2007-01-12 07:56:58 · 16 answers · asked by silverlion 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
He's probably slap the Iraqi president and get him to act brave. The ACLU has no power over the tank corp.
2007-01-12 07:59:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If it were 1944 Patton wouldn't go into Iraq, the British (OK, the Indian 10th Infantry with British officers ) captured Iraq in 1941. although Patton could have taken it. From all accounts I've read of the Anglo- Iraq war the Iraqis didn't put up much of a fight,not like today anyway. Could Patton win today, I'd say yes, he did enjoy a good fight.
2007-01-12 09:00:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
General George Patton honestly believed he was Alexander the Great reincarnated. As Alexander the Great he always kept in mind the terrible defeats he suffered in the Areas of present day Iraq and Afghanistan which he referred to as India. (he never actually made it into what we now call India) General Patton was very seriously opposed to Fascism and Socialism as Practiced by the Nazis. He would have supported Democracy and applauded the work of the ACLU.
If you oppose democracy and the work of the ACLU you would be better to choose Hitler and Stalin as your heroes.
2007-01-12 08:07:13 · answer #3 · answered by U-98 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If Russia provided the manpower, the UK the brainpower w. more manpower from the old British Empire, America could come in at the end make lots of money and movies about a new Patton winning it (as w. WW2)!
2007-01-12 08:03:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
not basically might he win the conflict in Iraq, he might force into Iran and beat the living daylights out of the Mullahs, then force right down to Syria and do an identical. Patton exchange into referred to as "previous Blood & Guts" for a reason and he might've been the right darn familiar we'd have. I choose we had adult men like Patton (military), Halsey (military), Puller (Marines) and LeMay (Air stress) in our defense force marvelous now.
2016-12-16 03:08:22 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Please word this in the form of a question, and what do you hope to accomplish by stiring up the liberals?
Oh, and no, the ACLU doesn't even HAVE anything to do with the fiasco in Iraq. All he would have done is probably taken over the country quicker when we initially invaded.
2007-01-12 08:01:05 · answer #6 · answered by lateralus28117 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Patton had the ability to run the military the way he saw fit..Ike, being a retired General, knew the importance of the military doing their job
2007-01-12 08:02:31 · answer #7 · answered by PoliticallyIncorrect 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It would have Gen. MacArthur that could have won the occupation in Iraq.
2007-01-12 10:58:10 · answer #8 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes he would have won it already....as back then they would have
carpet bombed the nation into submission....BUT as to gurellia
warfare...the germans NARROWLY decided NOT to do it that
was a major win for us THEN...with muslims its an entirely different
story....
of course he also would have been able to do ALOT of politically
UNCORRECT things then that he might not get away with now...
PATTON RULES!
2007-01-12 08:05:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
the liberals in Congress would force Bush to replace Patton for saying what he thinks too much
2007-01-12 07:59:44 · answer #10 · answered by kapute2 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋