i voted for other because i don't like the army but i have a friend whos in the army and i like him so i couldn't say i don't like anybody whos in the army
Lee, Mao, Hannibal, and Bodecia all come to mind. (But Bodecia wasn't a general, but neither was Castro) One can't discuss this topic without recognizing General Confussion. General Mudd defeated both Napoleon and Hitler. On the battlefield, I'd have to go with Lee. On the other hand, Ike had to balance the interests and pride of different countries and their generals. In his post war career, he was honest enough to recogize and warn us of the danger to this country of a standing industrialized army. (military-industrial complex). In this he parallelled Washington in that his military life was just the first part of his contribution to his country.
I am astounded by the ignorance of those who voted "I don't like anyone in the army". Are you saying that in the History of time you do not believe any war was just in fighting. I doubt that. Or are you saying that you are not suffeciently educated in History to make an informed decision about a great leader or General in some past war? Just curious.
i believe no war was ever worth fighting i believe no country should have an army i belive there should be no countries to have armies i believe we are all one people, so whats the point in fighting with ourselves i cant believe your so uneducated that youd believe we need borders & armies &? governments that only serve to seperate us & make wars neccasary & possible or maybe your overeducated (brainwashed) into believing war is innevitable?
not a big fan of the army, i could never kill anyone and i don't tend to get along well with that type of person, i find their conquests trivial and upsetting, a wise man goes into battle reluctantly and comes out with great regret and respect i don't think that fighting will ever help, ... exept to control the growing population problem
General David H. Petraeus. Commander, Multi-National Force-Iraq. General Norman Schwartzkopf commanded the successful allied invasion of Iraq in the Persian Gulf
Lee, Che Guevara, Hannibal, though I love bodecia I wouldn't say she was the best. Um Patton, desert fox, Napoleon. No order but some people I think were good general. Peace and hopefully one day no one will have armies
George Marshall, for planning and orchestrating possibly the most successful peace in history. In WWII they started planning for the German occupation and liberation of Europe two years before the invasion. In Iraq we had less than 6 months...there's your problem. Assuming of course that the question pertains to only the US Army.
i voted for pershing.he proved himself a worthy officer through numerous conflicts and then was general of u.s. forces in the terrible ww1.there maybe were better generals but for me it was an interesting era for the u.s military.
I was almost going to vote Patton, but then voted Other. Napoleon was pretty great, among Alexander, and a hundred others.
If you truly believe the things you have posted you are dangerously uninformed. Clearly you have no idea about the nature of war and the many reasons it is proliferated. You said that you were against ALL war and there is nothing that can justify it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7iDZnkn1xo It's called crimes against humanity how many more be-headings do you need to witness before you understand that the world rarely responds to reason? Your pacifist views are a joke that is dependent on the suffering and work of other people.