All government, esp. the feds use this type of language. It is not unique to one administration or another.SGB said:If the Bush administration can't use clear and honest language about this, how is the American public to trust them on anything else?
I think maybe Skel was referring to the irreverent way in which deceased American soldiers are returned to this country. It shouldn't be a hush hush secret affair. Let the world see what Bush is willing to sacrifice in the name of democracy.gkmo62u said:Read the article. It was coined by the pentagon in 1991.
Better read it more closely.gkmo62u said:Read the article. It was coined by the pentagon in 1991.
But today's military doesn't even use the words "body bags" — a term in common usage during the Vietnam War, when 58,000 Americans died.
During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon began calling them "human remains pouches" and it now refers to them as "transfer tubes."
Me too. But that doesn't mean I don't think it isn't the most pragmatic alternative right now to having civilians die at the hands of jihadis every day right here in America.Big Easy King said:I'm sickened that American soldiers are dying everyday in Iraq.
Being that W is the C & C of the US military, I guess it is a Bushism afterall.gkmo62u said:Jb my point was that it is a Pentagon term, not a President's term as implied by this once again Bush bashing Cyburbia thread.
Irreverent is not really what I meant. It was the first thing that came to mind. More like clandestine. My post was sort of tongue-in-cheek and in direct reference to that obviously-biased newspaper article.gkmo62u said:Planderella, I suggest that we all defer to families who have lost soldiers and have taken part in any ceremony at an air base, before we refer to the event as "irreverent." I'll let ElGuopo take a shot, as my gut tells me the care and private ceremony afforded our heroes is anything but irreverent.
Big Easy King said:I'm sickened that American soldiers are dying everyday in Iraq.
Well, but that would be Uncivilized. We can't do anything that smacks of racism, etc, -- no matter how Practical it would be. We are not the land of the Free: We are the land of the Pretending Our Ideals Are So Much Higher Than Everyone Else's. Thus, to extrapolate on the comment about "it is better that many guilty go free than that one innocent go to jail": clearly, it is better that a few thousand true patriots die on foreign soil than that a few thousand illegal immigrants have their civil rights violated.Mike D. said:They wouldn't have to if everyone wasn't so PC about rounding up all illegal immigrants, shipping them back to wherever they came from, stopping all flights to and from the Mid East, encouraging a little more racial profiling when it comes to young middle eastern males, etc etc.
The US won't let the US fight the war at home, so its gotta be done abroad.
First, I too share this question, why do we treat people with no legal standing in our country as a person who has a right to be here?Michele Zone said:
Oh, wait -- I have a question: legally, do illegal immigrants have 'civil rights'? Or are we so nice merely as a sign of how Decent we are? ( The rest was sarcastic BS, but this is a serious question: Does anyone know the answer?)
Ditto to that. I think the real answer to why illegal imigrants are treated as they are lies in the unholy alliance between the "lower-the-cost-of-doing-business-at-any-price" right and the "race-and-ethnicity " pandering left. Whenever those two groups agree about anything, put your hand over your wallet and watch as the value of your citizenship declines.The Irish One said:What Mike D. and Michelle said.
I think it was about "re-usable condoms" -- you know, something the Bush administration uses For Protection...no, wait, it must have been about "condoms being buried in a landfill, euphemistically known as a 'graveyard' "...oh, hell, I don't know -- you figure it out: the Bushism in question was "transfer tube".El Feo said:
Sorry - what was this tread about again?