Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I suppose that posting topically would be just to difficult a mental task, so rather, reheat, reserve, and rehash the same crap you're been posting in 1000 other threads.
Although, Now I'm only curious to see which moron will swallow the bait.
<<<<sigh>>>>
Willow and Patek bit the bait
Maybe if we all ignore him he will go away? The problem is some liberal cry babies won't ignore him.
Maybe if we retun to the topic?!
Marines Leaving Iraq AFTER 7 YEARS.
Should Marines be deployed for 7 fucking years? As I understand their mission, the Marines are essentially lightly armed assult troops whose tactical training is not to hold ground.
Why didn't they Army replace them 5-6 years ago?
First of all you DON'T understand what a Marine is...work that out and come back with an intelligent post.
The official mission of the Marine Corps is established in the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1952. Marines are trained, organized and equipped for
Offensive amphibious employment and as a force in readiness. According to the Act, Marines stand prepared to meet mission requirements.
Ya fuck those Iraqis and Afghans, just let them die and live in dictatorships, fuck em all.
Look dumb ass, whether you think we should have gone or not is irrelevant now BECAUSE we went. We now have a RESPONSIBILITY to fix those Countries as we are in them.
You wanna see the World howl at us? Abandon both Countries as is and watch as they descend into Anarchy and all those turds that whined about us BEING there will be even louder and madder at us LEAVING.
You just accidentally confessed to being completely fucking ignorant of the situations. But we already knew that when you claimed Blackwater was given immunity in Iraq through a Treaty with iraq. When it was proven that was not true at all you ran and hid instead of being a man and admitting you fucked up.
RETARD ALERT. If Iraq had jurisdiction you dumb ass we would not be having this conversation. Your ignorance is exceeded only by that head of yours. Have trouble getting through doors I bet.
<<<<sigh>>>>
Willow and Patek bit the bait
Maybe if we retun to the topic?!
Marines Leaving Iraq AFTER 7 YEARS.
Should Marines be deployed for 7 fucking years? As I understand their mission, the Marines are essentially lightly armed assult troops whose tactical training is not to hold ground.
Why didn't they Army replace them 5-6 years ago?
First of all you DON'T understand what a Marine is...work that out and come back with an intelligent post.
YOU DO know what the Marine Corps' Mission is?
I'll try again, although you'll probably be completely happy to moronically run around in circles after the shiny objects that CurveLight throws into the thread to get your attention.
The official mission of the Marine Corps is established in the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1952. Marines are trained, organized and equipped for
Offensive amphibious employment and as a force in readiness. According to the Act, Marines stand prepared to meet mission requirements.
So, wanna have an intelligent discussion, or would you like to entertain the idiot?
What about deploying Marines to Iraq for 7 years is anything like the mission the marine corps the National Security Act of 1947 spells out?
<<<<sigh>>>>
Willow and Patek bit the bait
Maybe if we retun to the topic?!
Marines Leaving Iraq AFTER 7 YEARS.
Should Marines be deployed for 7 fucking years? As I understand their mission, the Marines are essentially lightly armed assult troops whose tactical training is not to hold ground.
Why didn't they Army replace them 5-6 years ago?
First of all you DON'T understand what a Marine is...work that out and come back with an intelligent post.
YOU DO know what the Marine Corps' Mission is?
I'll try again, although you'll probably be completely happy to moronically run around in circles after the shiny objects that CurveLight throws into the thread to get your attention.
The official mission of the Marine Corps is established in the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1952. Marines are trained, organized and equipped for
Offensive amphibious employment and as a “force in readiness.” According to the Act, Marines stand prepared to meet mission requirements.
So, wanna have an intelligent discussion, or would you like to entertain the idiot?
What about deploying Marines to Iraq for 7 years is anything like the mission the marine corps the National Security Act of 1947 spells out?
First of all you DON'T understand what a Marine is...work that out and come back with an intelligent post.
YOU DO know what the Marine Corps' Mission is?
I'll try again, although you'll probably be completely happy to moronically run around in circles after the shiny objects that CurveLight throws into the thread to get your attention.
The official mission of the Marine Corps is established in the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1952. Marines are trained, organized and equipped for
Offensive amphibious employment and as a force in readiness. According to the Act, Marines stand prepared to meet mission requirements.
So, wanna have an intelligent discussion, or would you like to entertain the idiot?
What about deploying Marines to Iraq for 7 years is anything like the mission the marine corps the National Security Act of 1947 spells out?
Reading the mission statement of the Marine Corps is fine....it doesn't represent reality and the history of The Corps. Now read some history about World War One, World War Two, Korea, Viet Nam, tell me how "lightly armed assault troops" have elite fighter-bomber squadrons, numerous helicopter squadrons, main battle tanks and enough "Alligators" to cover the entire coast of China with heavily armed Divisions of Marines with their own artillery, Commando units, etc. etc.
and if the mission is to hold ground...they hold the ground ...That was their mission. What part of that is bamboozling you.
and what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States as it applies to the service of our Marines in Iraq??
YOU DO know what the Marine Corps' Mission is?
I'll try again, although you'll probably be completely happy to moronically run around in circles after the shiny objects that CurveLight throws into the thread to get your attention.
So, wanna have an intelligent discussion, or would you like to entertain the idiot?
What about deploying Marines to Iraq for 7 years is anything like the mission the marine corps the National Security Act of 1947 spells out?
Reading the mission statement of the Marine Corps is fine....it doesn't represent reality and the history of The Corps. Now read some history about World War One, World War Two, Korea, Viet Nam, tell me how "lightly armed assault troops" have elite fighter-bomber squadrons, numerous helicopter squadrons, main battle tanks and enough "Alligators" to cover the entire coast of China with heavily armed Divisions of Marines with their own artillery, Commando units, etc. etc.
and if the mission is to hold ground...they hold the ground ...That was their mission. What part of that is bamboozling you.
and what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States as it applies to the service of our Marines in Iraq??
You should stick to simple things like shiny objects, Patek.
You clearly are pretty ignorant when it comes to distinguishing the ARMY from the MARINES missions.
Someone with more than a couple of brain cells here should post to the topic.
Reading the mission statement of the Marine Corps is fine....it doesn't represent reality and the history of The Corps. Now read some history about World War One, World War Two, Korea, Viet Nam, tell me how "lightly armed assault troops" have elite fighter-bomber squadrons, numerous helicopter squadrons, main battle tanks and enough "Alligators" to cover the entire coast of China with heavily armed Divisions of Marines with their own artillery, Commando units, etc. etc.
and if the mission is to hold ground...they hold the ground ...That was their mission. What part of that is bamboozling you.
and what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States as it applies to the service of our Marines in Iraq??
You should stick to simple things like shiny objects, Patek.
You clearly are pretty ignorant when it comes to distinguishing the ARMY from the MARINES missions.
Someone with more than a couple of brain cells here should post to the topic.
So...what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States with respect to the Marine's mission in Iraq?
Reading the mission statement of the Marine Corps is fine....it doesn't represent reality and the history of The Corps. Now read some history about World War One, World War Two, Korea, Viet Nam, tell me how "lightly armed assault troops" have elite fighter-bomber squadrons, numerous helicopter squadrons, main battle tanks and enough "Alligators" to cover the entire coast of China with heavily armed Divisions of Marines with their own artillery, Commando units, etc. etc.
and if the mission is to hold ground...they hold the ground ...That was their mission. What part of that is bamboozling you.
and what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States as it applies to the service of our Marines in Iraq??
You should stick to simple things like shiny objects, Patek.
You clearly are pretty ignorant when it comes to distinguishing the ARMY from the MARINES missions.
Someone with more than a couple of brain cells here should post to the topic.
So...what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States with respect to the Marine's mission in Iraq?
All Americans should thank the Marines for their valiant service in Iraq. The last 3000 will be on their way home soon. Then as part of Obama's planned troop increase they will redeploy to Afghanistan TO SECURE AND HOLD VAST SWATH'S OF TERRITORY IN THAT COUNTRY and conduct combat operations AS DIRECTED BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
Maybe if we all ignore him he will go away? The problem is some liberal cry babies won't ignore him.
You should stick to simple things like shiny objects, Patek.
You clearly are pretty ignorant when it comes to distinguishing the ARMY from the MARINES missions.
Someone with more than a couple of brain cells here should post to the topic.
So...what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States with respect to the Marine's mission in Iraq?
I can read.
Can you?
Their orders to deploy to Iraq in 2003 didn't read "Conduct operations IAW the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1952." It read what their operational orders were with reference to securing and holding Anbar Province in Iraq.The Marines' extended stay in Anbar went against the grain of the Corps' usual role as a fighting force designed to quickly seize territory and then turn it over to the Army to maintain control from fixed bases.
All Americans should thank the Marines for their valiant service in Iraq. The last 3000 will be on their way home soon. Then as part of Obama's planned troop increase they will redeploy to Afghanistan TO SECURE AND HOLD VAST SWATH'S OF TERRITORY IN THAT COUNTRY and conduct combat operations AS DIRECTED BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
I thank all Soldiers for their Service but I won't applaud the policies that sent them to Iraq nor claim it is a good thing they were used to install an Islamic Theocracy.
The Marines, and all Soldiers who served deserve much better than America. They are way too good for us. We allowed them to be used for Colonialism instead of what they signed up for. The height of our selfishness can be seen in the great divide between the pro war crowd and pro American crowd in that the two groups couldn't even work together to ensure our Troops received the best healthcare available. Too many sit on their ass and whine instead of actually doing something and that is in all camps.
For the amateur heart string pullers, let me point out that no, our Troops did not Sacrifice their lives and limbs in Iraq in Defense of the US. Their Service has been exploited by certain Policymakers, but that can never take away from the honorable Service our Troops have given. I even recommend all Soldiers get out of the military until they get a nation of Citizens that cares just 5 percent as much about them as all US Troops care about America. We don't deserve them.
I think a nice big FUck You is in Order.. When you denigrate America you speak for your own stupid self.. You don't speak for We The People so fuck you..
If you can't handle my posts put me on ignore. You wouldn't be the first who lacks what it takes.
All Americans should thank the Marines for their valiant service in Iraq. The last 3000 will be on their way home soon. Then as part of Obama's planned troop increase they will redeploy to Afghanistan TO SECURE AND HOLD VAST SWATH'S OF TERRITORY IN THAT COUNTRY and conduct combat operations AS DIRECTED BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
I thank all Soldiers for their Service but I won't applaud the policies that sent them to Iraq nor claim it is a good thing they were used to install an Islamic Theocracy.
Then start a different thread...don't bring your code pink baggage into this one. Now...I'll be civil if you will.
You represent the worst of the Nationalistic hypocrites.
I think a nice big FUck You is in Order.. When you denigrate America you speak for your own stupid self.. You don't speak for We The People so fuck you..
If you can't handle my posts put me on ignore. You wouldn't be the first who lacks what it takes.
Sucks to be you.l You don't get to tell me to put you on ignore. I do get to give you a big "Fuck You" when you deserve it.. Yep.
