George Patton: when his army came to the Rhine (Photo)

ScrapbookPages.com ^ | 1/12/12 | staff

[Nachum]

"I drove to the Rhine River and went across on the pontoon bridge. I stopped in the middle to take a piss and then picked up some dirt on the far side in emulation of William the Conqueror." General George S. Patton, March 1945

[armymarinemom]

My Father’s unit was attached to Patton’s Third for a good part of the war. We lost Dad suddenly last month. I’m just thankful that he recorded his witnessed account of Dachau.

[stig]

There’s a difference, though, between pissing into a river and pissing on dead human bodies.

Yeah a live person downstream might drink your pee. The dead person not so much.

But really folks what part of scum taliban don't you leftists understand. In my book Marine piss is too good for these scum. Why even kill them if you can't piss on them? Really think of that it's ok to blast their brains out the otherside of their head?? But if you relieve yourself on them well now you've done it.

I'm sick of this sterilization of war. It's brutal, it's sucks, bad things are going to happen. If you don't want to end up dead and pissed on don't pick a fight with US citizens, especially if those citizens are Marines.

But let me guess what our wonderful Secretary of Defense will do. Waste our Marine's time with an expensive court case so we can give outside consulting attorney's a big fat check. Then have the entire corps get sensitivity training so they can feel empathy for the scum they just killed.

[Nachum]

Hey, the Rhine couldn't tell the difference.

Neither could the dead Taliban

[Charles Henrickson]

The conduct would be covered by the The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, as follows:

6.2.6 War Crimes under International Law

The following acts, if committed intentionally, are examples of acts that could be considered war crimes, but would not be considered grave breaches of the [Geneva] Conventions:

2. Mutilation or other mistreatment of the dead

The only question would be if this provision includes the mistreatment of non-uniformed dead combatants (such as Taliban fighters).

I am all in favor of killing the enemy. Once the enemy is dead, however, I am not in favor of desecrating the body. This view is not unique to me. This is the traditional view of civilized societies, including the United States, and it has, as far as I know, always been a part of our military code.

I expect our guys to act better than the enemy.

Of course I am much more repelled by the abominable, murderous, brutal conduct of the muzzies than I am by a few of our guys pissing on those bodies. A reprimand or some other mild form of discipline might be in order, though. What they did, while understandable emotionally to some extent, should not be condoned or excused.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Check out Panetta’s background at www.keywiki.org. Go to “Search” box and put in his name and his “search”.
Surprise, surprise!

For those who like military history and equipment, you can find a more modern pontoon bridge in “Technical Bulletin - TB 5-271-1, Dept. of the Army Technical Bulletin, “Bridge, Floating: Raft Section, Light Tactical”, Sept. 1959.

My son (I must brag) and his company, 299th MRB (Multi-Role Bridge) Company, out of Ft. Belvoir,Va, on April 3, 2003, put up the first modern Ribbon Pontoon Bridge in combat history, and earned a Presidential Unit Citation for this action on the Euphrates River west of Baghdad.

Also included a combined amphibious assault by some of the 299th and the 54th Ordnance Company, to seize the east bank of the river and clear it, to seize the main concrete bridge for the Abrams tanks to use, and to clear it of explosives, thus allowing the rest of the company to put up the ribbon bridge (they still received enemy fire but accomplished the whole mission without any casualties).

From a proud pop.

[dfwgator]

I’m sure Patton wished to piss on Monty a few times.

[dools0007world]

In his response to me he quotes from the Navy’s Law of Naval Operations. He concedes our raghead [my word] enemy is not in uniform and understands his legal source is intended for uniformed soldiers representing an identifiable country.

Neither the Geneva Convention or the Uniform Code of Military Justice covers terrorists in mufti with no national affiliation. He probably also thinks interrogation should be limited to the Red Cross offering donuts in exchange for info. He probably also agrees with the absurd ROE prohibiting our soldiers from defending themselves when attacked by terrorists using human shields (including men, women and children).

We are in a fight for the survival of Christianity and Judaism. Our enemy has stated openly and repeatedly he intends to convert, enslave and/or murder us. I wonder what part of that Henrickson doesn’t get? Our enemy recognizes no rules and gives no quarter. The only truth our enemy understands is brute force (emphasis on brute). If Henrickson doesn’t like that it is his right. Meanwhile, it would be helpful if he had the courtesy to remain silent while others take the fight to the enemy.

Also, Henrickson seems to forget that America has taken the fight to civilian populations in the past. Examples: The fire bombings of cities like Dresden in both Germany and Japan. This was in response to the German bombings of British cities and Japan’s atrocities—Nanking, Bataan and many others. But we didn’t just pee on these people. We burned them to death. Result(among other things, off course): The Allies won WWII.

Moving along, it is amazing to me that it is over 10 years since 09-11-01 and this war is still going on. Vietnam all over again. Should have been over in 2 years at most. Once again our pols—and people like Henrickson—do not have the guts to do what is necessary to defeat this bunch of 17th Century zealots. They’re only strengths are IEDs and a willingness to do anything and kill anybody to prevail. Moreover, this travesty is supported by the overarcing Muslim population—by what it does and what it does not do.

The fact is, if we had won this war 8 years ago far fewer people would be dead or maimed today. We had, and still have, the military might to finish this stupid war. What we don’t have is the political will to finish it.

[stig]

The conduct would be covered by the The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, as follows:

6.2.6 War Crimes under International Law

I don't know what treaty we signed to include this drivel in the Law on Naval Operations (I hope to hell the reason it's included is because of a treaty). But this then brings up a problem in general.

These are essentially civilians with little or no formal military training. If you buy into this international law garbage then why is not our presence in Afghanistan adjudicated in international court in the first place? Because the whole thing in Afghanistan can be considered one big violation of international law.

But essentially we have reached the point in the military where our soldiers are thrown under the bus so we may worship at the altar of political correctness.

[goat granny]

Rules of engagement say no pissing toward Mecca, didn’t say no pissing on the enemy.....

[Charles Henrickson]

In your post, dools0007world, you refer to me throughout in the third person. It is customary, when discussing the views of a person who participates in a thread, to include the person you are discussing.

You do a lot of assuming about what I believe or think. And generally, you are wrong. I am all for killing the enemy. I believe militant Islam is the #1 threat to all civilized nation s in the world. I have no sympathy for the muzzies. And so on.

Also, the issue is not about me, personally. It is about proper military conduct.

Furthermore, this is not about how evil the muzzies are. They are very evil, and if they take up arms against us, they should die.

But this IS about how good WE are and to what standard we hold OUR conduct. And that means, we don't desecrate the bodies of the enemy dead, no matter how evil they are. This is not some new idea or some wimpy liberal idea. This is a traditional standard of honorable conduct, and we expect our men to adhere to it.

Now I understand the emotional satisfaction aspect. And I wouldn't be too hard on the guys who did this. But it should not be defended.

And in any case, it was very STUPID to record this and put it out for the world to see. There is no gain in UNNECESSARILY giving "ammo" to the enemy to whip up their people.

[central_va]

And in any case, it was very STUPID to record this and put it out for the world to see. There is no gain in UNNECESSARILY giving "ammo" to the enemy to whip up their people.

In any case, your hand wringing and timid comments are UNNECESSARILY giving "ammo" to the enemy to whip up their people.

[Nachum]

You know what? We are all on the same team here. Charles is right, IMHO. They should not have pissed on the enemy.

Even though it sure felt good. :)

[Lazamataz]

Dude, I could care less if they skeet all over the enemy.

[vpintheak]

I Agree 100%!

[central_va]

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

                 -- Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

[central_va]

The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!

           -- Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States, 1945