What Would (George) Patton Do? (WWPD)

by admin on June 17, 2009

What would the old General, George S. Patton, would have to say about the war on terror? Ever wonder? For all who think any war is evil and should be avoided at any price, that price is the freedom of millions of people in Europe. If you think that the way to deal with a crazy who wants to kill you today is to ignore him in the hope he leaves you alone, you are begging for war. I ran across this in Patton’s own words in the book, War As I Knew It

“Pacifists would do well to study the Siegfried and Maginot Lines, remembering that these defenses were forced; that Troy fell; that the walls of Hadrian succumbed; that the Great Wall of China was futile; and that, by the same token, the mighty seas which are alleged to defend us can also be circumvented by a resolute and ingenious opponent. In war, the only sure defense is offense, and the efficiency of offense depends on the warlike souls of those conducting it.”

Let me know what you think by leaving a comment below.

{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Suresh July 28, 2009 at 12:02 am

Hi,
its nice to read a useful article for beginner like me.
Some of points from this article are very helpful for me as I haven’t
considered them yet.
I would like to say thank you for sharing this cool article.
Bookmarked and sharing for friends.
- Suresh

2 cupider August 18, 2009 at 8:52 am

The terrible events of 9/11 saw the considerable quieting of what was until then growing domestic and international criticism of the Bush Administration. The 9/11 events resulted in a “war on terror” which saw support for Bush and his popularity soar at the time.the Bush administration was being criticized around the world European and other allies were very critical of positions on numerous global issues.

3 muxin August 19, 2009 at 9:12 pm

“To secure peace is to prepare for war”.. ok, it makes sense.. otherwise we are just a bunch of sitting ducks waiting to be slaughtered right ? but war also has to be relevant, one single attack to a country doesn’t give it a right to attack others for blur reasons. After 9/11 USA with Bush administration is like a mad armed man seeking for any possible targets, first.. Iraq for owning biological weapons which never be found, and then surprisingly this war turns out to be an oil seeking campaign as they sucked million gallons of oil from Iraq, then.. Afghanistan for protecting terrorist leaders which never be proven, the war also turns out to be a way to make oil path, now they point their arsenals to Iran for owning nuclear weapon even though many other nations in the world owned much more nukes than Iran, what’s next ? the rest of the world ? one single attack has made USA become a terror state, terrorist that owns the most sophisticated weapons and the most nuclear preserve.. that’s frightening

4 kelly August 21, 2009 at 1:42 am

I can’t agree with Patton. If we take his words for granted, then we would have to attack everyone else, because we can’t really know for sure what are they planning, so we can’t just wait around for something bad to come. His words make defense an absolute war. We just have to live with this fear, in a truce. I won’t attack, you won’t attack. But nobody seems inclined to give up their weapons first, and we’re all just staying on needles, waiting for the first blow. Fear is completely irrational, but I can’t see how we can grow out of this, unless we change our ideals or leaders.

5 itot54joni August 23, 2009 at 11:08 am

terrorism is still rampant around the world especially here in the philippines

6 Internet Business August 30, 2009 at 8:37 pm

We can never truly know what’s the truth behind all the politics. War is all about politics, in my opinion.

7 Kevin September 11, 2009 at 4:11 am

I agree with kelly and as far as I am concerned, I trust that what Patton said is no longer available. Taking into account that most countries have a nuclear bomb offense is not so good. We live times that are all about negotiation!

8 Pet rescue October 15, 2009 at 1:10 pm

George Patton would have probably resigned due to the lack of support he would be getting from Washington. Washington, in their infinite wisdom always believes they can lead wars from their desks in DC, rather than listening to their generals on the ground.

9 landscape ideas October 26, 2009 at 10:15 am

Honestly, George Patton would have probably resigned due to the lack of support he would be getting from Washington. Washington, in their infinite wisdom always believes they can lead wars from their desks in DC, rather than listening to their generals on the ground.

10 Bruce November 12, 2009 at 2:53 am

Read this, http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/its_time_to_surrender_in_afgha_1.html

It is a sin that we don’t have the balls to either win this thing or get the hell out, since our politicians from BOTH parties are incapable of winning, it’s time to bug out.

8 years to win against an enemy from the 14th Century, are you friggin kidding me?

Bruce Van Cleve

11 cash advance February 23, 2010 at 11:19 am

I want to thank the blogger very much not only for this post but also for his all previous efforts. I found bvancleve.com to be greatly interesting. I will be coming back to bvancleve.com for more information.

Leave a Comment

Previous post: Cash Flow Your Business. Windshield, Not Rear-View Mirror

Next post: The Responsibility Gap in Business