Marines leaving Iraq!!!!!

[PatekPhilippe]

CurveLight said: "Iraq was an illegal war".... for starters.....

 

[namvet]

thank you GW Bush. you know to win. unlike this limp dick coward Osama.

 

[CurveLight]

CurveLight said: "Iraq was an illegal war".... for starters.....

How is that dishonest? It is illegal.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I guess the Marines (and Navy corpsmen) must have gotten all the bad asses if they are leaving the Army in charge.

 

[CurveLight]

thank you GW Bush. you know to win. unlike this limp dick coward Osama.

We have over 35,000 dead or seriously wounded from Iraq. What did Dubya win?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I guess the Marines (and Navy corpsmen) must have gotten all the bad asses if they are leaving the Army in charge.

Now now.

Different Uniforms.
Different missions.
Same Flag

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Tradition might not be a good answer, but it is still an answer and it's important in the military. So what do you want to change? What is your solution? You've pointed the finger at the Army, as if the Army had anything to do with this. The Army has absolutely no say over the deployment of units that belong to the Navy.

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).

Great. Then expand the Army. A 5-10 year fix doesn't address the problem at hand, though.

You don't have a workable alternative. Like I said, the Guard isn't really supposed to go abroad either, but the needs of the mission drive the use of the troops.

Like I said, you might have a point if the Army wasn't already maxed out. When Bush decided to fight two wars at once he automatically created a manpower problem. Don't blame the Army for it.

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.

That mission is not unique to the Marines. The Army has rapid reaction forces as well. The whole 18th Airborne Corps is rapid deployment. The 75th Ranger Regiment is rapid deployment too. The Marines are specialized infantry that do amphibious landings. That doesn't exclude them from doing long term military operations.

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.

Oh please. Whether you agree with the war or not, if you are going to state that Iraq and Afghanistan were not the most important missions on the DOD's agenda for the past eight years, you have missed the bus.

What do you propose the Marines do in a time of war, hang out on ships and wait for amphibious landings?

The nature of warfare has changed a tad since 1947, you know.

If you are going to play armchair general, then at least come up with a workable alternative. Further maxing out the Army while leaving the Marines out of the fight makes no sense. It would just serve to piss the Army and Marines off.

 

[Gunny]

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.

Don't presume to tell me what I will and won't quote, huh? I make the damned rules here. You don't.

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?

We invaded a nation that attacked us regularly. Saddam fired SAAms at our aircraft all the time. Dishonest comment on your part since the facts prove otherwise and you have obviously chosen to ignore them.

9/11 was an unprovoked attack by an Islamic extremist organization benty on conversion or death. There were no "chickens coming home to roost." That's bullshit.

We didn't send our troops to Iraq to fight Islamic extremists. We've BEEN sending our troops to Kuwait, then Iraq since 1990. We sent our troops into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and his government from power.

The people of Iraq voted for their government. We didn't "set it up."

That's just ONE of your BS-laden posts I just spanked all over the court. Your entire argument is dishonest.

Now go away. You aren't weren't the effort I spent typing a response.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

Don't presume to tell me what I will and won't quote, huh? I make the damned rules here. You don't.

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?

We invaded a nation that attacked us regularly. Saddam fired SAAms at our aircraft all the time. Dishonest comment on your part since the facts prove otherwise and you have obviously chosen to ignore them.

9/11 was an unprovoked attack by an Islamic extremist organization benty on conversion or death. There were no "chickens coming home to roost." That's bullshit.

We didn't send our troops to Iraq to fight Islamic extremists. We've BEEN sending our troops to Kuwait, then Iraq since 1990. We sent our troops into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and his government from power.

The people of Iraq voted for their government. We didn't "set it up."

That's just ONE of your BS-laden posts I just spanked all over the court. Your entire argument is dishonest.

Now go away. You aren't weren't the effort I spent typing a response.

Iraq fired on our aircraft for violating Iraq's airspace. The No Fly Zone was never part of any UN Resolution and was instituted mainly by the US after the Ceasefire agreement had already been made. The only dishonesty here is your obvious ignorance. Before you try speaking on an issue you should at least fake doing a little fucking homework.

9E was unprovoked? Hmmm....who to believe.....you or a guy much more informed? I don't give a shit what you think on this because you are a Nationalist and will always find a way to pretend the US is completely innocent.

As for why we sent our Troops to iraq, I notice you didn't say anything about WMD. You can't even fake being honest eh? How many times did the Bush admin announce we invaded to remove Saddam and set up a new government? How many times did they say we went because of WMD and 9/11?

Then you say the people of iraq voted for their government? Holy Fuck. You truly don't have the first fucking clue about how the Shiite dominated Islamic Theocracy was set up in Iraq. Then you finish your post by saying you spanked my arguments? Rotfl! You didn't even know the NFZ were not legal! That info is about 19 years old. What's next? You going to announce you discovered lead paint is not healthy?

 

[CurveLight]

Oh and Gunny, it doesn't matter if you make the rules here or not. When you accuse someone of being dishonest you should have enough self respect to back that up. No, I would not be surprised if you banned anyone because you couldn't handle the debate. Don't think you can intimidate me because it's your site. Your little power trip reveals your character, or lack of it. You probably also preach about Troops but like many others on here you only care about those who agree with your politics.

 

[Samson]

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.

Tradition might not be a good answer, but it is still an answer and it's important in the military. So what do you want to change? What is your solution? You've pointed the finger at the Army, as if the Army had anything to do with this. The Army has absolutely no say over the deployment of units that belong to the Navy.

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).

Great. Then expand the Army. A 5-10 year fix doesn't address the problem at hand, though.

You don't have a workable alternative. Like I said, the Guard isn't really supposed to go abroad either, but the needs of the mission drive the use of the troops.

Like I said, you might have a point if the Army wasn't already maxed out. When Bush decided to fight two wars at once he automatically created a manpower problem. Don't blame the Army for it.

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.

That mission is not unique to the Marines. The Army has rapid reaction forces as well. The whole 18th Airborne Corps is rapid deployment. The 75th Ranger Regiment is rapid deployment too. The Marines are specialized infantry that do amphibious landings. That doesn't exclude them from doing long term military operations.

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.

Oh please. Whether you agree with the war or not, if you are going to state that Iraq and Afghanistan were not the most important missions on the DOD's agenda for the past eight years, you have missed the bus.

What do you propose the Marines do in a time of war, hang out on ships and wait for amphibious landings?

The nature of warfare has changed a tad since 1947, you know.

If you are going to play armchair general, then at least come up with a workable alternative. Further maxing out the Army while leaving the Marines out of the fight makes no sense. It would just serve to piss the Army and Marines off.

You actually think we should base decisions regarding defense of the country on weather or not the Army or Marines are pissed off in their roles? Jaysus you don't need to be an armchair general to realise this is ridiculous!

With this level of military genius, its no wonder that the combined forces of the most modern, powerful, and expensive military ever on the face of the planet is taking almost a decade to pacify a bunch of goat-herders with 4th grade educations.

Since you asked for a "workable alternative," I guess I'll need to paint a picture for you: in time of war I expect marines to spearhead assult forces....PERIOD....this is their mission, and it is for this mission for which they should be equipped. Their mission and design has nothing to do with hanging out in a land-locked country for 7 fucking years. This is the Army's mission, and if the army isn't big enough to do it, then make it larger.

Placing the Corps in such a situation is not only foolish because it deploys assets which are not designed for the mission: it also jeapordises the nation's defense. Since you've demonstrated nothing short of extraordinarily myoptic reasoning, you probably haven't considered that we may need the Marines Corps for unforseen events.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

Tradition might not be a good answer, but it is still an answer and it's important in the military. So what do you want to change? What is your solution? You've pointed the finger at the Army, as if the Army had anything to do with this. The Army has absolutely no say over the deployment of units that belong to the Navy.



Great. Then expand the Army. A 5-10 year fix doesn't address the problem at hand, though.

You don't have a workable alternative. Like I said, the Guard isn't really supposed to go abroad either, but the needs of the mission drive the use of the troops.

Like I said, you might have a point if the Army wasn't already maxed out. When Bush decided to fight two wars at once he automatically created a manpower problem. Don't blame the Army for it.



That mission is not unique to the Marines. The Army has rapid reaction forces as well. The whole 18th Airborne Corps is rapid deployment. The 75th Ranger Regiment is rapid deployment too. The Marines are specialized infantry that do amphibious landings. That doesn't exclude them from doing long term military operations.

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.

Oh please. Whether you agree with the war or not, if you are going to state that Iraq and Afghanistan were not the most important missions on the DOD's agenda for the past eight years, you have missed the bus.

What do you propose the Marines do in a time of war, hang out on ships and wait for amphibious landings?

The nature of warfare has changed a tad since 1947, you know.

If you are going to play armchair general, then at least come up with a workable alternative. Further maxing out the Army while leaving the Marines out of the fight makes no sense. It would just serve to piss the Army and Marines off.

You actually think we should base decisions regarding defense of the country on weather or not the Army or Marines are pissed off in their roles? Jaysus you don't need to be an armchair general to realise this is ridiculous!

With this level of military genius, its no wonder that the combined forces of the most modern, powerful, and expensive military ever on the face of the planet is taking almost a decade to pacify a bunch of goat-herders with 4th grade educations.

Since you asked for a "workable alternative," I guess I'll need to paint a picture for you: in time of war I expect marines to spearhead assult forces....PERIOD....this is their mission, and it is for this mission for which they should be equipped. Their mission and design has nothing to do with hanging out in a land-locked country for 7 fucking years. This is the Army's mission, and if the army isn't big enough to do it, then make it larger.

Placing the Corps in such a situation is not only foolish because it deploys assets which are not designed for the mission: it also jeapordises the nation's defense. Since you've demonstrated nothing short of extraordinarily myoptic reasoning, you probably haven't considered that we may need the Marines Corps for unforseen events.

He was talking about troop morale and in case you are unaware that is an extremely fluid and high priority issue. Also, he didn't say all defense decisions should be made based on the emotional response from troops but if you think that is not a factor then you truly have no platform to speak from.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

CurveLight said: "Iraq was an illegal war".... for starters.....

How is that dishonest? It is illegal.

Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.

 

[CurveLight]

CurveLight said: "Iraq was an illegal war".... for starters.....

How is that dishonest? It is illegal.

Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.

Why use a dishonest question? I'll tell you why. Because you know it is illegal so you create a bullshit standard that is fully hypocritical.

 

[Samson]

We have over 35,000 dead or seriously wounded from Iraq. What did Dubya win?

He was talking about troop morale and in case you are unaware that is an extremely fluid and high priority issue. Also, he didn't say all defense decisions should be made based on the emotional response from troops but if you think that is not a factor then you truly have no platform to speak from.

The troll needs attention:

Just because you're a whiny pussy, doesn't mean Marines Corps will curl into fetal positions if they aren't allowed to remain in Iraq for 7 years, you fucking moron.

And at least try to be consistant in your idiotic opinions.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

How is that dishonest? It is illegal.

Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.

Why use a dishonest question? I'll tell you why. Because you know it is illegal so you create a bullshit standard that is fully hypocritical.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha a ha ha ha ha ha...now..back to that request....
Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.

 

[CurveLight]

We have over 35,000 dead or seriously wounded from Iraq. What did Dubya win?

He was talking about troop morale and in case you are unaware that is an extremely fluid and high priority issue. Also, he didn't say all defense decisions should be made based on the emotional response from troops but if you think that is not a factor then you truly have no platform to speak from.

The troll needs attention:

Just because you're a whiny pussy, doesn't mean Marines Corps will curl into fetal positions if they aren't allowed to remain in Iraq for 7 years, you fucking moron.

And at least try to be consistant in your idiotic opinions.

What does my being a pussy have to do with you taking two different posts responding to two different positions then try to conjure some type of inconsistency? This is your camp's normal MO. Every time you can't defend something you pretend it doesn't exist or resort to childish distractions. Since you're so happy with the outcome in Iraq why don't you advocate the US becoming an Islamic Theocracy?

 

[CurveLight]

Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.

Why use a dishonest question? I'll tell you why. Because you know it is illegal so you create a bullshit standard that is fully hypocritical.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha a ha ha ha ha ha...now..back to that request....
Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.

Bin laden has never been convicted of any crime in the US so are you willing to maintain your standard and say he isn't guilty of illegal actions against the US?

Even if I could show a soldier was found not guilty or had charges dismissed for being awol because of refusing to deploy based on the claim the war is illegal you would still squirm and slither every which possible way to avoid the facts. So on top of your hypocritical question, why are you even wasting time? If such a case existed you would still ignore the facts, and we all know it.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

claim the war is illegal

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
...now..back to that request....
Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.

 

[CurveLight]

claim the war is illegal

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
...now..back to that request....
Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.

You must first prove your standard is consistent. I never said it is illegal based on a court room verdict. That is your strawman.