A Quote by Diane Ravitch

You can't lead your troops if your troops do not trust you. — © Diane Ravitch
You can't lead your troops if your troops do not trust you.
Our troops are the best in the world. I have absolute confidence in the ability of the troops who are here, or additional troops, to do their part.
Jan 1899 You must aim at the Staff College, but for the love of God never become a professional Staff Officer. Never lose touch with the troops. Remember that you serve the troops and it is the troops who matter. They are the folk who win victories, take care of your men and they will never let you down.
You don't eat before your troops eat, and you don't ask your troops to do anything you won't do, too.
There used to be the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. There used to be Soviet troops in the GDR. And we must honestly admit that they were occupation troops, which remained in Germany after WWII under the guise of allied troops. Now these occupation troops are gone, the Soviet Union has collapsed, and the Warsaw Pact is no more. There is no Soviet threat, but NATO and U.S. troops are still in Europe. What for?
Every single war that you see go down is illegal. They're breaking the Geneva Convention, and they're breakin' all kinds of sh*t they ain't supposed to be. All these soldiers that's dyin', every talkin' about, "Support our troops, support our troops," yeah we support our troops, but what are they fightin' for? Let's support 'em for the right reason. Let's tell our troops the truth, and maybe they wouldn't be out there fightin' these wars, because there are a lot of these troops that don't even wanna be out there if you talk to them.
We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again. And we're not putting ground troops into Syria. We're going to defeat ISIS without committing American ground troops.
The new troops in Iraq need to be Iraqi troops.
If you go back into military history, the person who's leading the troops ought to be in with the troops and not just standing on the backline sending them into battle.
I will never say, 'support the troops.' I don't believe in the validity of that statement. People say, 'I don't support the war, I support the troops' as though you can actually separate the two. You cannot; the troops are a part of the war, they have become the war and there is no valid dissection of the two. Other people shout with glaring eyes that we should give up our politics, give up our political affiliations in favor of 'just supporting the troops.' I wish everything were that easy.
Senator Kerry does not support our troops. If he had won the election, there wouldn't be any troops left in Iraq. President Bush, on the other hand, has given our troops an opportunity to fight without end. That's creating jobs. In fact, the president's policies helped create 104 more job openings last month. Now who's stupid, Senator?
Troops must be fed with ammunition and so on but also with information, with images, with visual intelligence. Without these elements troops cannot perform their duties properly. This is what is meant by the logistics of perception.
A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops, while on the contrary an incapable leader can demoralize the best of troops.
The History brand has long been a supporter of not only our troops but organizations that support our troops.
For if the Germans do not help defend the West, American and Canadian troops must cross the seas to do the job, and I venture to believe that the troops - if not the statesmen - regard this as an interference at least in their own domestic affairs.
It's perfectly natural to desire more troops when engaged in a military operation facing serious obstacles, and the more troops you have, probably, the [lower the] risk of causalities.
We will not send troops. Germany is not committed to Iraq - we will not commit ourselves with troops.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!