2007-02-11 02:05:00 · 13 answers · asked by james c 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
gen Patton would go about this in a different way but would not have tolerated this at all even Schwarzkopf would not have tolerated this.
2007-02-11 06:01:43 · answer #1 · answered by tankbuff, 19 violations so far 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why bother with the dead General Patton ? Only he could really answer this question and anyone elses opinion is just propaganda, beings he is dead and cannot defend himself one way or another !
Why should any country put up with terrorism, yet , why should Iraqis have to pay the price ?
Fight for today, in todays world, not yesteryears, it will do no good to go back there.
If they had soldiers controlling our borders, we wouldnt have had 9/11 if it was in fact Saudi Arabians that were the pilots, and consider this, why the hell is Bush in Iraq and NOT Saudi Arabia ?? Consider this, perhaps it is Saudi Arabia that should have been entirely flattened for their suicide bombers in airplanes full of what TRASH that is now making many in NY deadly ill, and has in fact killed many ?
Now, with that in mind which would be closer to the truth. Iraq guilt or Saudi guilt ? Yes, Iran is also guilty, of other atrocities towards the US, and what about Israel ? There are always possibilities and the truth always comes out. Allies are not necessarily allies,
dont kid yourself.
How many terrorists would attempt that Sh*t again ? Very few for sure. OMG they would have said, boy the US means business, dont F*CK with our country or our people ! Friend or Foe, the guilty laid in Saudi Arabia !! Had I been the president of the USA at the time of 9/11 and had solid evidence that they were Saudi Arabians, I would have in fact obliterated the whole country, proving to others, dont kill the citizens of my country or you will pay a deep, deep price ! There Would NOT have been a soft war with warnings or anything else,,just bam bam, dont ever play that again !!
Though, had I been president many things would have been changed to, there would be NO death squads, No sweatshops in thirdworld countries, NO NASA that steals food from Africa, etc..Humanitarian presidents would be everywhere, NOT evil ones !
What does `1 man NEED billions or even millions of dollars for ?? To hoard it while others die for lack of ?? Man the rich/wealthy SUCK, selfishessness abounds while they could care less who dies without it .
So, why is our president kissing SA in pictures on the internet ?? Royalty, my A** !~!
2007-02-11 11:41:43 · answer #2 · answered by Kathy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Patton, a powerful tank commander, was considered to be an arrogant "loose cannon" by some who served with him, officers as well as enlisted men. Some of them might have been biased against him because he was known to have the greatest personal wealth of any of the American generals at that time. He successfullly drove the enemy out of Italy and across Europe, but at great cost in the lives of his own men. His inflammatory remarks and actions caused him to be side-lined and might have caused him to be judged a war criminal if we had lost the war in Europe.
2007-02-11 11:06:54 · answer #3 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Patton would have gone off big time on the Liberals in the USA. Ever since we decided against winning wars (after WW2) and after we started getting involved with UN lead initiatives war has been abysmal. The first indication of it was in Korea and Mac understood right away as Patton would have to get out. War lead by politicos will always be a disaster. We need to make War on US terms alone and screw the world opinion!
2007-02-11 10:12:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Patton was not an expert on terrorism and he would be the first to admit it.
The military elite want to fight a war, but there are no real wars any more. They found this out in Vietnam and chose to ignore it.
They found it out again when President Carter tried to rescue the hostages in Iran. They chose to ignore that lesson as well. If we let them, they will ignore the current lessons as well.
Today, we are the paper tiger and China will rule the world without firing a shot.
2007-02-11 10:15:51 · answer #5 · answered by PeaceNow 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If Patton had been in charge, there wouldn't have been an insurgency.
He knew how to handle an occupation.
2007-02-11 10:11:28 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Patton was a great CONVENTIONAL COMBAT leader.
He had little experience with the the type of terrorism we know today.
2007-02-11 10:12:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
General Patton would do what his commander in chief told him to do.
2007-02-11 10:08:04 · answer #8 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. Hell he seriously wanted to take on the Russians, starting in Berlin and kicking them all the way to Moscow.
2007-02-11 10:15:52 · answer #9 · answered by David W 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nope, he would do whatever it takes to shut them up.
AND
He would hang those liberal war protesters for treason if he could too. They are in large part the reason that the terrorists are getting so bold. Because they get the moral support from people like Michael Moore and the "B.O.T.H" scum.
2007-02-11 10:12:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋