[Jenn]

In article . com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Mar 13, 8:16 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Shhhh! said:

You can rest assured that none of *those* elephants will be serving
[in] the
U.S. Army.
Let's see if the Army follows its "reject-recruit-reject" history.
There's a new discussion underway to allow gays in the military.

One Senator said the Army is wasting tons of money with their witch-hunts.
Another Senator said the scale of the waste is being exaggerated because
some straight people are saying they're Gay just to get tossed out. And
then
there's Lt. Gen. Homophobe, who said yesterday that many "moral" homophobes
(like himself) would object to being in the same room with "immoral" homos.
God bless the military!

BTW, why does a Lt. Gen. outrank a Maj. Gen.? It's the reverse of regular
majors and lieutenants. I'm mystified.

Back in the day, there were only brigadier and major generals. I'm not
sure why, when three-star generals appeared in the US Army during the
Civil War, they were called lieutenant generals. Perhaps it was a what
other nations called their three-star generals.

Some countries, including Germany and France (I think), have had
"Colonel Generals." I think Alfred Jodl was one.

Trivia: Can you name the only two six-star "General of the Armies" in
US history,

I knew this at one time.... Washington and Pershing?

and the one general who turned that promotion down?

IIRC, MacArthur.

(Not a
typo: General of the Army is what a five-star general is called.)