Page 12 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 237

Thread: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

  1. #111
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,396

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    That was a UN cease fire and it did not authorize uniltateral military action.

    1441 did.






    Really? Evidence of this? I seem to remember Bush claiming bin laden responsible for 9/11 so the Taliban said fine, show us the evidence and we will help you get him. We turned that offer down. Gee.

    They did, they did not hand him over.


    Told you not to make it personal.

    Figured you smelled like an AF REMF. Vets like you embarrass the hell out of the rest of us. You know why? You tout your time in service as some sort of license to attack those who haven't as if your position as a Vet gives you more authority in an argument.

    On top of that, you falsely accuse me of disparaging fellow Vets. I did no such thing. I pointed out Stop Loss is a form of slavery.

    Now let's see your raw hypocrisy brought to light. I fought in Iraq in 91' and I don't mean that figuratively. Even used some Iraqi AK's because our stupid butterball lost the radio coordinates for the main body so we had no contact for over 18 hours and ran out of ammo for both M-16s and nines. So what's your next move einstein? Want to accuse me of lying? People like you would do that before admitting you effed up and spoke out of turn.

    REMF? I was a TACP.... FAIL (you are so full of fail.... )


    Accuse you of lying? I dunno, your story sounds like that movie with mark walberg in it. The only thing missing is the Iraqi gold.


    When and which branch did you serve with your "m16s- and nines"?

    As for stop loss. you still fail. it is not slavery, it is in your contract, you would know that as a "vet" ......


    Unlike you, I don't try to speak for those who served and those who have not. Stop touting your service as if your mother freaking theresa. Your hypocrisy and self-righteousness reeks worse than bodies baking in oil-field fires.
    is this a tantrum? Please let me know so I can laugh. I touted nothing. You claimed you knew about stop loss. as one who served I let you know how wrong you were. Now you are crying? please.

    Now, you tried to claim your Vet status gives you insight. Let's all sit back and watch you try to backpedal out of it faster than michael moore can make a dash for the free lunch buffet because now that you know iam also a Vet you will suddenly claim fighting in Iraq doesn't really give anyone a leg up on the debates. Oh, and please. Stop embarrassing Vets with your stupid assumptions and accusations. REMF all the way.


    Back peddle? Nah. You lost your composure, self control, your "military bearing"..... You claim to be a vet with your "m16's and nines" picking up "Iraqi ak's" and other cliches..... I will just continue to laugh. :



    And you call me "embarrassing".......
    Last edited by ReverendHellh0und; 03-24-09 at 06:37 PM.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  2. #112
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    1441 did.








    They did, they did not hand him over.





    REMF? I was a TACP.... FAIL (you are so full of fail.... )


    Accuse you of lying? I dunno, your story sounds like that movie with mark walberg in it. The only thing missing is the Iraqi gold.


    When and which branch did you serve with your "m16s- and nines"?

    As for stop loss. you still fail. it is not slavery, it is in your contract, you would know that as a "vet" ......




    is this a tantrum? Please let me know so I can laugh. I touted nothing. You claimed you knew about stop loss. as one who served I let you know how wrong you were. Now you are crying? please.





    Back peddle? Nah. You lost your composure, self control, your "military bearing"..... You claim to be a vet with your "m16's and nines" picking up "Iraqi ak's" and other cliches..... I will just continue to laugh. :



    And you call me "embarrassing".......

    Figured you would simply accuse me of lying. Straight punks always project.

    What I pointed out about
    Stop Loss is true, it's a form of slavery and it's not a static part of the contract.

    I didn't answer your question about my unit because I don't care if you believe me or not. If someone comes along that demonstrates self-respect then it may be worth it to give all the details. But punks like you, I don't give a rat's rear end because you're nothing but arrogant cowards. You're so hell bent dependent on the government to tell you who to hate you don't know how to think for yourselves. You're so damn scared all the time you justify the US doing anything and everything it wants as long as you "feel safe." People like you make Cindy Sheehan look like William Buckley.

    You can have the last word because hollow words are all you have.

  3. #113
    User Stryker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-09-09 @ 05:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Figured you would simply accuse me of lying. Straight punks always project.

    What I pointed out about
    Stop Loss is true, it's a form of slavery and it's not a static part of the contract.

    I didn't answer your question about my unit because I don't care if you believe me or not. If someone comes along that demonstrates self-respect then it may be worth it to give all the details. But punks like you, I don't give a rat's rear end because you're nothing but arrogant cowards. You're so hell bent dependent on the government to tell you who to hate you don't know how to think for yourselves. You're so damn scared all the time you justify the US doing anything and everything it wants as long as you "feel safe." People like you make Cindy Sheehan look like William Buckley.

    You can have the last word because hollow words are all you have.
    Stop loss is not a form of slavery. Everyone who enlists, does so with the knowledge that theyre signing an 8 year contract. At the end of their active duty TOS, theyre subject to recall until the 8 years is up. The contract was signed and agreed to by the enlistee.

  4. #114
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,396

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Figured you would simply accuse me of lying. Straight punks always project.

    Did I accuse you of lying? I just laughed at your vernacular and found your 18 hours and "Iraqi ak's" story rather amusing.

    What I pointed out about
    Stop Loss is true, it's a form of slavery and it's not a static part of the contract.

    It is part of the contract. If you served you would know this.


    I served, I was stop loss'ed. It is not slavery. you sign for 8 years, not 4.



    I didn't answer your question about my unit because I don't care if you believe me or not. If someone comes along that demonstrates self-respect then it may be worth it to give all the details. But punks like you, I don't give a rat's rear end because you're nothing but arrogant cowards. You're so hell bent dependent on the government to tell you who to hate you don't know how to think for yourselves. You're so damn scared all the time you justify the US doing anything and everything it wants as long as you "feel safe." People like you make Cindy Sheehan look like William Buckley.

    You can have the last word because hollow words are all you have.


    wouldn't that make me an Obama supporter? :


    Please come up with some coherency please, so that your attacks and what not are at least entertaining. ok?

    thanks!
    Last edited by ReverendHellh0und; 03-24-09 at 06:58 PM.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #115
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,396

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Stryker View Post
    Stop loss is not a form of slavery. Everyone who enlists, does so with the knowledge that theyre signing an 8 year contract. At the end of their active duty TOS, theyre subject to recall until the 8 years is up. The contract was signed and agreed to by the enlistee.



    yeah, but we are:





    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    So you have no concept of sovereignty and you think you can dictate what type of governments other people have and whom heads those governments. Interesting take on the world.
    Yes, I understand sovereignity far better than you can.

    Sovereignity is a right of the individual. Thug dictators that deny their citizens their due sovereignity do not themselves deserve to have any recognition of sovereignity themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Ok, so you have one guy, one guy is coincidence.
    No. One guy is all I'm wasting time on. You can make your own list if you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Prove terrorist training camps where in operation,
    Why? I don't recall saying Hussein was exporting terrorism, merely that he harbored them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    prove widespread terrorist organization hide outs,
    You mean outside of the Baathist party?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    members,
    Abu Nidal proves terrorists were in Iraq, disproves your contention.

    I'm under no obligation to chase your goal posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Otherwise it's a mistake. And there's evidence that this stuff was exaggerated on purpose, later on finding there wasn't even a basis for the exaggeration. Bad data doesn't justify actions, it means you committed error and need to be more careful in the future.
    Bad data justifies actions. Hindsight is always better. That's why I let the ladies through the door first.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Then why use UN resolutions to justify the invasion?
    I didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You only employ the UN when its in your interest.
    The US should be different from all the other countries trying to tear us down?

    IMO the UN should be moved to Dubhai, under that fake ski slope of theirs, and the US should get out of the UN. Since it's there, however, we should certainly use it only when it suits us.

    What part of national sovereignity do you not understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    And we are occupying,
    Temporarily. It's the nature of what happens when a government is destroyed. The destroyers become the baby-sitters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    we made a puppet government,
    You mean we gave the Iraqis the opportunity to elect their own government, which they've done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    and we have to remain there to stabilize it because without our presence it would collapse (which means it can't be supported by the People).
    Temporarily and on a continually decreasing basis, as everyone knows. That's because Bush succeeded in his goal of establishing a self-sufficient Iraq, much to you people's chagrin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    We have some half-assed imperial action and occupation.
    Nope. Not imperialist. You really need to drop your robot ROM cartridge and buy a plain old-fashioned dictionary instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Yeah, we totally didn't set up a government the way we wanted it set up, we totally don't need to be there cause that government can stand on its own, we totally didn't overthrow a sovereign government because we felt like it. Totally no way no how can it be similar to imperial occupation.
    Exactly...it's in no way an imperialist occupation. You have that right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Take off the partisan blinders and look around.
    Yes, do that, will you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Which was not our business, nor did we have proper justification for it. It doesn't matter how "poetic" it can be (romanticizing war is kinda sick), it doesn't change the fact that we had no business being in Iraq.
    Sure. We had no business being in Iraq. That's what I said at the time. Since I'm not an immature little socialist ass-wipe, as soon as the troops were committed to battle, I stopped that line of argument and argued for clear, decisive victory using any and all means necessary.

    Because that's what the realities of the situation demanded the real Americans do.

    People that kept whining about how we shouldn't be there....aren't real Americans, they're whiny brats.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Let's do a little reading comprehension as it seems like you're having some problems. I said the US supported the party which Saddam came from (we didn't put Saddam in, he took over later).
    That's a distinction without a difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I said that all government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the People.
    Legitimate governments do.

    Not "all governments".

    There's a distinction, with a difference, there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Both of these statements are true.
    Nope, they're not both true. The logical flow you derive from this error is flawed and not relevant.

    Then again, it's plain silly, anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    We supported a party, that party took over, Saddam came out of it, he was our pal for awhile. He did some nasty things, but the people of Iraq did not revolt.
    Yes. Clearly you have no clue what things are like when socialists get the totalitarian power they're always demanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It is up to them to remove their consent should the government act counter to the wishes of the People.
    Yeah?

    How?

    You really don't have a clue what you're talking about here, do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    We have no rightful or just authority to create governments we want, at least not without formal declaration and even then it would really depend on the nature and scale of the conflict.
    Sure we do. The government that existed in Iraq wasn't legit...and you claim we created it...therefore who else should be tasked with the problem of fixing our error?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    We are not the governed, thus we have no say in that government.
    Wrong. You already stated that we helped set it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    If the Iraqi people didn't like it, it was up to them to do something about it.
    Again, how?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's not our job.
    Sure it was. You said it was our responsibility that it was set up, didn't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    And your retort about me not seeing a problem with Saddam's elections is delightfully pathetic. Try not lying in the future, it may help your intellectual honesty.
    Try showing my comment was wrong. You just said Saddam had the support of the people, didn't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You and reading comprehension....who would have thought it'd be an Odd Couple case. First off again, I said we supported Saddam's party. Please read. Secondly, even if I said we put Saddam in the statement "The course and leadership of Iraq was not, is not, rightfully up to us." does not mean that we couldn't have installed Saddam. It would, however, mean that had we installed Saddam we did it unjustly and with power not granted to us by the Iraqi people. So, please try to read and understand what was written.
    Oh. So you're saying it's OKAY to install a political party against the supposed consent of the Iraqis, but not okay to install a political party AND it's dictator against the consent of the people who, according to you, didn't dissent, and therefore provided consent to that dictator. Since you're so busy contradicting yourself, I hope you don't get upset because I'm merely pointing those contradictions out.

    Someone might otherwise miss the full depths of humor your posts represent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Care to prove Mao is my hero? No?
    You mean he's not?

    I'm sorry. I'll guess you have the Trotskies, next time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, they could very well be unhappy. But it's not my problem, I don't have the time or resources to run around saving the world from themselves.
    Really?

    What's your stand on Socialist Security? Welfare? Nationalized Health Care? The minimum wage? Public Education? Obama?

    I bet you're all for saving people from themselves, just not when it coincides with what's truly good for the United States.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No it didn't, they authorized the President to use the military for operations. They did not formally declare war against Iraq. Produce the formal declaration since you made the claim.
    You just mentioned it.

    How about if you raid that Constitution thingy and see if it if defines "declaration of war" for ya, okay?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Also, I'm not a liberal so I guess that I get to use the Constitution in my arguments.
    If you're going to use the Constitution in your arguments, can you do those of us, like myself, who know what it says and what it means a favor and read the thing?

  7. #117
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Stryker View Post
    Stop loss is not a form of slavery. Everyone who enlists, does so with the knowledge that theyre signing an 8 year contract. At the end of their active duty TOS, theyre subject to recall until the 8 years is up. The contract was signed and agreed to by the enlistee.

    Maybe recruiters are more upfront today than before but when I signed up when I was 17 under DEP and I was told about the IRR commitment but nothing about a Stop Loss. I didn't even hear of it until we were getting ready to deploy to SA from Biggs Airfield in Sept 90'.

    If an American signs up for four years and is forced to serve six then yes, that is slavery. Like I said before, put all the decorations around it that you want to, but it doesn't change the fact it's forcing people to stay in beyond their original enlistment period. Even Gates admitted it has caused some troops to lose faith in the US and every one I've spoken with in person was seriously peeved about it.

  8. #118
    User Stryker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-09-09 @ 05:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Maybe recruiters are more upfront today than before but when I signed up when I was 17 under DEP and I was told about the IRR commitment but nothing about a Stop Loss. I didn't even hear of it until we were getting ready to deploy to SA from Biggs Airfield in Sept 90'.

    If an American signs up for four years and is forced to serve six then yes, that is slavery. Like I said before, put all the decorations around it that you want to, but it doesn't change the fact it's forcing people to stay in beyond their original enlistment period. Even Gates admitted it has caused some troops to lose faith in the US and every one I've spoken with in person was seriously peeved about it.
    Id be peeved too if I had been stop lossed, but that doesnt change the fact that its in the contract. When I went in I was interviewed at MEPS about my contract and thats when they dropped the 8 year commitment bomb on me. My recruiter didnt tell me about that part either, but I signed my contract knowing it was in there.

    You probably didnt read your contract when you signed it, I wont lie, neither did I. But just because you were unaware of a part of a contract doesn't mean you're not bound to it.

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Maybe recruiters are more upfront today than before but when I signed up when I was 17 under DEP and I was told about the IRR commitment but nothing about a Stop Loss. I didn't even hear of it until we were getting ready to deploy to SA from Biggs Airfield in Sept 90'.
    DEP doesn't mean anything.

    Didn't you bother to read your real enlistment papers, the ones you signed when you took your oath?

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    If an American signs up for four years and is forced to serve six then yes, that is slavery.
    Not if the contract he signed says otherwise, which yours did.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Like I said before, put all the decorations around it that you want to, but it doesn't change the fact it's forcing people to stay in beyond their original enlistment period.
    Whine all you want...you signed the contract authorizing that extension.

    That means it ain't slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Even Gates admitted it has caused some troops to lose faith in the US and every one I've spoken with in person was seriously peeved about it.
    You mean because the Army actually enforced a rather unpleasant provision of the contract the soldiers voluntarily signed?

    Life is a bitch, ain't it?

    But it isn't slavery.

  10. #120
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Stryker View Post
    Id be peeved too if I had been stop lossed, but that doesnt change the fact that its in the contract. When I went in I was interviewed at MEPS about my contract and thats when they dropped the 8 year commitment bomb on me. My recruiter didnt tell me about that part either, but I signed my contract knowing it was in there.

    You probably didnt read your contract when you signed it, I wont lie, neither did I. But just because you were unaware of a part of a contract doesn't mean you're not bound to it.

    Hell no I didn't read the whole thing...even if you wanted to your enlistment would be over by the time you finished. It's like a metro phonebook for NYC, LA, Tokyo, and Russia all wrapped in one. My recruiter told me about the IRR but the way he explained it was this:

    If more troops were to be needed then our current enlistments would not be extended because the Military would call up the IRRs that came before us. I believed it cause I was so wet behind the ears I needed scuba gear to brush my teeth. Now, as to your point about it "being in the contract." That is true but not wholly because it's not a static part. The IRR is static, period. The stop loss can be started and stopped at any time. That may also be in the contract. But it still doesn't change the fact if you sign up for five years of active duty and they force another two years that slavery has not occurred.

    The 8 years you're referencing is not "8 years of active duty." I'm sure there are some idiots who would sign up for 8 straight and miss out on re-enlistment bonuses but rarely does anyone sign up for 8 straight. Saying "it's in the contract" is no less silly than when slaveowners justified having slaves and serfs by pointing to a "contract." It's not called a "back-door draft" for nothing.

Page 12 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •