2007-10-13 10:09:33 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Great question...for our liberal "friends"......We both know the answer......
2007-10-13 10:13:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Frist, he'd do the bidding of his Commander-in-Chief, bitter about it though we would be. He probably would have resigned his commission a long time ago.
But if he'd stayed on, he'd do basically what General Patraeus is doing, because he'd be limited by the political circumstances - circumstances which are the true evil overriding this whole mess.
Of course, cut Patton loose, and he'd have wiped out every enemy combatant in his path. He'd have used his special opps people to figure who the insurgents and their cooperatives were, and he would have killed them. He'd have done it all with minimal casualties on his side.
Political correctness and a misguided America-hating world community...ironically headed by the American Democrat Party, the mainstream news media, and the educational system in this country...has allowed the Middle East situation to fester, and now wants the US to lose in its efforts to pursue a righteous war on terror.
In the US, generals can only direct their troops along lines drawn by civilian elected officials. That's as it should be. The lies and the losses are on the heads of the politicians. Determining who is lying is a more difficult task, and until Armageddon occurs - Pearl Harbor, the air raids of London -that is always hashed out by noncombatants in their ivory towers.
Once it's all-out war, were even the foolish, naive "pacifists" are aware that there's nothing left to do, people like George Patton emerge and take care of business.
2007-10-13 10:35:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I shutter at the thought. There is a good reason some Generals are best left retired. And in his case. Well, history has shown us his boldness and courage. At no matter what the cost. I am glad he has paved the way toward better diplomacy and management on the field. We have a ways to go yet, but, the days of his ways, or the highway are long gone.
Patton would have been on this a few administrations, years ago. Long before Bush got him.
PLEASE read on:
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/know-about-jihad/
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraq1.html
2007-10-13 10:27:46 · answer #3 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no longer something. He does no longer flow alongside with the timorous 'leaders' and their innovations of limited warfare,rules of engagement and so on. He'd basically say "supply me a loose hand and stay the hell out of my way, or close up and shop sucking those liberal penises" there is not any way he might combat with the bullsh*t techniques that are seen on the instant. He might spend his time attempting to be elected president so as that he would desire to run the tutor and accomplish the victory.
2016-10-20 07:08:49 · answer #4 · answered by predmore 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting thing about Patton is that he wanted the German Bureaucrats to stay in their jobs in post WWII. Unlike Bush, who thew out the people who knew how to run government services , thus causing a lot of the problems today. Yet another way to show Bush is incompetent.
There is no war on terrorism, grow up.
2007-10-13 10:39:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The first thing Patton would do is remind us that terror is a tactic, not an organization or group.
The second thing he woudl do is push for a withdrawal of forces from Iraq--becasuse he would recognize tha tIraq is not and never was a threat.
The third thing he woud do is tell Bush's good friend, the dictator of Pakistan, to either take out al-Qaida in Pakistan. Or we will. And then follow through.
as a sidebar he woud give Bush's mercenaries 24 hours to put down their weapons and report to Bagdhad airport to be shipped back to the US.
2007-10-13 10:16:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Kick a** and take names later. Paton knew the only way to win a war is to fight all out with no quarter given to the enemy.
2007-10-13 10:39:46 · answer #7 · answered by lawagoneer 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He'd march right in there and do nothing like the rest of the military has done.
2007-10-13 10:19:30 · answer #8 · answered by freekin 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
What he did to the Germans. Go in, all guns blazing and kill every single one of them that had a gun and apologize later. To bad. We need him now more then ever.
2007-10-13 10:12:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
He wouldn't think about what he "couldn't" do, he'd go in, take out who he had to take out, no matter who it was, and win.
2007-10-13 10:19:25 · answer #10 · answered by booboo 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He would be about 120 years old. So, being on a respirator, chances are he could not do much.
2007-10-13 10:13:48 · answer #11 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋