• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I owe you an apology...

Like it or not it is part of our history. Don't think we need a Robert E Lee holiday but there should be museums with information about the war and soldiers.

Lee was one of the best military minds born on our soil and after the war he did his best to use his standing to heal the wounds of that war.

His not being willing to pull his sword against the people of his home state is hard to blame him for even knowing that if he had taken Scott offer to command the northern forces the war would had likely been a great deal shorter with far less deaths on both sides.

There is nothing wrong with honoring such a man as part of our history.

As Grant stated the moment the south stop fighting the southerns become once more our country men not our enemies.
 
Last edited:
Lee was one of the best military minds born on our soil...

No. Lee was an exceptional tactician. Lee was a mediocre at best strategist, and failed miserably at grand strategy. Grant was a far better strategist than Lee, and there have been any number of better tacticians(Patten springs to mind for a well known example) and strategists(Nimitz, WW2 era MacArthur) since. There is no denying Lee was very good tactically, especially on defense, but not one of the best military minds.
 
In a couple threads after the Charlottesville incident, I made some statements that pissed a lot of people off, about how stupid it was to be there at all after all the warnings.


I am sometimes far too blunt and fail to consider how people might take something I said.

On reflection, I wish I'd been more careful to NOT sound like it was HER fault, because it wasn't: it was the fault of the asshole that did the deed and
ran her over. I think it was DEEPLY unwise to be in that crowd given recent circumstances and all the warnings, but she didn't *deserve* to get run over.

I didn't convey that very well and since communication is largely sender-dependent, I guess that's on me. I should have expressed myself better.


I will assert as truth that being a victim doesn't make you automatically virtuous and magically deflect all criticism.... but in the raw aftermath of such an event,
I should have been more tactful in making my point, which was how unwise it was to be there at all.


I acknowledge that most of the criticism I drew over what I said was my own fault, for being far too blunt and not expressing myself clearly on some key points.


If I offended you, I apologize.

It was not Heather Heyer's fault she got run over, it was the fault of the jerk that did the deed. She did not deserve what happened to her. I regret if I sounded like I meant otherwise.

I've already forgotten all the initial reactions, good and bad, that came from those threads, including some of my own, which I am sure were also out of line. But, it's good to reflect on our errors, some which were not, how do we say? showing our best sides.

Good job, Gosh.
 
No. Lee was an exceptional tactician. Lee was a mediocre at best strategist, and failed miserably at grand strategy. Grant was a far better strategist than Lee, and there have been any number of better tacticians(Patten springs to mind for a well known example) and strategists(Nimitz, WW2 era MacArthur) since. There is no denying Lee was very good tactically, especially on defense, but not one of the best military minds.

I do not agree with you at all.

Grant have one main strength as a military leader he was willing to used the northern overwhelming strength compare to the south to force victories on the battlefields no matter what the cost to the north happen to be.

See the history of the Battle of the Wilderness as how he was willing to throw men into a meat grinder until he force Lee to retreat.

Hell I know Grant even address the issue but I had not been able so far to find his statement in how it is better to fight through to victory no matter how great the casualties then to fight smaller engagements without a final result.
 
In a couple threads after the Charlottesville incident, I made some statements that pissed a lot of people off, about how stupid it was to be there at all after all the warnings.


I am sometimes far too blunt and fail to consider how people might take something I said.

On reflection, I wish I'd been more careful to NOT sound like it was HER fault, because it wasn't: it was the fault of the asshole that did the deed and
ran her over. I think it was DEEPLY unwise to be in that crowd given recent circumstances and all the warnings, but she didn't *deserve* to get run over.

I didn't convey that very well and since communication is largely sender-dependent, I guess that's on me. I should have expressed myself better.


I will assert as truth that being a victim doesn't make you automatically virtuous and magically deflect all criticism.... but in the raw aftermath of such an event,
I should have been more tactful in making my point, which was how unwise it was to be there at all.


I acknowledge that most of the criticism I drew over what I said was my own fault, for being far too blunt and not expressing myself clearly on some key points.


If I offended you, I apologize.

It was not Heather Heyer's fault she got run over, it was the fault of the jerk that did the deed. She did not deserve what happened to her. I regret if I sounded like I meant otherwise.

Takes a big man to post something like that.

Kudos to you.
 
Back
Top Bottom