What would they say to bush?
2007-08-15 09:48:54 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
nothing,we would have been done three years ago.of course,congress had a spine during WWII, and the American people understood the threat.
2007-08-15 10:05:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Gen. Eisenhower will make the desert sands of Iraq like those of the sands in Normandy. D-DAY!!! June 6, 2003 will be the date of the invasion. Gen. Patton will secure the oil fields in the south and then he will send his 3rd Army rolling towards Baghdad. Capture Saddam and toast him to death.
2007-08-15 23:30:18 · answer #2 · answered by Ezekiel Lorenzo 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Patton was here, we would have already dealt with every terrorist-harboring country in the Middle East and have een 100% successful. If Ike were here, Patton would have a brilliant tactical commander telling him what to do.
2007-08-15 10:44:49 · answer #3 · answered by agronate 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree that Patton would be bulling ahead. But Ike would have a lot of useful stuff to say about how to set up an occupation government that works. Which was our major problem in Iraq. But Rumsfeld would not have listened to him. He did not listen to the Joint Chiefs or anybody else.
2007-08-15 10:07:40 · answer #4 · answered by oldhippypaul 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Patton would be asking for more Gas to beat the Limeys to take Tehran( I dream....)
Actually We need guys like that. Gen. Sanchez will go down as our 21st century Mc Clellan/ Mark Clark.
2007-08-15 10:14:08 · answer #5 · answered by lana_sands 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Patton would be raging about not stopping in Iraq and hitting the Iranian menace dead on, and Eisenhower would be reining him in.
2007-08-15 09:57:54 · answer #6 · answered by BDZot 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Reduce the number of Generals by 80%
We had less Generals in World War II than we have now.
2007-08-15 10:51:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neither one would still be in the military. Congress would hound Patton out of the service because he's not "politically correct" and Eisenhower would be let go because he causes too many deaths among the troops and too many civilian casualties.
2007-08-15 09:55:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
-Patton
Thus, he would probably be telling Bush to GTFO.
Eisenhower, on the other hand, would be tormented by the "Industrial-Military Complex" that has come about since Iraq started, with all of the very large companies basically running the war.
2007-08-15 10:15:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
"Mister President, we're sorry we cannot help because our base of knowledge in tactics and strategy are obsolete in this war, because the enemy forces do not consist of massed formations of troops backed up with aerial and armored support. May we respectfully suggest you continue to employ the counter-insurgency doctrine laid out in Army Field Manual 24-3. Please convey our respect and admiration to General Petraeus for being a co-author of that magnificent document".
2007-08-15 13:11:26 · answer #10 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Patton would say, "Let's go after those gd Ruskies" ! Ike woiuld call for yet another meeting. to get a consensus !
2007-08-15 10:42:02 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋