Have there been no cases in history where generals lied or were crooked or had an agenda or part of a conspiracy.......or even simply did what their boss told them to keep their jobs?
2007-09-13 02:24:44 · 23 answers · asked by ron j 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
By the way, generals jobs is to make war right? Can you ever imagine a general saying ....its time to stop this war? Isnt it more likely for a general to say, I can win this war for you if you give me more time and more resources? Lastly do generals decide if we go to war or stay at war? that would be a new one for me. I thought generals merely followed orders from civilian leaders...at least in this country.
2007-09-13 02:27:13 · update #1
A Generals job is not to make war, but to conduct war. Big difference. Soldiers by nature hate war, because they have to fight and possibly die in them. As far as the truth goes, many Generals have lied in the conduct of war, Lincoln had a big problem with this. General Petreaus however, is a professional soldier, and I believe him, because his job is not in jeopardy.
2007-09-13 02:30:58 · answer #1 · answered by libsticker 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely not. Generals have lied in the past and they will lie in the future. The problem with the current situation is that the general was called a liar before he ever said anything. This is not just the MoveOn ad, Reid and Pelosi were saying the same thing all summer.
The unwillingness of people to hear what the man has to say and to investigate his claims (most of which would be easy to disprove if they are lies) is disheartening.
The general was sent to deliver the message since anyone from the administration who went to Congress and said the same thing would have been instantly discredited as a member of the opposing party. The general was to be a neutral figure who could possibly say what was actually going on rather than get involved in a political fight. The rejection of him as a surrogate for the administration was terribly disingenuous and stifled rather than encouraged debate.
As I understand it, the message is, "Either say what we want to hear or we will call you a liar." Exactly how does that enourage any debate or progress?
2007-09-13 02:31:55 · answer #2 · answered by Matt W 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
He is giving his tactical opinion of how things are going he does not care about the politics. It is his job to win wars, no ties or losses. He told the congress what it will take to win the war. He also wants to be sure some other General doesn't have to come back and do his job. That would cost many more lives that have already been lost.
2007-09-13 02:31:46 · answer #3 · answered by Monte T 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You're an idiot. A general's job is not to make war, the congress does that. A general's job is to win wars when called on to do so. If a general believes he can win the war if he has the proper resources, he should state so. Generals do not decide if we go to war or stay at war, that's the job of the commander in chief, the president. Yes, generals merely follow orders, and the president can fire them.
2007-09-13 02:31:18 · answer #4 · answered by kimmyisahotbabe 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
women human beings Marines in my journey may be like quite a few woman obtainable: you get carry of the girly varieties, no longer person-friendly ones, general ones (in keeping with what you define general), etc. Few that I even have encountered have been seen 'hoes' yet once you're actually not that form first of all then you definately will possibly no longer fall into that way of existence. Now there are some provider adult adult males who despise women human beings interior the defense force for deepest motives. becoming a greater ideal guy or woman starts off with you and you on my own. start up gaining weight by ability of taking greater protein and lifting weights. sturdy good fortune and in case you have any questions be chuffed to touch me.
2016-11-10 07:52:13 · answer #5 · answered by cracchiolo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My husband is a military buff and he says the cases that he can think of where a General lied are Patton and Oliver North. Patton got by with it with only a reprimand and North was forced to resign. The General only follows orders from the Commander in Chief and we all know who that is: George Bush. He's going to say what he thinks will keep his job for him. It's just like any other job. People suck up to the boss. However, I do believe Petraeus told it as he saw it. But I noticed that he would not answer Republican Senator John Warner's question about whether the war in Iraq makes America any safer. Rather than lie, he just wouldn't answer with a yes or no. So that told me that he doesn't think the war in Iraq makes us one bit safer. Sometimes a non-answer speaks volumes.
2007-09-13 02:35:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
The most famous general that was part of a conspiracy was Julius Caesar. In 49 BC, Caesar took his army across the Rubicon and into Rome - declaring himself a dictator.
Also, a few years ago, three Admirals (Generals in the Navy) announced their homosexuality and were forced out of the service.
2007-09-13 02:36:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I don't have any military experience. He does. I don't know the tactics that our military uses. He does. I don't know exactly what is going on in Iraq. He does. I would rather have faith in someone who is in charge of our soldiers than to criticize every move he makes. I refuse (and maybe I am being gullible) to believe that a General will not have the soldiers and our country's best interest in mind. I believe in our military, and in doing that, I trust that our Generals will lead the soldiers in the right direction. As far as the who makes the decision to enter into war, Congress does. And I trust their decisions.
2007-09-13 02:37:14 · answer #8 · answered by Lisa M 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You are wrong. A generals Job is NOT to make war. Wars are started by politicians. The generals are there to make sure we win.
2007-09-13 02:28:27 · answer #9 · answered by macaroni 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No, not necessarily true. Try to remember it was the Dems who wanted Petreaus, and it was the Dems, who set the Sept. report date from him as to the efeectiveness of the surge. It was the Dems that said we should be listening to the Generals on the ground in Iraq for the correct information. Now that the situation is different, it was the Dems trying to besmirch his charactor before the report was given, because they knew the report would reflect the most recent events in Iraq. The truth is not what they wanted to hear.
2007-09-13 02:32:49 · answer #10 · answered by booman17 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋