Uncovered Military Treason

[bodecea]

You got it partially right, but not completely. And, you used a wall of text to try to explain it.

I'll tell you like a MCPO told my NR and R class one time back in the late mid 90's, when Mission and Vision statements were becoming popular.

He asked if we knew the mission and vision statement of the U.S. Military. Lots of people gave various answers, and he said you're partially right to all of them, then said the mission and vision of the U.S. Military is thus..............

To deliver ordinance on target and on time to destroy things and kill people in the furtherance of the objectives of this country.

Simple.

The "mission statement" you mentioned is wrong. Tell me, is a bayonet considered to be "ordinance?" The mission objective of the military should be to kill the enemy. Or potential enemies. How they do it is unimportant. Though I would prefer they not do it through old age.

Splitting hairs. Its what I was taught, it's what the MCPO said. Were you ever in the military?

Oh hell now you've done it, you've got him started on how he's a military man.

We'll be here all night while he expounds relentlessly about his *military* career and (eventually) his superior understanding of religion.

Something of course you know nothing about. Don't like hearing from real veterans, do you?

What did I say that you think is untrue.

Oh wait....you are answering for Allie now? A sock?

 

[Hossfly]

You got it partially right, but not completely. And, you used a wall of text to try to explain it.

I'll tell you like a MCPO told my NR and R class one time back in the late mid 90's, when Mission and Vision statements were becoming popular.

He asked if we knew the mission and vision statement of the U.S. Military. Lots of people gave various answers, and he said you're partially right to all of them, then said the mission and vision of the U.S. Military is thus..............

To deliver ordinance on target and on time to destroy things and kill people in the furtherance of the objectives of this country.

Simple.

The "mission statement" you mentioned is wrong. Tell me, is a bayonet considered to be "ordinance?" The mission objective of the military should be to kill the enemy. Or potential enemies. How they do it is unimportant. Though I would prefer they not do it through old age.

Splitting hairs. Its what I was taught, it's what the MCPO said. Were you ever in the military?

Oh hell now you've done it, you've got him started on how he's a military man.

We'll be here all night while he expounds relentlessly about his *military* career and (eventually) his superior understanding of religion.

Something of course you know nothing about. Don't like hearing from real veterans, do you?

What did I say that you think is untrue.

First of all you created a trolling post. A call out post. And you made baseless accusations about people whom you know nothing about. Those are reasons to ban you if someone was so inclined. Personally I wouldn't waste my time and just let this thread shrivel up and die.

 

[koshergrl]

It's not a trolling, or a call out post.

Gads you people are exhausting.

 

[kaptiankrush]

Plead to the mods not to ban me. Or piss off.

I don't have to. Hell you asked them to ban you in your first post.

That is "IF" they were traitors. Is there something about that that you fail to grasp?

No, you said if they didn't like you speaking your mind...

Now go build some more strawman arguments.

Actually, assuming that the mods were just as treasonous as most of the rest of you, I challenged them to make their treason complete and ban me. But maybe they just aren't as treasonous as I assumed. Because I'm still here. Neither have I seen you posting something that told the mods that you wish to debate me. And to not ban me for that reason. So you know what that means. For one thing, it means that there is no point in my asking you what it is in my thread that you think is a "straw man" argument.

Every chance you get you put words in other people's mouths because you can't beat them in a real discussion, so you have to try and create a discussion you can argue against. Just like when you made the comment about saying I "probably don't believe in global warming either." Global warming has nothing to do with this thread, and I said nothing to make anyone assume I don't believe in global warming.

But hey... you just keep doing what you do.

I asked you a simple question and you haven't answered it. Name one country that took on the isolationist model and thrived from it. ONE.

Next, I wrote a thread. I didn't put words into anybody's mouth. If you disagree with anything in that thread, say what it is. Let's have that "real discussion." Next, YOU tried to change the subject by bringing up foreign trade. Which my thread had nothing to do with. Next, despite that, I will answer your isolationist question as soon as one of your replies starts out with "Mods. Don't ban kaptiankrush. I want to debate him."

 

[bodecea]

I don't have to. Hell you asked them to ban you in your first post.

That is "IF" they were traitors. Is there something about that that you fail to grasp?

No, you said if they didn't like you speaking your mind...

Now go build some more strawman arguments.

Actually, assuming that the mods were just as treasonous as most of the rest of you, I challenged them to make their treason complete and ban me. But maybe they just aren't as treasonous as I assumed. Because I'm still here. Neither have I seen you posting something that told the mods that you wish to debate me. And to not ban me for that reason. So you know what that means. For one thing, it means that there is no point in my asking you what it is in my thread that you think is a "straw man" argument.

Every chance you get you put words in other people's mouths because you can't beat them in a real discussion, so you have to try and create a discussion you can argue against. Just like when you made the comment about saying I "probably don't believe in global warming either." Global warming has nothing to do with this thread, and I said nothing to make anyone assume I don't believe in global warming.

But hey... you just keep doing what you do.

I asked you a simple question and you haven't answered it. Name one country that took on the isolationist model and thrived from it. ONE.

Next, I wrote a thread. I didn't put words into anybody's mouth. If you disagree with anything in that thread, say what it is. Let's have that "real discussion." Next, YOU tried to change the subject by bringing up foreign trade. Which my thread had nothing to do with. Next, despite that, I will answer your isolationist question as soon as one of your replies starts out with "Mods. Don't ban kaptiankrush. I want to debate him."

Did I miss your explanation of when and where and which branch you served in?

 

[Lewdog]

I don't have to. Hell you asked them to ban you in your first post.

That is "IF" they were traitors. Is there something about that that you fail to grasp?

No, you said if they didn't like you speaking your mind...

Now go build some more strawman arguments.

Actually, assuming that the mods were just as treasonous as most of the rest of you, I challenged them to make their treason complete and ban me. But maybe they just aren't as treasonous as I assumed. Because I'm still here. Neither have I seen you posting something that told the mods that you wish to debate me. And to not ban me for that reason. So you know what that means. For one thing, it means that there is no point in my asking you what it is in my thread that you think is a "straw man" argument.

Every chance you get you put words in other people's mouths because you can't beat them in a real discussion, so you have to try and create a discussion you can argue against. Just like when you made the comment about saying I "probably don't believe in global warming either." Global warming has nothing to do with this thread, and I said nothing to make anyone assume I don't believe in global warming.

But hey... you just keep doing what you do.

I asked you a simple question and you haven't answered it. Name one country that took on the isolationist model and thrived from it. ONE.

Next, I wrote a thread. I didn't put words into anybody's mouth. If you disagree with anything in that thread, say what it is. Let's have that "real discussion." Next, YOU tried to change the subject by bringing up foreign trade. Which my thread had nothing to do with. Next, despite that, I will answer your isolationist question as soon as one of your replies starts out with "Mods. Don't ban kaptiankrush. I want to debate him."

Why would I ask the mods not to ban you? If you are a sock, especially one of someone who has been banned before like I assume, you should be banned.

Isolationist model isn't just about trade, it's an entire idea. One of which is like what you are talking about... in your OP.

 

[kaptiankrush]

The "mission statement" you mentioned is wrong. Tell me, is a bayonet considered to be "ordinance?" The mission objective of the military should be to kill the enemy. Or potential enemies. How they do it is unimportant. Though I would prefer they not do it through old age.

About the bayonet. I learned the mission of the Infantry 59 years ago. I was told then, "The mission of the Infantry is to close with and kill or capture the enemy with all means available." That mission has never changed and never will. Oh yes, the bayonet. In November 1965 my unit made the last bayonet attack in US military history. Ordnance wasn't of any use that time. It proved better.

Interesting. Are you talking about that war where even though we won the battles, we lost the war? If we weren't in it to win it, we should have never been in Vietnam. Because the thing to do would have been to invade North Vietnam. Not chase them around Laos and Cambodia. Of course, doing so would have meant another war with China. But a few well placed nukes would have taken care of that.

Didn't need nukes and we damn sure didn't lose no war. The liberal political pukes pissed it away.

Though in most ways I support Hitler, he said the same sort of shit about WW I. Face it. We LOST the Vietnam War. We got our asses KICKED! Maybe not as bad as the French who were there before us. But the result was the same. We couldn't even get out of the place until we bombed the North enough for them to agree to let us go. With "honor." We lost tens of thousands of soldiers and lost billions of dollars. And for what. So some gooks could have the "freedom" to shit in their rice patties?

"Though in most ways I support Hitler".....says it all...if the Chicken Hawks and Alt-Righties had their way, we'd STILL be Viet Nam.

I piss on your diversion. From what I hear, Hitler was pissed off that the Germans surrendered in WW I. Despite that German civilians were starving. Despite that hundreds of thousands of German soldiers already died. Anybody who thinks that we didn't lose the Vietnam war is spouting the same sort of nonsense.

 

[Lewdog]

About the bayonet. I learned the mission of the Infantry 59 years ago. I was told then, "The mission of the Infantry is to close with and kill or capture the enemy with all means available." That mission has never changed and never will. Oh yes, the bayonet. In November 1965 my unit made the last bayonet attack in US military history. Ordnance wasn't of any use that time. It proved better.

Interesting. Are you talking about that war where even though we won the battles, we lost the war? If we weren't in it to win it, we should have never been in Vietnam. Because the thing to do would have been to invade North Vietnam. Not chase them around Laos and Cambodia. Of course, doing so would have meant another war with China. But a few well placed nukes would have taken care of that.

Didn't need nukes and we damn sure didn't lose no war. The liberal political pukes pissed it away.

Though in most ways I support Hitler, he said the same sort of shit about WW I. Face it. We LOST the Vietnam War. We got our asses KICKED! Maybe not as bad as the French who were there before us. But the result was the same. We couldn't even get out of the place until we bombed the North enough for them to agree to let us go. With "honor." We lost tens of thousands of soldiers and lost billions of dollars. And for what. So some gooks could have the "freedom" to shit in their rice patties?

"Though in most ways I support Hitler".....says it all...if the Chicken Hawks and Alt-Righties had their way, we'd STILL be Viet Nam.

I piss on your diversion. From what I hear, Hitler was pissed off that the Germans surrendered in WW I. Despite that German civilians were starving. Despite that hundreds of thousands of German soldiers already died. Anybody who thinks that we didn't lose the Vietnam war is spouting the same sort of nonsense.

Post some scanned pages from your German alternate history books like you did before.

 

[kaptiankrush]

The "mission statement" you mentioned is wrong. Tell me, is a bayonet considered to be "ordinance?" The mission objective of the military should be to kill the enemy. Or potential enemies. How they do it is unimportant. Though I would prefer they not do it through old age.

Splitting hairs. Its what I was taught, it's what the MCPO said. Were you ever in the military?

Oh hell now you've done it, you've got him started on how he's a military man.

We'll be here all night while he expounds relentlessly about his *military* career and (eventually) his superior understanding of religion.

Something of course you know nothing about. Don't like hearing from real veterans, do you?

What did I say that you think is untrue.

First of all you created a trolling post. A call out post. And you made baseless accusations about people whom you know nothing about. Those are reasons to ban you if someone was so inclined. Personally I wouldn't waste my time and just let this thread shrivel up and die.

It sickens me when people call the truth "trolling." Another good one is calling it "spam." Next, you can call my thread anything you want. That isn't the point. The POINT is whether or not anything in it is untrue. Banning me for whatever reason is no way to find that out. Assuming (probably wrongly) that there is anything of substance that you do want to find out.

 

[yiostheoy]

What is the U.S. military's mission. To kill those who threaten the U.S. In that, they have failed. First in Vietnam, they learned that an enemy can lose the battles, but still win the war. The same thing is replaying itself with the West's war against islam. Though I am sure the military is well aware of what is really going on. But their hands are tied. Tied by the REAL traitorous scum. YOU! (At least 90% of you that is)

I am sure that the military is well aware that it is a mistake to underestimate the intelligence of the enemy. Such as what they are up to with their terrorist kamikaze attacks. They know that they can't win that way on a military front. But they sure as hell can win in the long run through the battlefield of public opinion. All they have to do is patiently wear us down. Using our "freedoms" and "democracy" as a weapon against us. They know that Americans would rather see their women get their clits cut off and be forced to wear burkas (or at least rags on their heads) rather than give up the things I mentioned.

Like it or not, the military's job is to KILL! But how many of you bleeding heart, liberal, politically correct traitorous scum out there would rather submit to islam. Rather than kill all those whos religion-political structure is opposed to your way of life. Most of you I think. Who will be the first brainwashed fool to tell me some politically correct bullshit philosophy like, "If you use the same methods against your enemy that they use against you, then you are no better than they are." You stupid ass scum! You moronic filthy slime! USMB, make YOUR treason complete. Ban me for speaking these truths. Show your treason.
View attachment 103025 View attachment 103026

Spam bot.

Ignore list.

 

[kaptiankrush]

That is "IF" they were traitors. Is there something about that that you fail to grasp?

No, you said if they didn't like you speaking your mind...

Now go build some more strawman arguments.

Actually, assuming that the mods were just as treasonous as most of the rest of you, I challenged them to make their treason complete and ban me. But maybe they just aren't as treasonous as I assumed. Because I'm still here. Neither have I seen you posting something that told the mods that you wish to debate me. And to not ban me for that reason. So you know what that means. For one thing, it means that there is no point in my asking you what it is in my thread that you think is a "straw man" argument.

Every chance you get you put words in other people's mouths because you can't beat them in a real discussion, so you have to try and create a discussion you can argue against. Just like when you made the comment about saying I "probably don't believe in global warming either." Global warming has nothing to do with this thread, and I said nothing to make anyone assume I don't believe in global warming.

But hey... you just keep doing what you do.

I asked you a simple question and you haven't answered it. Name one country that took on the isolationist model and thrived from it. ONE.

Next, I wrote a thread. I didn't put words into anybody's mouth. If you disagree with anything in that thread, say what it is. Let's have that "real discussion." Next, YOU tried to change the subject by bringing up foreign trade. Which my thread had nothing to do with. Next, despite that, I will answer your isolationist question as soon as one of your replies starts out with "Mods. Don't ban kaptiankrush. I want to debate him."

Did I miss your explanation of when and where and which branch you served in?

I find it interesting how when people fail to debate me, they try to bring my personal life into the debate. It has happened often enough.

 

[kaptiankrush]

That is "IF" they were traitors. Is there something about that that you fail to grasp?

No, you said if they didn't like you speaking your mind...

Now go build some more strawman arguments.

Actually, assuming that the mods were just as treasonous as most of the rest of you, I challenged them to make their treason complete and ban me. But maybe they just aren't as treasonous as I assumed. Because I'm still here. Neither have I seen you posting something that told the mods that you wish to debate me. And to not ban me for that reason. So you know what that means. For one thing, it means that there is no point in my asking you what it is in my thread that you think is a "straw man" argument.

Every chance you get you put words in other people's mouths because you can't beat them in a real discussion, so you have to try and create a discussion you can argue against. Just like when you made the comment about saying I "probably don't believe in global warming either." Global warming has nothing to do with this thread, and I said nothing to make anyone assume I don't believe in global warming.

But hey... you just keep doing what you do.

I asked you a simple question and you haven't answered it. Name one country that took on the isolationist model and thrived from it. ONE.

Next, I wrote a thread. I didn't put words into anybody's mouth. If you disagree with anything in that thread, say what it is. Let's have that "real discussion." Next, YOU tried to change the subject by bringing up foreign trade. Which my thread had nothing to do with. Next, despite that, I will answer your isolationist question as soon as one of your replies starts out with "Mods. Don't ban kaptiankrush. I want to debate him."

Why would I ask the mods not to ban you? If you are a sock, especially one of someone who has been banned before like I assume, you should be banned.

Isolationist model isn't just about trade, it's an entire idea. One of which is like what you are talking about... in your OP.

If I get banned, it won't be for telling lies. That is all that matters. And "if" I got banned before, it wouldn't have been for telling lies. And if I got banned before that, it wouldn't have been for telling lies. And if I got banned before that, it wouldn't have been for telling lies. Etc. etc. etc. Do you get the drift? It just depends on what you think is more important. The TRUTH, or some chicken shit reason to ban somebody. Next, I guess that isolationist issue is off the table.

 

[kaptiankrush]

Interesting. Are you talking about that war where even though we won the battles, we lost the war? If we weren't in it to win it, we should have never been in Vietnam. Because the thing to do would have been to invade North Vietnam. Not chase them around Laos and Cambodia. Of course, doing so would have meant another war with China. But a few well placed nukes would have taken care of that.

Didn't need nukes and we damn sure didn't lose no war. The liberal political pukes pissed it away.

Though in most ways I support Hitler, he said the same sort of shit about WW I. Face it. We LOST the Vietnam War. We got our asses KICKED! Maybe not as bad as the French who were there before us. But the result was the same. We couldn't even get out of the place until we bombed the North enough for them to agree to let us go. With "honor." We lost tens of thousands of soldiers and lost billions of dollars. And for what. So some gooks could have the "freedom" to shit in their rice patties?

"Though in most ways I support Hitler".....says it all...if the Chicken Hawks and Alt-Righties had their way, we'd STILL be Viet Nam.

I piss on your diversion. From what I hear, Hitler was pissed off that the Germans surrendered in WW I. Despite that German civilians were starving. Despite that hundreds of thousands of German soldiers already died. Anybody who thinks that we didn't lose the Vietnam war is spouting the same sort of nonsense.

Post some scanned pages from your German alternate history books like you did before.

If there is such a thread around here somewhere, tell me what it is. Leave a reply in it and tell me that you did so. Because there is indeed an alternate history going on concerning WW II. And I would be glad to look at any pictures concerning it and debate the reality of them.

 

[Lewdog]

Didn't need nukes and we damn sure didn't lose no war. The liberal political pukes pissed it away.

Though in most ways I support Hitler, he said the same sort of shit about WW I. Face it. We LOST the Vietnam War. We got our asses KICKED! Maybe not as bad as the French who were there before us. But the result was the same. We couldn't even get out of the place until we bombed the North enough for them to agree to let us go. With "honor." We lost tens of thousands of soldiers and lost billions of dollars. And for what. So some gooks could have the "freedom" to shit in their rice patties?

"Though in most ways I support Hitler".....says it all...if the Chicken Hawks and Alt-Righties had their way, we'd STILL be Viet Nam.

I piss on your diversion. From what I hear, Hitler was pissed off that the Germans surrendered in WW I. Despite that German civilians were starving. Despite that hundreds of thousands of German soldiers already died. Anybody who thinks that we didn't lose the Vietnam war is spouting the same sort of nonsense.

Post some scanned pages from your German alternate history books like you did before.

If there is such a thread around here somewhere, tell me what it is. Leave a reply in it and tell me that you did so. Because there is indeed an alternate history going on concerning WW II. And I would be glad to look at any pictures concerning it and debate the reality of them.

Poor gusto you must really love this place to keep coming back.

 

[kaptiankrush]

What is the U.S. military's mission. To kill those who threaten the U.S. In that, they have failed. First in Vietnam, they learned that an enemy can lose the battles, but still win the war. The same thing is replaying itself with the West's war against islam. Though I am sure the military is well aware of what is really going on. But their hands are tied. Tied by the REAL traitorous scum. YOU! (At least 90% of you that is)

I am sure that the military is well aware that it is a mistake to underestimate the intelligence of the enemy. Such as what they are up to with their terrorist kamikaze attacks. They know that they can't win that way on a military front. But they sure as hell can win in the long run through the battlefield of public opinion. All they have to do is patiently wear us down. Using our "freedoms" and "democracy" as a weapon against us. They know that Americans would rather see their women get their clits cut off and be forced to wear burkas (or at least rags on their heads) rather than give up the things I mentioned.

Like it or not, the military's job is to KILL! But how many of you bleeding heart, liberal, politically correct traitorous scum out there would rather submit to islam. Rather than kill all those whos religion-political structure is opposed to your way of life. Most of you I think. Who will be the first brainwashed fool to tell me some politically correct bullshit philosophy like, "If you use the same methods against your enemy that they use against you, then you are no better than they are." You stupid ass scum! You moronic filthy slime! USMB, make YOUR treason complete. Ban me for speaking these truths. Show your treason.
View attachment 103025 View attachment 103026

Spam bot.

Ignore list.

Spam bot? I assure you I am human. Also, for those who aren't slimy scum, there is a greater issue than whether or not something is "spam." That is whether or not any "spam" is true. As for myself, I have never "spammed." What I have done at other forums is write threads and invite debate over the matter. Just because you can't or won't debate some matter is a piss poor reason to call it "spam."

 

[koshergrl]

What is the U.S. military's mission. To kill those who threaten the U.S. In that, they have failed. First in Vietnam, they learned that an enemy can lose the battles, but still win the war. The same thing is replaying itself with the West's war against islam. Though I am sure the military is well aware of what is really going on. But their hands are tied. Tied by the REAL traitorous scum. YOU! (At least 90% of you that is)

I am sure that the military is well aware that it is a mistake to underestimate the intelligence of the enemy. Such as what they are up to with their terrorist kamikaze attacks. They know that they can't win that way on a military front. But they sure as hell can win in the long run through the battlefield of public opinion. All they have to do is patiently wear us down. Using our "freedoms" and "democracy" as a weapon against us. They know that Americans would rather see their women get their clits cut off and be forced to wear burkas (or at least rags on their heads) rather than give up the things I mentioned.

Like it or not, the military's job is to KILL! But how many of you bleeding heart, liberal, politically correct traitorous scum out there would rather submit to islam. Rather than kill all those whos religion-political structure is opposed to your way of life. Most of you I think. Who will be the first brainwashed fool to tell me some politically correct bullshit philosophy like, "If you use the same methods against your enemy that they use against you, then you are no better than they are." You stupid ass scum! You moronic filthy slime! USMB, make YOUR treason complete. Ban me for speaking these truths. Show your treason.
View attachment 103025 View attachment 103026

Spam bot.

Ignore list.

You're a spam bot.

This guy isn't.

There, glad I couldhelp.

 

[Syriusly]

Like it or not, the military's job is to KILL! ]

Hmmm I thought the job of the United States military is to protect the United States and our citizens?

But you want you think that all they should be doing is killing.

Man- I guess we are sure wasting all of those ICBM's in our missile submarines....

 

[bodecea]

About the bayonet. I learned the mission of the Infantry 59 years ago. I was told then, "The mission of the Infantry is to close with and kill or capture the enemy with all means available." That mission has never changed and never will. Oh yes, the bayonet. In November 1965 my unit made the last bayonet attack in US military history. Ordnance wasn't of any use that time. It proved better.

Interesting. Are you talking about that war where even though we won the battles, we lost the war? If we weren't in it to win it, we should have never been in Vietnam. Because the thing to do would have been to invade North Vietnam. Not chase them around Laos and Cambodia. Of course, doing so would have meant another war with China. But a few well placed nukes would have taken care of that.

Didn't need nukes and we damn sure didn't lose no war. The liberal political pukes pissed it away.

Though in most ways I support Hitler, he said the same sort of shit about WW I. Face it. We LOST the Vietnam War. We got our asses KICKED! Maybe not as bad as the French who were there before us. But the result was the same. We couldn't even get out of the place until we bombed the North enough for them to agree to let us go. With "honor." We lost tens of thousands of soldiers and lost billions of dollars. And for what. So some gooks could have the "freedom" to shit in their rice patties?

"Though in most ways I support Hitler".....says it all...if the Chicken Hawks and Alt-Righties had their way, we'd STILL be Viet Nam.

I piss on your diversion. From what I hear, Hitler was pissed off that the Germans surrendered in WW I. Despite that German civilians were starving. Despite that hundreds of thousands of German soldiers already died. Anybody who thinks that we didn't lose the Vietnam war is spouting the same sort of nonsense.

So, boy, where and when did you serve?

 

[Shrimpbox]

We are weak because our leaders' sold out the country to globalism in order to personally enrich themselves, to the point that we no longer trust them or ourselves; and the bad news is, that we elected them and are not without responsibility. With that being said, Trump needs all the support he can get to turn around the US Titanic. Will he get enough support?

The Titanic was a British ship.

deflection, f^ckstick!

Hey, ask North Korea how isolationism works for their country.

Why would I? I'm pragmatic, unlike your extreme perceptions.

Give one good example of a country that went to an isolationist strategy and they prospered.

The us

 

[Lewdog]

The Titanic was a British ship.

deflection, f^ckstick!

Hey, ask North Korea how isolationism works for their country.

Why would I? I'm pragmatic, unlike your extreme perceptions.

Give one good example of a country that went to an isolationist strategy and they prospered.

The us

The U.S. has never been an isolationist country.