Marines leaving Iraq!!!!!

[PatekPhilippe]

I encourage anyone who's interested in seeing the services we offer our vets to check this website out...and then make a donation to any of the many sites that send CARE packages to our brother's in arms.

WarriorCare.mil - We Stand Together

 

[Samson]

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 ******* 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?

 

[CurveLight]

Ya **** those Iraqis and Afghans, just let them die and live in dictatorships, **** 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 ******* 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.

This is why I have absolutely no respect for people like you. This is at least the third different attempt to avoid your claim the immunity was given in agreement with the Iraq government. I'm the one who taught you Iraq did not have jurisdiction after you claimed there was a SOFA agreement! Lol. As for your shit about Iraqis and Afghanis.....I bet you didn't give a **** about iraqis when they were dying from Sanctions and being bombed from illegal no fly zones. From 1991-2003 we were doing that shit and we all know you didn't give a **** then so don't pretend you suddenly care about Iraqis now just to try and defend your LIBERAL foreign policies.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

<<<<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 ******* 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?

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??

 

[CurveLight]

<<<<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 ******* 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 &#8220;force in readiness.&#8221; 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?

Is that why you avoid explaining why our troops were used to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq? Go ahead and derail the thread instead of discussing what they are coming home from.

 

[Samson]

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 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.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

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?

 

[Samson]

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?

I can read.

Can you?

 

[CurveLight]

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?

Probably the same thing you use to justify your accusations on others: ARROGANCE

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

 

[CurveLight]

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. It also doesn't matter what the POTUS orders if it is not legal. Iraq never was. By international law afghanistan is legal but still another bullshit policy designed for colonialism and ensuring US friendly energy contracts and the growth of illegal drugs. We use law enforcement in the US to imprison people for the drugs cultivated under the protection of our military in afghanistan. But hey, don't let these facts damper your bullshit Nationalism.

 

[CurveLight]

Typical Callygirl leaves her petty insults on the rep button and actually thinks she is doing something. That's why her camp is so ******* pathetic. The bulk of their dialogue is to call people names and do everything possible to avoid addressing facts that shows their positions are pure bullshit.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Maybe if we all ignore him he will go away? The problem is some liberal cry babies won't ignore him.

LOL, I've had him on ignore the majority of the time I've been on this board. It may be permanent this time.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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?

Yep...but the difference between you and me is I don't pay much attention to bullshit opinions in an MSNBC article like

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.

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.

Now...care to address this or will you find some more cute t-shirts in your closet and post pictures of them.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

 

[WillowTree]

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 **** You is in Order.. When you denigrate America you speak for your own stupid self.. You don't speak for We The People so **** 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 "**** You" when you deserve it.. Yep.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

Lol? Civil? You accuse a Combat Vet of lying about his Service then you demand others be civil? Hahaha....

It's even worse when you keep referencing shit like code pink. Is this intellectual dishonesty all you have to offer? What do you say to those who have returned from Iraq and are against the occupation? Do you accuse them of lying and spouting code pink? You represent the worst of the Nationalistic hypocrites.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

You represent the worst of the Nationalistic hypocrites.

Ditto.

 

[CurveLight]

I think a nice big **** You is in Order.. When you denigrate America you speak for your own stupid self.. You don't speak for We The People so **** 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 "**** You" when you deserve it.. Yep.

I didn't tell you to put me on ignore. I said IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE MY POSTS then put me on ignore. Like Ollie did. I pwned him so much all he could do is put me on ignore only to whine about me every chance he gets. Now, can you respond to my posts or are you stuck in pate mode?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Yeah...your a real tough internet keyboard commando aren't you...always "pwning" someone....I bet your head must be pretty big right *****?