Urine Nation
So, dead bodies were pissed upon. For whom is this the end of the world as they knew it? NOBODY!

Urine Nation
BitterCrank
PF Addict

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 01, 2008
Location: Minneapolis

Total Topics: 178
Total Posts: 7303
#41 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 14, 2012 - 11:36 PM:


Mr. Gorbag wrote:
Even a battlefield has some written and unwritten rules, SIR2U. I may be wrong but I presume that not to urinate on a dead enemy belongs to the unwritten part...

SittinWSocratesTiff replied: It would seem that way but obviously we are missing something that needs to be spelled out.

Edit to Uniform Code of Military Behavior in Battle:

Zero Tolerance Policy for unauthorized excretory functions on Heathen Enemy Battlefields

Urination will take place only in designated locations. See Chapter 38, Section 22, Paragraphs #15 - #62: Designated locations for Urination

When a designated facility is unavailable, such as during a combat mission when troops are under heathen enemy fire, Urination Activities are to be suspended until such time as designated locations can be accessed.

At no time is any form of excretion to take place within 100 yards of a dead or dying, resting, sleeping or merely distracted heathen enemy operative. This includes tearing of the eyes, sweating, secretions from the nose, expectoration, ear wax removal, urination, vomiting, defecation, ejaculation (especially ejaculation) or hemorrhage. Any Solder apprehended performing any of these bodily functions within 100 yards of heathen enemy personnel will be subject to summary execution.

Anyone photographing, video-taping, sketching, or remembering the sight of an American Soldiers performing excretory functions on or near (within 100 yards) a heathen enemy military operative shall be subject to summary execution.

On Jan 15, 2012 - 7:31 AM, SIR2U responded: Nice one mate.
easyjacksn
Resident

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Oct 06, 2004
Location: Los Angeles

Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 307
#42 - Quote - Permalink
2 of 2 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 14, 2012 - 11:54 PM:

Taking a human life is horrible. Devaluing human life is also horrible. The former is sometimes justified and sometimes not. The latter never is and historically results in the most despicable acts committed by humans against each other. Any soldier is capable of taking an enemy soldier's life. But only those who devalue "the enemy" are capable of committing atrocities. As a civilian, I have no power over the actions of our troops and must trust them to do only what is necessary. When I see the soldiers who act as an extension of us desecrating the dead, I see an indication that they do not value human life to the extent that would keep them doing only what is necessary. My feelings of powerlessness become amplified and I react with disproportionate outrage.
On Jan 15, 2012 - 6:37 AM, SittinWSocratesTiff responded: It is really good to read your thoughts back on the boards easyjacksn.
On Jan 15, 2012 - 7:36 AM, SIR2U responded: When man stops acting macho and seeing his armies as extensions of his dick these acts will stop.
knucklehead
Forum Veteran

Usergroup: Deactivated By Request
Joined: Dec 08, 2011
Location: Crocodile infested coast, Australia

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 595
#43 - Quote - Permalink
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 15, 2012 - 6:26 AM:

The opinions expressed in this thread form a fairly typical cross-section of those in many parts of the Western World where the over-educated, over-insured, and over fed can pontificate on war and what it means. You wouldn’t be able to express your naive opinions if it wasn’t for people like those four pissers. Those men stand up in uniform while their enemies hide in civilian attire. During the WW2 combatants without some form of insignia were done away with on the spot, no cozy cell in Cuba. Now you want to give them the same Geneva Convention rights as honest soldiers? And if respect is so important to you, remember the pissers are doing a job elected government sent them to do, unlike their sneaky enemy who are made up of revenge-crazed tribesmen hopped up on religion. We in the West are in the process of inventing unsupportable morals and legislation that ask soldiers to be emotionally detached from battle, and when they do kill, they are expected to do it surgically. It’s completely unrealistic. Read Shakespeare on War. Respect for the Taliban? Al Qaida and Taliban are our leader euphemisms which allow them to avoid naming the enemy. You can’t win a fight unless you are prepared to name the enemy and vilify him. Why avoid it? No war has ever been won without total commitment. Remember this, those pissers are paying for President Bush’s legacy. The Northern Alliance captured Kabul from the Taliban with the assistance of US air power. That is precisely where they should have left it. Let the Afghans sort it out. But Bush just had to go and send in troops to make it look like he was actually doing something about 911. He’d seen too many John Wayne movies. Sherman said “War is Hell,” or something to the effect. He wasn’t trying to be philosophical, he was reporting a fact. If you want to win a war, you have to be prepared to piss on bodies, and poison their God damned wells too. And worse, you have to be prepared to see innocent people die. If you are not this committed, you will lose. “Piss on ‘em, boys!”
SittinWSocratesTiff
Banno's Chew Toy
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 02, 2009
Location: Strolling on the Absurd Side of the Street

Total Topics: 146
Total Posts: 10020
#44 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 15, 2012 - 6:42 AM:

knucklehead wrote:
The opinions expressed in this thread form a fairly typical cross-section of those in many parts of the Western World where the over-educated, over-insured, and over fed can pontificate on war and what it means. You wouldn’t be able to express your naive opinions if it wasn’t for people like those four pissers. Those men stand up in uniform while their enemies hide in civilian attire. During the WW2 combatants without some form of insignia were done away with on the spot, no cozy cell in Cuba. Now you want to give them the same Geneva Convention rights as honest soldiers? And if respect is so important to you, remember the pissers are doing a job elected government sent them to do, unlike their sneaky enemy who are made up of revenge-crazed tribesmen hopped up on religion. We in the West are in the process of inventing unsupportable morals and legislation that ask soldiers to be emotionally detached from battle, and when they do kill, they are expected to do it surgically. It’s completely unrealistic. Read Shakespeare on War. Respect for the Taliban? Al Qaida and Taliban are our leader euphemisms which allow them to avoid naming the enemy. You can’t win a fight unless you are prepared to name the enemy and vilify him. Why avoid it? No war has ever been won without total commitment. Remember this, those pissers are paying for President Bush’s legacy. The Northern Alliance captured Kabul from the Taliban with the assistance of US air power. That is precisely where they should have left it. Let the Afghans sort it out. But Bush just had to go and send in troops to make it look like he was actually doing something about 911. He’d seen too many John Wayne movies. Sherman said …War is Hell," or something to the effect. He wasn’t trying to be philosophical, he was reporting a fact. If you want to win a war, you have to be prepared to piss on bodies, and poison their God damned wells too. And worse, you have to be prepared to see innocent people die. If you are not this committed, you will lose. …Piss on ‘em, boys!"


I cannot tell if it is the block formatting that is making it difficult for me to understand where you are coming from, what topic you are trying to really address here or if it is the overwhelming veracity in which you approach it. I am sorry...it is too much for me to dissect. It seems that on their own, many of your points are accurate but that is what they seem to be, 'points' rather than discussion.
ciceronianus
An Other Mind
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: Where ignorant armies clash by night

Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 5026

Last Blog: The Ceremony of Innocence

#45 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 15, 2012 - 7:20 AM:

knucklehead wrote:
He’d seen too many John Wayne movies. "


Perhaps you have as well.

That we do horrible, deplorable things in war that are worse than pissing on corpses is a mere truism. One may still deplore pissing on a corpse, and no soldier has ever died for our right to do so.

Moe would pull your nose at least for indulging in such an argument.
SIR2U
The Wonderor of Why
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: The maps says "You are here"

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 2284
#46 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 15, 2012 - 7:29 AM:

Mr. Gorbag wrote:
Even a battlefield has some written and unwritten rules, SIR2U. I may be wrong but I presume that not to urinate on a dead enemy belongs to the unwritten part...

On what do you base your presumption? Is it a question of morality? Is it job ethics?

How does one explain the difference between killing and maiming the enemy and pissing on them, there is little dignity in suffering any of those. If they had found the soldiers alive and armed and pissed on them would it be any different. Some might say that they would have been brave to piss on a live enemy so it cannot be the actual pissing that is wrong.

Is it because the enemy are dead and defenseless that it is wrong then? What greater indignity could they have suffered after having their life taken? Dead people don't feel!

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 75
Total Posts: 691
#47 - Quote - Permalink
2 of 2 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 16, 2012 - 10:35 AM:

The opinions expressed in this thread form a fairly typical cross-section of those in many parts of the Western World where the over-educated, over-insured, and over fed can pontificate on war and what it means.


es and that is all good and true because the people that decide to make war are the over educated, over fed and over insured. We send the dumb and uneducated to make war. So it is us who should pontificate the conequences.

Those men stand up in uniform while their enemies hide in civilian attire.


And so your claim is? That it is alright to piss on civilians? I am trying to look for an argument....

During the WW2 combatants without some form of insignia were done away with on the spot, no cozy cell in Cuba. Now you want to give them the same Geneva Convention rights as honest soldiers?


Ahh an honest war you want? So it is not fair that the enemy hides, but it is fair to shoot at them from above with apache helicopters, unmanned drones, cozy panzered tanks, night vision equipment and all the advantages of a 21st century super military? An honest war? Than I'd advice equiping the taliban with the same equipment the US forces have, that be fair eh? Perhaps you should ask the soldiers first who they like to fight, a disorganised rabble in civilian closes or a heavy armed military force. So yes, the least you can do is to respect the soliders of the enemy. They fight an ultra modern military and are far more brave then the American (or whatever other Western nationality) kids in their well panzered vehicles.

And if respect is so important to you, remember the pissers are doing a job elected government sent them to do, unlike their sneaky enemy who are made up of revenge-crazed tribesmen hopped up on religion.


Whoaa elected government sent them to piss on enemy corpses, that is news! Why on earth is a fighter more respected when he does his job because some government tells him to do so and he blindly follows than a fighter who fights out of inner conviction? Your post makes me feel sympathetic for the taliban, not that I want to, but you opened my eyes!

We in the West are in the process of inventing unsupportable morals and legislation that ask soldiers to be emotionally detached from battle, and when they do kill, they are expected to do it surgically. It’s completely unrealistic.


We ask them to be respectful. Codes of honour in war are as old as the Japanese samurai and the Templar knights.

Respect for the Taliban? Al Qaida and Taliban are our leader euphemisms which allow them to avoid naming the enemy. You can’t win a fight unless you are prepared to name the enemy and vilify him. Why avoid it? No war has ever been won without total commitment.


They are named and villified. Al Quaeda are involved in the twin towers assault I thought. They are villified beyond any extreme, taliban is a synonym for terrorist. Whether the taliban and al queada are one and the same is never asked, also not in your post. You just drop names willy nilly.

Remember this, those pissers are paying for President Bush’s legacy. The Northern Alliance captured Kabul from the Taliban with the assistance of US air power.


So? Are you saying that whoever worked for Bush is now allowed to piss on other people?

That is precisely where they should have left it. Let the Afghans sort it out. But Bush just had to go and send in troops to make it look like he was actually doing something about 911. He’d seen too many John Wayne movies.


Yeah.... but.... so?

Sherman said …War is Hell," or something to the effect. He wasn’t trying to be philosophical, he was reporting a fact. If you want to win a war, you have to be prepared to piss on bodies, and poison their God damned wells too.


Yes, war is hell so why make it worth by condoning the hellish acts of its denizens? What strategic purpose does pissing on bodies have?

And worse, you have to be prepared to see innocent people die. If you are not this committed, you will lose. …Piss on ‘em, boys!"


Ever thought of signing up? Why should I cheer for your guys and not for the Taliban if there is no iota of difference? It is a piss poor argument in support of the US armed forces if ever I saw one.

Edited by Tobias on Jan 16, 2012 - 1:46 PM
Mr. Gorbag
Beyond good and evil
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 30, 2010
Location: Chimborazo, Ecuador

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1786
#48 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 16, 2012 - 11:27 AM:

SIR2U wrote:

Is it because the enemy are dead and defenseless that it is wrong then? What greater indignity could they have suffered after having their life taken? Dead people don't feel!

No, dead people don't feel, but living people seeing this stupidity does, and the symbolic effects will not improve the reputation of American soldiers among people seeing this. It also sends out a negative message to create more anger and hate among local people, that may strike back on themselves, so its definitively lack of professionalism and work ethics. What would have been the consequences to these soldiers if they pissed on dead American soldiers by the way? Pissing on dead people whatsoever is just depraved and stupid.
BitterCrank
PF Addict

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 01, 2008
Location: Minneapolis

Total Topics: 178
Total Posts: 7303
#49 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 16, 2012 - 12:13 PM:

Knucklehead wrote:
Sherman said …War is Hell," or something to the effect.

War is hell, all right, and Sherman ought to know. Sherman led a Union Army from the vicinity of Atlanta to Savannah. And I will tie this post into the Afghanistan Ru[r]ination discussion.

The campaign began with Sherman's troops leaving the captured city of Atlanta, Georgia, on November 16 and ended with the capture of the port of Savannah on December 21. It inflicted significant damage, particularly to industry and infrastructure (per the doctrine of total war), and also to civilian property. Military historian David J. Eicher wrote that Sherman "defied military principles by operating deep within enemy territory and without lines of supply or communication. He destroyed much of the South's physical and psychological capacity to wage war."

All sorts of, shall we say, bad things happened along the way. But it helped bring an end to a terrifically destructive war. At least, it brought an end to the formal proceedings of the union and confederate armies eliminating their young men from the gene pool by the hundreds of thousands, and who knows how many civilians? It was a lot. (And, it should be added, there are late-date partisans on both sides who would have liked to have gotten rid of many more of their enemy.)

The Civil War wasn't an entirely futile effort: The Union was bolted, riveted, and screwed back together, but there are still unresolved issues trailing - not just from the Civil War, but from the drafting of the constitution over 200 years ago. I suppose you could say there are unresolved issues from 1620 and the Mayflower Compact -- or the defeat of Greece by Rome, or... As Gertrude Stein observed, "The past is never past."

Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Uzebekistan Tibet, Syria, Nigeria, Cyprus, Panama, Fiji, Israel, New Zealand, for God's sake -- you name it -- all have unresolved issues. That an instrument as blunt as war would be sufficiently efficient and adequately efficacious to resolve any issue subtler than "you took it and we want it back, or else" is a lesson we have not learned.

It isn't that we can't ultimately resolve complicated issues. We can. We have. We will. It just won't be through the means of war. (Oh sure, I suppose if we just killed every last one of them, we could say the issue was resolved -- by default. Dead people don't have issues.)

The diplomatic corps, for instance, trains people not to literally urinate on people. Diplomacy has more sublty. If you wish to urinate on a people, there are ways, and then there are ways. If you want to fashion some nation into the cesspool of your geo-region's private toilets, that can be done through such clean and refined methods as trade agreements, loans, IMF and WB policy, and so forth. You don't just pull your dick out (or squat, ladies) and piss all over the people -- alive or dead. They resent it too much. One especially doesn't put it on YouTube or WikiLeaks.

Pissing on corpses is bad policy, but I still say it isn't an atrocity to the dead.

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 75
Total Posts: 691
#50 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 16, 2012 - 2:05 PM:

I agree that pissing on corpses is not an affront to the corpses. As far as we know they are dead. But it is an affront to the living. It dehumanises the enemy making it easier for others who witness it to kill. It dvealues the act of killing making it something irrelevant, something close to extermination. It blunts and desensitises others to the attrocity that is war and finally it is adding insult to injury to the families of the fighters killed. What would you think as the father or mother of one of those fighters if you did not only see your son killed in battle, but pissed on? And it is possible they have internet cafe's in Kabul too. Would you not grieve and hate, hate very deeply?

Achilles was frowned upon by the Gods for trying to mutilate Hector's body. There has not been an unwritten rule of war more sacred than not to mutilate the dead. The Taliban might not honour that law, (maybe not, I don't know, the Viet Cong did not) but that does not mean no soldier should or that this is not law anymore. Court martialling is in order.
locked
Download thread as
  • 70/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Recent Internal Replies
On Jan 22, 2012 - 1:51 AM, Dragon_Lance replied internally to fullcat's Oh...that's ....
On Jan 16, 2012 - 9:11 PM, Gryphon replied internally to SIR2U's These actions w....
On Jan 15, 2012 - 7:36 AM, SIR2U replied internally to easyjacksn's Taking a human life ....
On Jan 15, 2012 - 7:31 AM, SIR2U replied internally to BitterCrank's Edit to Unifor....
On Jan 15, 2012 - 6:37 AM, SittinWSocratesTiff replied internally to easyjacksn's Taking a human life ....
On Jan 14, 2012 - 7:06 PM, SittinWSocratesTiff replied internally to Mr. Gorbag's Even a battlefie....
On Jan 14, 2012 - 6:05 PM, SittinWSocratesTiff replied internally to Legion's Good guys don't ....
On Jan 13, 2012 - 1:09 PM, SittinWSocratesTiff replied internally to ciceronianus's Urinating on a corps....
On Jan 13, 2012 - 11:26 AM, mayor of simpleton replied internally to mutemaler's Interesting questi....

This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.