PatekPhilippe
Senior Member
- Thread starter
- #81
CurveLight said: "Iraq was an illegal war".... for starters.....
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.
CurveLight said: "Iraq was an illegal war".... for starters.....
thank you GW Bush. you know to win. unlike this limp dick coward Osama.
I guess the Marines (and Navy corpsmen) must have gotten all the bad asses if they are leaving the Army in charge.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
CurveLight said: "Iraq was an illegal war".... for starters.....
How is that dishonest? It is illegal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
claim the war is illegal
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.