Which is the lesser of two evils?

ToughOmbre · 09-26-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

TO, I agree with you but why would I not. Anyone who is using the patch of the 45th has got to be in the right. Them and the T patchers of the 36th were some of the best.

ren,

You talking about my avatar? That's the 90th Infantry Division, the "Tough 'Ombres", part of Patton's Third Army. But thaks for your support.

TO

Soundbreaker Welch? · 09-26-2007, 03:53 PM

Patton wouldn't vote for Hilary, I can guess that.

ToughOmbre · 09-26-2007, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

Patton wouldn't vote for Hilary, I can guess that.

You can take that to the bank

TO

renrich · 09-27-2007, 09:15 AM

Sorry TO. I was mistaken. I guess the patch for the 45th was a thunderbird. If I am correct the TO stood for Texas-Oklahoma and the 90th distinguished itself in the 1st and 2nd world wars.

ToughOmbre · 09-27-2007, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

Sorry TO. I was mistaken. I guess the patch for the 45th was a thunderbird. If I am correct the TO stood for Texas-Oklahoma and the 90th distinguished itself in the 1st and 2nd world wars.

No problem ren. The patch did stand for Texas-Oklahoma, where most of the original soldiers came from. They were also sometimes called the Alamo division. Because of their exploits in the ETO during WW II, they became known as the "Tough 'Ombres". They were General Patton's favorite division; legend has it that he gave them the name. Were in combat longer (308 days) than any division in Europe.

I took ToughOmbre as my forum name in honor of my father who was a rifleman in the 90th. Came ashore in the 2nd wave at Utah beach on June 6, went all the way to VE-Day.

TO

mkloby · 09-27-2007, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

No problem ren. The patch did stand for Texas-Oklahoma, where most of the original soldiers came from. They were also sometimes called the Alamo division. Because of their exploits in the ETO during WW II, they became known as the "Tough 'Ombres". They were General Patton's favorite division; legend has it that he gave them the name. Were in combat longer (308 days) than any division in Europe.

I took ToughOmbre as my forum name in honor of my father who was a rifleman in the 90th. Came ashore in the 2nd wave at Utah beach on June 6, went all the way to VE-Day.

TO

I could only imagine the enormous sigh of relief after all that when the Germans surrendered.

renrich · 09-27-2007, 02:41 PM

Actually TO, I know the 90th had a great combat record. However in some material picked up at Camp Mabry in Austin(they have a fine museum there about mainly the 36th) that division was in combat 366 days with 132 days consecutive combat. They had in WW2 19466 casualties, 3717 KIA, 12685 WIA, 3064 MIA and captured 175,806 enemy personnel. Regardless, all of those, the 90th, 45th and 36th gave fine service and none were regular army and all came from originally the vicinity of Texas. They carried on the tradition of Hood's Texas Brigade of "Lee's Miserables."

pbfoot · 09-27-2007, 02:51 PM

Are you saying these divisions were never rotated out of the lines but stayed there consistently

ToughOmbre · 09-27-2007, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Are you saying these divisions were never rotated out of the lines but stayed there consistently

Guys, I think we're getting away from the original subject matter of this thread.

But to answer...

pbfoot, what it means is that at least certain elements (regiments) of the divisions were always engaged and that the entire division was never pulled off the line for rest and refit.

ren, my 90th stat comes from Stephen Ambrose's book "Citizen Soldiers". I don't doubt the data on the 36th, but I think it includes combat in Italy and in some accountings that was figured as a separate theater. But as you stated they were all excellent.

Now, back to the "Lesser of Two Evils".

TO

razorprod · 09-27-2007, 04:23 PM

hello gents...nice discussion...erhn but....say are you so

ed with the democrats that a glance at this thread reveals???

..what are the republican answer....???? sorry i f am not updated on current affiars regading the reppublicans....but BUSH is nt the first choice ehh??? eventhogh i think he has rethorical points ...

well thats my opinion...

R

renrich · 09-27-2007, 04:45 PM

It is beginning to become obvious that the dem candidates are going to take a position at least rhetorically not that much unlike Bush as far as the Iraq war is concerned. I don't see how they can please their comrades on the left with the kind of talk heard last night in the debates.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-28-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razorprod

hello gents...nice discussion...erhn but....say are you so

ed with the democrats that a glance at this thread reveals???

..what are the republican answer....???? sorry i f am not updated on current affiars regading the reppublicans....but BUSH is nt the first choice ehh??? eventhogh i think he has rethorical points ...

well thats my opinion...

R

No Bush is not the greatest president ever. The Dems however want to ruin this country and they will do so if they are elected.

ccheese · 09-28-2007, 02:24 PM

Sorry, Adler, I just do not agree with you. I think the Dem's will definately
change the course the USA is taking. I personally think we should get out
of Iraq and let them bastards fight among themselves. They can kill every-
one in sight, as long as it's not a G.I of the "united' forces. Maybe after one
faction kills off another, they'll have some kind of government that the US
can support.... but that a big maybe......

You can't support the present government.... not after they take a vacation
while they should be sitting down and "legislating".

Charles

ToughOmbre · 09-28-2007, 03:15 PM

Democrats vs Republicans

RE: Presidential election and Congress

As Adler states, no one is going to confuse George Bush with George Washington and Abe Lincoln. History will be the final judge.

Charles, you state that the Dems will change the course the US is taking. If you're talking about Hillary, that's correct, but IMHO that's a course that will lead to disaster, and I think that's what Adler is saying. Putting Iraq, immigration, healthcare etc. aside, the biggest danger of a Hillary presidency is the huge number of liberal, activist judges she will appoint to the various judicial circuits. That, more than anything, will change the fabric of this country; the ACLU will have a field day, God knows they are dangerous enough already. As I've stated elsewhere, the culture war in this country needs to be won by the traditional, conservative Americans who believe in the Judeo-Christian beliefs and ideals that this country was founded on. Look who supports and helps bankroll the Dem candidates, moveon.org, who in turn takes most of their financial support from George Soros, a far-left billionaire who wants to turn America into a secular-progressive paradise.

As for congress, the Dems took control last November and since then their approval rating has sunk to 11%, lower than the presidents.

My advice to all clear thinking, responsible Americans is to vote your philosophy with the good of the country in mind. Forget your historic party affiliations of the past.

The far-left is a great danger to this country; they are in the Democratic camp. Enough said.

TO

pbfoot · 09-28-2007, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

the biggest danger of a Hillary presidency is the huge number of liberal, activist judges she will appoint to the various judicial circuits. That, more than anything, will change the fabric of this country; the ACLU will have a field day,

I'm be be offtrack here but doesn't the US supreme court have a decided advantage in the number of right leaning judges , so it would be no easy trick to change the fabric of the laws in 8 years max