DescentBB

Been waiting for several years for these people to get their just due:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/ ... story.html

hiring armed thugs to do 'security' is just one of a few dozen major errors in judgement by the Cheney/Bush administration.

I don’t really see the connection to being private, with other very severe crimes being committed by soldiers, and such.

Failure of discipline is just that…it’s not limited to “private” individuals or groups by any means.

callmeslick wrote:Been waiting for several years for these people to get their just due:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/ ... story.html

hiring armed thugs to do 'security' is just one of a few dozen major errors in judgement by the Cheney/Bush administration.

We have very few savages while the enemy has many.

The difference is ours are not the norm, nor are they venerated.

Spidey wrote:I don’t really see the connection to being private, with other very severe crimes being committed by soldiers, and such.

Failure of discipline is just that…it’s not limited to “private” individuals or groups by any means.

private corporations should not be securing US installations. And, yes, I know it has been going on before 2001.

ThunderBunny wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Been waiting for several years for these people to get their just due:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/ ... story.html

hiring armed thugs to do 'security' is just one of a few dozen major errors in judgement by the Cheney/Bush administration.

We have very few savages while the enemy has many.

The difference is ours are not the norm, nor are they venerated.

oh, I'm not so sure about that. A regular reading of the foreign press will bring that assertion(both parts) into question.
Hell, one can simply look at one DBB member's signature and see that individual glorifying American soldiers behaving like savages.

callmeslick wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Been waiting for several years for these people to get their just due:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/ ... story.html

hiring armed thugs to do 'security' is just one of a few dozen major errors in judgement by the Cheney/Bush administration.

We have very few savages while the enemy has many.

The difference is ours are not the norm, nor are they venerated.

oh, I'm not so sure about that. A regular reading of the foreign press will bring that assertion(both parts) into question.
Hell, one can simply look at one DBB member's signature and see that individual glorifying American soldiers behaving like savages.

Sadly slick your true colors keep showing themselves. You really hate the military and find any excuse to remind us of such. I suggest you read up on savagery in prior wars before condemning the sometimes stupid ROE that our troops have to operate under. How much savagery was there in fire bombing Dresden or dropping nukes in Japan? In the Blackwater case I'd like to see the entire incident report. My guess is that someone in the Iraqi crowd fired first and the guards (who, if memory serves, were ex special forces) returned fire. Unlike slicks bunny filled world, no one had the luxury of trying to determine who were the innocents and who were the terrorists. Or do you think Americans should die first just to be PC?

As to the marines in my tag, just explain to me how peeing on a corpse makes you a savage?

“shoot on sight”…wait, who’s the savage.

woodchip wrote:Sadly slick your true colors keep showing themselves. You really hate the military and find any excuse to remind us of such.

um, my dad served in WWII, my nephew(I'm his guardian) served proudly in Reserves and Regular Army. No issue with the military, by and large whatsoever, so the only thing showing itself is your ass, again.

As to the marines in my tag, just explain to me how peeing on a corpse makes you a savage?

if I have to explain it to you, or anyone, they are beyond help and way past pathetic excuses for human beings.

Spidey wrote:“shoot on sight”…wait, who’s the savage.

no, standard punishment historically. Pissing on the bodies after execution would be savage. The difference is subtle, but worth learning.

Well, I guess it would depend on which definition you want to use.

The word has several.

"standard punishment historically"

That doesn’t make it right.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Sadly slick your true colors keep showing themselves. You really hate the military and find any excuse to remind us of such.

um, my dad served in WWII, my nephew(I'm his guardian) served proudly in Reserves and Regular Army. No issue with the military, by and large whatsoever, so the only thing showing itself is your ass, again.

Perhaps you should talk to your father about real savagery in war. Providing of course he served in a combat line company.

callmeslick wrote:

As to the marines in my tag, just explain to me how peeing on a corpse makes you a savage?

if I have to explain it to you, or anyone, they are beyond help and way past pathetic excuses for human beings.

Typical slick avoiding the issue.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:“shoot on sight”…wait, who’s the savage.

no, standard punishment historically. Pissing on the bodies after execution would be savage. The difference is subtle, but worth learning.

so now the dead taliban are "executed". Always looking for a way out of the conundrum you get yourself into.

Peeing on the corpse was wrong. One of our guys had to pick that up....

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Sadly slick your true colors keep showing themselves. You really hate the military and find any excuse to remind us of such.

um, my dad served in WWII, my nephew(I'm his guardian) served proudly in Reserves and Regular Army. No issue with the military, by and large whatsoever, so the only thing showing itself is your ass, again.

Perhaps you should talk to your father about real savagery in war. Providing of course he served in a combat line company.

nah, he was putting out fires with various of his concoctions on barges in the Potomac. The fellow down the hall from him at the retirement place is a veteran of the Normandy landing, and I've talked to him plenty. Plus my best friend on the planet was a tank repairer in 'Nam. I have heard plenty, eminating from others and from ours.

Typical slick bluntly pointing out the issue.

fixed for ya......

ThunderBunny wrote:
We have very few savages while the enemy has many.

The difference is ours are not the norm, nor are they venerated.

Forgetting our lovely actions while in Vietman, aren't we?

tunnelcat wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:
We have very few savages while the enemy has many.

The difference is ours are not the norm, nor are they venerated.

Forgetting our lovely actions while in Vietman, aren't we?

Forgetting what the VC did to their own people aren't we?

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:
We have very few savages while the enemy has many.

The difference is ours are not the norm, nor are they venerated.

Forgetting our lovely actions while in Vietman, aren't we?

Forgetting what the VC did to their own people aren't we?

why would one have to 'forget' the latter to acknowledge the former? One does NOT justify the other. At all.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:
We have very few savages while the enemy has many.

The difference is ours are not the norm, nor are they venerated.

Forgetting our lovely actions while in Vietman, aren't we?

Forgetting what the VC did to their own people aren't we?

why would one have to 'forget' the latter to acknowledge the former? One does NOT justify the other. At all.

Other than My Lai, what acts of "savagery" made it to the national press? OTH, there would be numerous incidents involving the VC and the NVA that did. And the point I made was backing up TB's comment or are you going off on another one of your irrelevant tangents?

woodchip wrote:Other than My Lai, what acts of "savagery" made it to the national press? OTH, there would be numerous incidents involving the VC and the NVA that did. And the point I made was backing up TB's comment or are you going off on another one of your irrelevant tangents?

um, so the same press that would have gladly kept My Lai silent, and which needed the Pentagon Papers to really START looking critically, was expected to yield what, exactly? Likewise, with the reports of VC atrocities, pretty typical of jingoistic press in any war. Like you requested, I base my comments upon insights from those who were in the field.

I suggest you talk to the Normandy vet and ask him if peeing on a enemy corpse constitutes savagery.

It shows a lack of respect and decency, which, granted, are in short supply when you're trying to kill each other. I don't see it as something to be celebrated after the fact.

Nor is it a act that the parties involved should be "shot on the spot" or denigrated as "savages"

woodchip wrote:I suggest you talk to the Normandy vet and ask him if peeing on a enemy corpse constitutes savagery.

actually I did, and he found your citation of it both disgusting and childish, and the behavior of the Marine in question as reprehensible.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I suggest you talk to the Normandy vet and ask him if peeing on a enemy corpse constitutes savagery.

actually I did, and he found your citation of it both disgusting and childish, and the behavior of the Marine in question as reprehensible.

I'll bet you did.

most civilized people, veteran or not, seem to feel the same way. I wondered, when I first saw you touting this incident, whether there was some grey area I missed. Apparently not, you seem to be one of the absolute few who see pissing on dead bodies as acceptable under ANY circumstance.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:
We have very few savages while the enemy has many.

The difference is ours are not the norm, nor are they venerated.

Forgetting our lovely actions while in Vietman, aren't we?

Forgetting what the VC did to their own people aren't we?

Doesn't excuse the nastiness our people did either. We are supposed to represent ourselves as a civilized nation to the rest of the world, not be monsters in our own right.

callmeslick wrote:most civilized people, veteran or not, seem to feel the same way. I wondered, when I first saw you touting this incident, whether there was some grey area I missed. Apparently not, you seem to be one of the absolute few who see pissing on dead bodies as acceptable under ANY circumstance.

Don't even begin to use the word "most" until someone does a anonymous poll of combat troops about this issue. All people like you slick, who never were in the military, let alone been in combat, need not apply as you have no conception of what you are talking about. Try reading blogs from guys who have been there and see what their opinions are. I am far from being part of the absolute few.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:
We have very few savages while the enemy has many.

The difference is ours are not the norm, nor are they venerated.

Forgetting our lovely actions while in Vietman, aren't we?

Forgetting what the VC did to their own people aren't we?

Doesn't excuse the nastiness our people did either. We are supposed to represent ourselves as a civilized nation to the rest of the world, not be monsters in our own right.

There is nothing civilized when 2 groups of people are trying to kill one another. If you think otherwise, you would of been dead early on in your tour.