 Should the U.S. Government repatriate the remains of our troops? en>fr fr>en
By GhostDivision  Comments: 3631, member since Thu Feb 09, 2006On Wed Jan 25, 2012 09:35 PM
There are 66,000 American servicemen from two World Wars buried in France. Should the U.S. government repatriate their remains and re-bury them on U.S. soil? 9 Replies to Should the U.S. Government repatriate the remains of our troops? |
 re: Should the U.S. Government repatriate the remains of our troops? en>fr fr>en
By JFrum Comments: 1072, member since Sat Nov 19, 2011On Wed Jan 25, 2012 09:43 PM
I didnt think you meant disintering WW2 soldiers.
How about repatriating them while they are alive
and quit sending them to bumfuck places. |
 re: Should the U.S. Government repatriate the remains of our troops? (karma: 1)
en>fr fr>en
By breizheals Comments: 12006, member since Mon Jul 18, 2005On Wed Jan 25, 2012 09:59 PM
I can't start to imagine the shame it'd bring to your country if a hydrocephalic asswipe such as yourself was to lead the USA.
Fucking idiot! |
 re: Should the U.S. Government repatriate the remains of our troops? en>fr fr>en
By Nappybonesapart Comments: 15659, member since Fri Aug 27, 2004On Thu Jan 26, 2012 03:39 AM
'some corner of a foreign field that is for ever England'
i think it more meaningful for them to remain undisturbed, even though digging up corpses is work for my profession, you think a minimum wage person will collect every finger and toe bone, like I do |
re: Should the U.S. Government repatriate the remains of our troops? en>fr fr>en
By GhostDivision Comments: 3631, member since Thu Feb 09, 2006On Thu Jan 26, 2012 09:07 AM
While its possible that the remains of the 66,000 could be repatriated here, and then reinterred at various domestic military cemeteries, it is probably not the most practical solution in the logistical sense.
I'm certainly not the first person to suggest this. When DeGolly was making loud noises and political hay about getting U.S. troops out of Flance, Ike (who was president then) asked DeGolly if it included the 66,000 buried there. |
 re: Should the U.S. Government repatriate the remains of our troops? (karma: 1)
en>fr fr>en
By Cazeilles Comments: 13732, member since Wed Apr 09, 2003On Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:05 PM
GhostDivision wrote:
While its possible that the remains of the 66,000 could be repatriated here, and then reinterred at various domestic military cemeteries, it is probably not the most practical solution in the logistical sense.
I'm certainly not the first person to suggest this. When DeGolly was making loud noises and political hay about getting U.S. troops out of Flance, Ike (who was president then) asked DeGolly if it included the 66,000 buried there.
Eisenhower presidential mandat 1953-1961.
France leaving Nato command 1966.
This quote, beside being impossible, never happened. |
 re: Should the U.S. Government repatriate the remains of our troops? en>fr fr>en
By simplefrench Comments: 64116, member since Wed Mar 19, 2003On Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:10 PM
Edited by simplefrench (60194) on 2012-01-26 12:10:30
why are they not buried in their birth place ? it is a better homage i think. |
 re: Should the U.S. Government repatriate the remains of our troops? (karma: 2)
en>fr fr>en
By Armonteutmaronne Comments: 8916, member since Sun May 20, 2007On Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:12 PM
Edited by Armonteutmaronne (80615) on 2012-01-26 12:14:35
GhostDivision wrote:
While its possible that the remains of the 66,000 could be repatriated here, and then reinterred at various domestic military cemeteries, it is probably not the most practical solution in the logistical sense.
I'm certainly not the first person to suggest this. When DeGolly was making loud noises and political hay about getting U.S. troops out of Flance, Ike (who was president then) asked DeGolly if it included the 66,000 buried there.
Ghost"Shit"Division !
Does you know how to make a shit ?
Look and good luck !
 |
re: Should the U.S. Government repatriate the remains of our troops? en>fr fr>en
By GhostDivision Comments: 3631, member since Thu Feb 09, 2006On Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:31 PM
Edited by GhostDivision (79003) on 2012-01-26 12:33:27
France officially left NATO in 1966, but were complaining about US troops long before that. I'll find the reference to Ike's quote as repost shortly. 
P.S. To Armoron:
The best way to take a shit in the third world is to:
a) Kill some Taliban or al-Qaeda operatives
b) Get a pair of pliers
c) Open dead jihadist's mouth
d) Squat
e) Shit in the dead jihadist's mouth
f) Upload the video to Youtube
g) Kill more Taliban
h) Repeat steps a-g
Cazeilles wrote:
GhostDivision wrote:
While its possible that the remains of the 66,000 could be repatriated here, and then reinterred at various domestic military cemeteries, it is probably not the most practical solution in the logistical sense.
I'm certainly not the first person to suggest this. When DeGolly was making loud noises and political hay about getting U.S. troops out of Flance, Ike (who was president then) asked DeGolly if it included the 66,000 buried there.
Eisenhower presidential mandat 1953-1961.
France leaving Nato command 1966.
This quote, beside being impossible, never happened. |
|
 re: Should the U.S. Government repatriate the remains of our troops? (karma: 3)
en>fr fr>en
By lord_of_the_air Comments: 5470, member since Sun Nov 14, 2004On Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:35 PM
simplefrench wrote:
why are they not buried in their birth place ? it is a better homage i think.
If france ever starts repatriating foreign corpses,don't forget pippin.Do it soon so he can go under his own power. |
