market Garden [The disastrous single road drive into Belguim] was your style. Third Army will rescue the airborne guys at Bastogne and cut off the Germans. You build POW camps, that's about the limit of your ability."
With that he turned around and left.
Ike told everyone else to do what Patton had outlined and that was it.
About the only time Patton was diplomatic regarding Montgomery was when he told the press, "Monty is the best England has."
He respected the Canadians, Aussies and New Zealanders and totally admired the Gurkhas and other Indian/Asian/African units, and their leaders, in the British forces.
Got along with most of the Brits, but could not stand Monty and his misplaced ego.
I still suspect his "accidental death" when a truck hit his staff car, after the war was no accident.
If you're ever on I-10 east of Indio California, the George Patton Memorial museum not far from Joshua Tree National Monument is worth the visit. For those that are looking for adventure, the deserts of Arizona and southern California are loaded with old training sites set up by Patton that can be found with ATV or 4x4 exploration. Some are even accessable by car.
More info... http://www.desertusa.com/mag99/feb/stori...
We should have learned or at least be learning from American heroes like Patton. I fear this is not the case.
bigsurmac,I don't have an argument with acknowledging that Patton was an excellent General and he certainly was not afraid to speak his mind. To speculate that his death was caused by "communists from the Roosevelt administration" without offering any proof reminds me of the tactics of the Bush administration the last 8 years. The use of fear rather than reasoned knowledge to make people think that communists and/or radical Muslims are behind every door ready to destroy our world, has not served our country well. It worked for awhile to whip up the war fever and justify the administrations policies but the good people of this country have seen through this act and rejected it for what it is...lies and manipulation. This does not imply that we shouldn't be vigilant...only that we must not respond based upon fear and lack of knowledge.
I am puzzled why you would say that General Petraeus is castigated and slandered by "reprobates" pretending to be Americans. First of all everyone should know that a reprobate is a "A morally unprincipled person. One who is predestined to damnation." I personally consider myself a center left progressive and know many people who, for whatever reason, have been against the war in Iraq. They have legally protested this war as is their right and never once have I heard anyone say anything negative about General Petraeus or those serving in our military. They know that he is an honorable man and is just doing his job as a military offier, as are the other members of the military service.
Most of these people that you call "reprobates" are hard working, honorable people who love this country but have not been happy with the direction the country is going. I am sure there are a few less than honorable people out there who might try to blame Petraeus but I try to ignore the extreme radicals on the right and left who only operate from a dogmatic and simplistic vision of the world.
If we are to move forward with vision and purpose in this world we must do so as a unified nation, "not as a blue state or a red state...but as the United States." The new way forward requires that we must resist the urge to call people names just because we might disagree with their ideas. We must sit down and use dialogue to work through our issues and understand our differences. This is true not only of our so called enemies, but is also true for us as Americans.
I will end with words from Pete Seeger. "If the world is ever going to be changed, it will be through the efforts of millions of individuals and small organizations. Cost of Freedom tells the encouraging stories of many who have begun this work."
Peace.
Kurt - what planet have you been on pal! Center left progressive huh? I love that.
You quote Pete Seeger? If I am not mistaken, this was a guy that thought Bob Dylan would ruin folk music! I heard a story that Pete Seeger wanted to storm the stage during an early Dylan concert and take away Dylan's electric guitar. He was also thought to be an outright communist, trying to recruit folks in Hollywood, for the dark side. Looking at Hollywood nowadays, it looks like old Pete was successful.
What do you center left progressives know about freedom? The only freedoms I see you stand up for, are the freedom to kill your unborn kids, and the freedom to engage in homosexual sodomy.
"Tactics of the Bush Administration"? Are you freaking kidding me? Kurt, you have been so brainwashed it is amazing to see. It has been you center left progressives that have hit below the belt, and used every dirty trick available, starting with Algore and his lawyers trying to steal the 2000 election. Dirty politicians and dirty politics reside in the Democrat/Socialist party, not the Republicans. I will be happy to debate you on this. What Marxist college professor filled you up with this stuff?
It is a trick of the center left progressives to do the very thing they accuse the other side of doing. For eight years all you center left progressives did was hammer our President during wartime, call him every name in the book, and now you talk of peace and love and joy? You can kiss my Algore.
Kurt, perhaps you never "heard" anyone disrespect Gen. Petraeus, but did you miss all the left wingers writing about Gen. Betrayus? Yes, there are radicals on both sides of the political spectrum.
saleldrige..I don't think I am any more brainwashed than you obviously are when you make a statement that "Dirty politicians and dirty politics reside in the Democrat/Socialist party, not the Republicans". I will assure you that there are plenty of dirty politicians on both sides of the aisle. I could care less what their political affiliation is...if they are not there to honesty serve the people of this country then they should be voted or kicked out of office.
You will never hear me personally slander any politician and just like the radical right, there are those on the radical left whose actions I will never condone. That doesn't mean that I have to agree or be quiet about a policy or action of a politician or administration that I believe is not in the best interest of our country. Would love to sit down sometime for a civil discussion but will politely decline the offer to kiss your algore or anything else for that matter.
G5...no I really don't want to bash the Bush administration...or for that matter Ann Coulter,Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. Nor do I want to buy everything that Michael Moore or George Soros say either. When it comes to a "Watermelon progressive", whatever that means, I would just say that it is dangerous to characterize all progressives or all conservatives under the banner of the radical left or in the case of the conservatives, the radical right. There are many variations of both and the reality is that the vast majority of Americans are somewhere towards the middle. Our current political discourse unfortunately tends to start from the perspective of the fringe elements, both left and right, and then degrades from there. Sadly this only serves to reinforce the division in our discourse and gives more power to the fringe elements.
doodle bug...being a Veteran myself I was very unhappy with those few people that called General Petraeus...Betrayus. I heard it and let some of my more radical friends know that it was unacceptable.
G5,
I honor your long time line and the history you have witnessed. I couldn't agree with you more that the elected officials of this country MUST abide by the laws of the land. That is a fundamental principal that is not negotiable or exclusively claimed by the left or the right. For too long the American people have stood back and allowed the politicians to do as they please with little or no consequence. We became disengaged and complacent and the familiar refrain was "all the politicians are crooked except for my politician". Well...it usually ended up that "my" politician was as bad as the others. So now the American people must re-engage and take back control of our government.
It might encourage you to know that MOST people in the peace movement today are much different than those in the peace movement in the 60's. We have respect for the law, we honor those who serve in our military and we are open to civil discourse. You simply will not see progressives spitting on soldiers, sailors or airmen for many reasons, one being that many of us have also served in the military at one time or another....quite honorably I might add.
The irony is that ultimately, many on both sides of the poltical spectrum, want the same thing for our country however the objectives used to get there often take a different path.
I have been a Vietnam history buff for over 25 years now and recently traveled there. The Vietnamese people are some of the most wonderful people you will ever meet. Their country was caught in the vice of the cold war rhetoric and policies to contain communism. You know the terms...domino theory and containment. Our fear of communism did not allow our leaders to understand the history of the Vietnamese struggle for independence...not all that unlike our own struggle for Independence over a colonial power.
Ho Chi Minh was first and foremost a Nationalist who loved his country and wanted to unify the Vietnamese people. At that time a poor, backward, rural society with very strong family and community loyalties. Ho Chi Minh was and is revered by his people. His fighting force, the Viet Minh, who had been fighting the French, were provisioned and supported by the U.S. while Japan controlled Indochina during WWII. His forces fought the Japanese and after VJ day he asked our government to allow his country to unify. We at first told him we would but France raised hell and said they wanted to recolonize Indochina. Using Marshall Plan money provided by the US (the French were broke after WWII), the French recolonized Indochina while our government just stood back and let them do it. That was tragic on many levels. For the sake of brevity, the United States never should have gone into Vietnam and 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese should never have perished. Ironically the Vietnamese love Americans...but will never trust the Chinese.
One other quick note...America was funding 75% of the French war against Ho Chi Minh's forces in 1954 when the French got their rear kicked at the battle of Dienbienphu and said they had finally had enough and were pulling out of Vietnam. America was committed to fight in Vietnam long before JFK came to office.
Anyway...would love to have coffee with you sometime as I am sure our conversation would be lively, spirited, and most importantly.....respectful.
G5,
I would take exception to the statement: "There has never been a war between free countries"
Of course, the definition of what a "free" country is can be argued. (I don't think your "see if they leave" criteria holds up to logical scrutiny).
Wars I can think of off the top of my head that have been fought between two countries that could be considered democracies (depending on criteria):
Spanish_American War
American Revolutionary War
Anglo_American War
First World War
Second World War (allies vs Finland)
Of course, the above examples depend on your definition of a "free" country. However, by YOUR definition of free, I would say that Great Britian was a free country at the time of the American Revolution (and anglo-american war). British citizens certainly had the right to leave england, and for the most part did not want to.
Only a comment about free country wars... I'd think the US Civil War was between free countries and the most lethal by far of all wars in our history. Now I suppose it could be debated that the United States and the Confederate States were not separate recognized countries, but I bet Jefferson Davis would say they were.
G5,
You stated definition of a free country was: "you open the gates and see which way the people go. If they leave, then the country is not free. If people swarm in, you can bet that the country is free."
Most people at the time of the revolution were very content to be british citizens. In fact, there were even people in the American colonies who were very happy to remain under British rule.
I am aware that Britain was a monarchy. It is STILL technically a monarchy. However, it has (and had then) a democratically elected parliament. I suppose you could say that it wasn't until the Reform Bill of 1832 that it became truly free, but its not a black and white line.
Also, I was not talking about the Soviets being at war with Finland, but the English. Great Britain bombed them in WWII (that sounds like being at war to me)
And as Brain Hoag has pointed out, the American civil war could be considered a war between "free" countries.
You've also failed to make any distinction between a "free" country and a "democratic" country. The most basic definition of "free" simply means that you are not enslaved (dictionary.com). Does this mean that the US wasn't a "free" country until after the civil war? Of course not.
Are all democratic countries free? I don't know, it depends on your definition. With your definition, I suppose they aren't, as Mexico is a democracy, and the citizens seem to want to get the hell out of there.
Calling a country "free" is meaningless unless you specify what you definition of a free country is.
Free is just a blanket statement. Do you mean not enslaved? Or endowed with certain civil liberties? which civil liberties? Are only democracies free countries? Can a monarchy be a free country if their citizens are endowed with civil liberties? Can you only be truly free in an anarchistic society? Can socialist countries be "free" if their leaders are democratically elected? Or do they need to have certain civil liberties.
You need to more clearly define your terms of what constitutes a "free" society.
More wars that could be considered between free countries (depending on the definition of free)
-Ecuador vs Peru, Border War 1995
-Croatia vs Yugoslavia 1991 (both democracies at the time)
-CIA backed overthrow of democratically elected governments of Iran, Guatemala, Chile
-First world war (Germany's government was very similar to Britain's. Democratically elected parliment/Reichtag + 1 ruler with executive power)
G5,
No need to take offense. I'm simply trying to determine what your definition of a free country is. My points are simple:
If by "free" you mean a democratically elected government, than there have been wars between "free countries".
And if by "free" you mean a country whose people do not want to leave (my parsing of your original definition), there have been wars between "free" countries.
And if you simply want to define a free country as whatever you personally deem to be a free country (know it when you see it), you are going to have to accept people might see it differently.
Many people call violent video games "pornography", that doesn't make them pornography in the eyes of others (or the law).
If your assertion is that there have been no wars between countries that YOU deem to be free, I can't really argue with that. What I can say is that not everyone is going to have your definition of a "free" country.
As for Finland being bombed. Stalin had obtained British and American support for the Feb. 1944 bombings of Helsinki at the Tehran Conference in 1943. They hoped to force the Finns to break their ties with Germany and agree to a peace settlement.
And, I'm not saying true monarchies are free countries. But I am saying that Britain in the 1770's met YOUR criteria, as most citizens (even some in the colonies) were happy to be under British rule and did not want to leave.
By the way G5,
I should mention that I agree with your general premise.
War is significantly less likely between "free" countries. I only take issue with the absolute-ness of the statement "there has NEVER been a war between free countries"
I believe (as I think you do) that if all countries were free, we would have significantly fewer wars and conflicts. Though I think there would still be some...