Marines leaving Iraq!!!!!

[CurveLight]

You represent the worst of the Nationalistic hypocrites.

Ditto.

Thank you for continuing to prove your dishonesty.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Thank you for continuing to prove your dishonesty.

Ditto.

 

[Douger]

That'll kick up the unemployment rolls a bit !

 

[Gunny]

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.

 

[geauxtohell]

SEVEN YEARS?????

The Marines didn't need to be deployed more than ONE year to IRAQ....WTF has the Army been doing?

BTW: If any of you read books, try Joker One: A Marine Platoon's Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood by Donovan Campbell.

The Army was playing backgammon the whole time.

They weren't patrolling, taking a bulk of the casualties, and involuntarily mobilizing reservists because they were short handed or anything like that.

The Marines had an extended presence in Korea and Viet Nam too. They have had an extended presence in Afghanistan. They are an expeditionary force first, but they are always prepared to stay longer.

 

[geauxtohell]

We are still keeping the occupation in place. This rings the bell of the empty rhetoric on "Iraq had elections!" I'm glad as hell some troops are leaving iraq but this is nothing to celebrate. We have not accomplished anything in iraq and have only given legitimate reasons to attack the US.

Good Example, Ding-Dong;

Speaking of "ringing the bell of empty rhetoric."

Empty rhetoric? We fucking invaded a nation that never attacked us and have caused countless innocent deaths with our occupation. Who the hell is silly enough to believe there won't be a price to pay for all the bloodshed? Know what is truly sick? When we get attacked your camp will sing the we-are-innocent song instead of being mature and honest by admitting we aren't innocent. Just like that guy said years ago......9/11 was our chickens coming home to roost.


Could anyone explain why we sent our troops to die (supposedly) to fight islamic extremists only to use their Sacrifices to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?

I agree with that. We've sowed the seeds for future radicalism out of Iraq.

It was a poor policy move from the onset. That doesn't make it the fault of the soldiers and marines, of course.

 

[CurveLight]

Thank you for continuing to prove your dishonesty.

Ditto.

I haven't been dishonest about anything. You, otoh, resort to childish games every time you can't address an issue. So tell us oh great supporter of our troops, what do you say to those who have returned and are against the occupation? What do you say to those who have lost their arms, legs, ears, eyes, and other parts? Do you also accuse them of lying? Do you call them code pink? No. We all know the answer. You don't say a fucking word.

 

[Samson]

SEVEN YEARS?????

The Marines didn't need to be deployed more than ONE year to IRAQ....WTF has the Army been doing?

BTW: If any of you read books, try Joker One: A Marine Platoon's Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood by Donovan Campbell.

The Army was playing backgammon the whole time.

They weren't patrolling, taking a bulk of the casualties, and involuntarily mobilizing reservists because they were short handed or anything like that.

The Marines had an extended presence in Korea and Viet Nam too. They are an expeditionary force first, but they are always prepared to stay longer.

I don't argue that the Marines were also mis-deployed to Korea, or Vietnam (although, at least these theatres had coastlines to make their "extended presence justifiable). Nor should they not be prepared to stay "longer"....BUT 7 fucking YEARS longer???

My questions are:

Why are the Marines doing the Army's job?

Are the Marines Equipped to do the Army's Job?

If the Marine Corps is going to do the Army's job, then why seperate the services?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The Marines are NOT doing the Army's job. They are following the orders of the CinC.
Yes. The Marines are equipped with the tools and weapons to complete their mission.
The Marine Corps is acting on orders from the Commander in Chief....just as the Army does. Neither Service does the other's job. They both have specific mission parameters as related to Iraq.

 

[CurveLight]

Good Example, Ding-Dong;

Speaking of "ringing the bell of empty rhetoric."

Empty rhetoric? We fucking invaded a nation that never attacked us and have caused countless innocent deaths with our occupation. Who the hell is silly enough to believe there won't be a price to pay for all the bloodshed? Know what is truly sick? When we get attacked your camp will sing the we-are-innocent song instead of being mature and honest by admitting we aren't innocent. Just like that guy said years ago......9/11 was our chickens coming home to roost.


Could anyone explain why we sent our troops to die (supposedly) to fight islamic extremists only to use their Sacrifices to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?

I agree with that. We've sowed the seeds for future radicalism out of Iraq.

It was a poor policy move from the onset. That doesn't make it the fault of the soldiers and marines, of course.

No the soldiers are not to blame but the higher ranks, at least some of them, are to blame for following illegal orders. I've seen some admit they failed to keep their Oath by allowing the occupation to continue. For the past 7 years the pro war crowd has eternally tried to make our Soldiers=Policy and it is for one clear purpose: to accuse war critics of hating our Troops. It's a childish propaganda tool and in many ways it worked and it is still working in some circles.

I guarantee most war supporters either do not know we established a Theocracy or what it means for the region. When Britain tried this a hundred years ago they utterly failed. Some of their Generals told Iraqis they were there to "Liberate" them. Sound familiar? I'm also guessing most don't know it was the West that created Iraq and Kuwait.

 

[geauxtohell]

SEVEN YEARS?????

The Marines didn't need to be deployed more than ONE year to IRAQ....WTF has the Army been doing?

BTW: If any of you read books, try Joker One: A Marine Platoon's Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood by Donovan Campbell.

The Army was playing backgammon the whole time.

They weren't patrolling, taking a bulk of the casualties, and involuntarily mobilizing reservists because they were short handed or anything like that.

The Marines had an extended presence in Korea and Viet Nam too. They are an expeditionary force first, but they are always prepared to stay longer.

I don't argue that the Marines were also mis-deployed to Korea, or Vietnam (although, at least these theatres had coastlines to make their "extended presence justifiable). Nor should they not be prepared to stay "longer"....BUT 7 fucking YEARS longer???

My questions are:

Why are the Marines doing the Army's job?

Are the Marines Equipped to do the Army's Job?

If the Marine Corps is going to do the Army's job, then why seperate the services?

Look amigo, infantry is infantry, and when you need infantry badly the branch of service doesn't really matter. All of this might make some sense if the Army AND Marines weren't maxed out and having to recall people as it is. I doubt the Marine Corps would be happy sitting at home while the Army was doing the fighting. It's not really the National Guard's job to fight outside of the nation's borders, but they got sent too.

So to answer your question:

1.) The Marines aren't doing the Army's job. They are pulling part of the DOD's total load.

2.) No. The Marines are perpetually under-equipped. That's not the Army's fault. It's the Navy. If you want to bemoan injustices meted out to the Marine Corps, bemoan the fact that they only get $.03 of every Navy dollar and end up doing 90% of the work. The Army has absolutely nothing to do with the Marine's logistical needs.

3.) Historical reasons. The Marines would be better funded and have access to more training opportunities if they were put under the Department of the Army. That's never going to happen simply for tradition.

I don't see any plausible alternative that you are offering. What would you have the Army do? Permanently deploy every unit for seven years so that we don't screw up some mandate from 1947?

Guess what? The President is Commander In Chief and pretty much has a trump card when it comes to dispersal of his forces.

I am glad we had the 3rd Marines to our north in Afghanistan.

A.) Their Helo pilots have big ones and will fly support in any weather.
B.) My Battalion's AO was the size of Vermont (literally). I suppose we could have tried to cover twice that area while the 3rd Marines sat in K-bay, but it wouldn't have ended up well.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

at least these theatres had coastlines to make their "extended presence justifiable

Iraq has 58 kilometers of coastline.

 

[geauxtohell]

Empty rhetoric? We fucking invaded a nation that never attacked us and have caused countless innocent deaths with our occupation. Who the hell is silly enough to believe there won't be a price to pay for all the bloodshed? Know what is truly sick? When we get attacked your camp will sing the we-are-innocent song instead of being mature and honest by admitting we aren't innocent. Just like that guy said years ago......9/11 was our chickens coming home to roost.


Could anyone explain why we sent our troops to die (supposedly) to fight islamic extremists only to use their Sacrifices to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?

I agree with that. We've sowed the seeds for future radicalism out of Iraq.

It was a poor policy move from the onset. That doesn't make it the fault of the soldiers and marines, of course.

No the soldiers are not to blame but the higher ranks, at least some of them, are to blame for following illegal orders. I've seen some admit they failed to keep their Oath by allowing the occupation to continue. For the past 7 years the pro war crowd has eternally tried to make our Soldiers=Policy and it is for one clear purpose: to accuse war critics of hating our Troops. It's a childish propaganda tool and in many ways it worked and it is still working in some circles.

I guarantee most war supporters either do not know we established a Theocracy or what it means for the region. When Britain tried this a hundred years ago they utterly failed. Some of their Generals told Iraqis they were there to "Liberate" them. Sound familiar? I'm also guessing most don't know it was the West that created Iraq and Kuwait.

I don't disagree. When the best end state for Iraq is a pseudo-democracy like Saudi Arabia, then the outlook is pretty bleak.

I am glad we are getting out of there.

 

[Gunny]

Thank you for continuing to prove your dishonesty.

Ditto.

I haven't been dishonest about anything. You, otoh, resort to childish games every time you can't address an issue. So tell us oh great supporter of our troops, what do you say to those who have returned and are against the occupation? What do you say to those who have lost their arms, legs, ears, eyes, and other parts? Do you also accuse them of lying? Do you call them code pink? No. We all know the answer. You don't say a fucking word.

You certainly to post anything worth bragging about. Nothing new, original nor even noteworthy about your rhetoric, parrot.

 

[CurveLight]

Ditto.

I haven't been dishonest about anything. You, otoh, resort to childish games every time you can't address an issue. So tell us oh great supporter of our troops, what do you say to those who have returned and are against the occupation? What do you say to those who have lost their arms, legs, ears, eyes, and other parts? Do you also accuse them of lying? Do you call them code pink? No. We all know the answer. You don't say a fucking word.

You certainly to post anything worth bragging about. Nothing new, original nor even noteworthy about your rhetoric, parrot.

Never said I do post anything to brag about so what is your point?

 

[Samson]

The Army was playing backgammon the whole time.

They weren't patrolling, taking a bulk of the casualties, and involuntarily mobilizing reservists because they were short handed or anything like that.

The Marines had an extended presence in Korea and Viet Nam too. They are an expeditionary force first, but they are always prepared to stay longer.

I don't argue that the Marines were also mis-deployed to Korea, or Vietnam (although, at least these theatres had coastlines to make their "extended presence justifiable). Nor should they not be prepared to stay "longer"....BUT 7 fucking YEARS longer???

My questions are:

Why are the Marines doing the Army's job?

Are the Marines Equipped to do the Army's Job?

If the Marine Corps is going to do the Army's job, then why seperate the services?

Look amigo, infantry is infantry, and when you need infantry badly the branch of service doesn't really matter. All of this might make some sense if the Army AND Marines weren't maxed out and having to recall people as it is. I doubt the Marine Corps would be happy sitting at home while the Army was doing the fighting. It's not really the National Guard's job to fight outside of the nation's borders, but they got sent too.

So to answer your question:

1.) The Marines aren't doing the Army's job. They are doing pulling part of the DOD's total load.

2.) No. The Marines are perpetually under-equipped. That's not the Army's fault. It's the Navy. If you want to bemoan injustices meted out to the Marine Corps, bemoan the fact that they only get $.03 of every Navy dollar and end up doing 90% of the work. The Army has absolutely nothing to do with the Marine's logistical needs.

3.) Historical reasons. The Marines would be better funded and have access to more training opportunities if they were put under the Department of the Army. That's never going to happen simply for tradition.

I disagree with anyone that says Nothing Will Ever Change, for any reason, particularly "Tradition," and particularly in the military, and particularly in the US Military.

Basically, you're answers: The Army cannot do the "job alone" justifies a larger Army, not continued support of an antiquated service that is underfunded and overutilized (Whatever the Navy's role).

The Marines should NOT be rolled into the Army, but not because they represent some historical icon, but because they represent the REAL need for an lightly armed fast reaction force that should be deployed for short-term missions. When they're hanging out for 7 years in Iraq, this military ability is jeapordised and the original mission of the Marines is made meaningless.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

When they're hanging out for 7 years in Iraq, this military ability is jeapordised and the original mission of the Marines is made meaningless.

Missions change as the needs of the Nation change. The ability to adapt, overcome any obstacle is the Marine's greatest weapon. One minute they are a heavily armed, overwhelming force and the next minute they are a lightly armed reaction force aka FAST.

The Army has lightly armed divisions as well. The mission dictates the role of the Armed Forces. A service doesn't have to adhere to a mission statement from 1947 to be an effective fighting force.

 

[Gunny]

I haven't been dishonest about anything. You, otoh, resort to childish games every time you can't address an issue. So tell us oh great supporter of our troops, what do you say to those who have returned and are against the occupation? What do you say to those who have lost their arms, legs, ears, eyes, and other parts? Do you also accuse them of lying? Do you call them code pink? No. We all know the answer. You don't say a fucking word.

You certainly to post anything worth bragging about. Nothing new, original nor even noteworthy about your rhetoric, parrot.

Never said I do post anything to brag about so what is your point?

That you call someone else dishonest while posting your own dishonest bullshit. A fairly simple and obvious point.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.


Welcome Home Marines

 

[CurveLight]

You certainly to post anything worth bragging about. Nothing new, original nor even noteworthy about your rhetoric, parrot.

Never said I do post anything to brag about so what is your point?

That you call someone else dishonest while posting your own dishonest bullshit. A fairly simple and obvious point.

Oh by all means, what have I posted that is dishonest? Quote it specifically with the whole post and none of that typical editing some choose to live by.