Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ... 1321222324 LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 237

Thread: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

  1. #221
    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
    oh so now it was "hyperbole"..... given that, are you also saying your war story was hyperbole as well?




    There is only one person being "obtuse" here. it is you.

    "Stop-loss, in the United States military, is the involuntary extension of a service member's active duty service under the enlistment contract in order to retain them beyond their initial end of term of service (ETS) date. It also applies to the cessation of a permanent change of station (PCS) move for a member still in military service. Stop-loss was used immediately before and during the first Persian Gulf War. Since then, it has been used during American military deployments to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the subsequent War on Terror.

    The policy has been legally challenged several times, however federal courts have consistently found that military service members contractually agree that their term of service may be involuntarily extended."

    Stop-loss policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




    Well if Perle admitted it!







    you sure do complain about "lies" a lot and thats not very irie mon.


    Wiki eh? I already posted the Stop Loss clause in the contract and its Section 9(c). But hey, feel free to keep ignoring facts and to continue lying. You guys seem to have a romantic intertwining going on here so I'll bow out and let you play sausagepalooza.

  2. #222
    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

    So for all the people who claimed Res 1441 gave the US authorization to invade iraq, why haven't you addressed the fact our own former Ambassador stated explicitly it did not give us that authorization?


    "As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...1108usstat.htm


    Iam guessing it's because cognitive dissonance is the only principle you guys live by. So snicker at your own lies and keep ignoring information in lieu of pathologically lying. Or you could man up and address the facts.

  3. #223
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,680

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Wow. You guys are like the Three Musketeers of Lying. Like I've already pointed out, I was being hyperbolic about my contract size when I signed it. I think that is known but you're desperate to personally attack others when facts aren't on your side.

    I also never said I used AK's from "dead iraqis" so what is that? About the tenth lie you straight up told? Do you get paid to lie because you practice the art of it like a pro. I also never said we "were bogged down" for 18 hours. What I did say is we used captured AK's because we ran out of ammo because our butterball had the wrong radio frequencies which left us out of touch with the main body for 18 hours. There were only 11 of us on the FWC and I didn't personally have a nine but three other guys did. But why am I wasting time? I know you'll continue to keep lying because that is what liars do.



    What kind of "nine" did you not have?


    "Captured AK's", how many did you "capture" what other platforms did you capture?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #224
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,680

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Wiki eh? I already posted the Stop Loss clause in the contract and its Section 9(c). But hey, feel free to keep ignoring facts and to continue lying. You guys seem to have a romantic intertwining going on here so I'll bow out and let you play sausagepalooza.


    Bye! don't let the door hit ya!
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #225
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,680

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post


    "bomb the hell out of people"

    what do you mean by this?


    Do you consider troops Murderers? You avoided this.



    And you not answering this question is all the answer we need, Now go cut and run like you promised.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #226
    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
    Bye! don't let the door hit ya!

    I never said our troops are murders but that won't stop you from lying. I also didn't avoid answering anthing but lying seems to be the only thing you are capable accomplishing.

    Good job on consistently ignoring the SL clause I pointed out as well as:

    "As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...1108usstat.htmI

    You claimed 1441 authorized military action but when I smack that down by quoting our ambassador who stated the exact opposite you pretend to not see what you claimed is utterly false. That's what is so pathetic about the pro-war crowd...they pretend to care.


    What's even funnier is accusing me of being a sock. Paranoia is a side effect of constantly lying. Lol...in addition...you view yourself so high that you believe someone would create a sock, as if your posts carry some type of weight. Sad.

  7. #227
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,680

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    I never said our troops are murders but that won't stop you from lying. I also didn't avoid answering anthing but lying seems to be the only thing you are capable accomplishing.

    When asked about it, you never said no. You still have not answered. I have all the information I need.


    Good job on consistently ignoring the SL clause I pointed out as well as:

    It was in your now less than phone book sized contract. YOU FAIL

    "As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...1108usstat.htmI
    who is this elected official again?


    You claimed 1441 authorized military action but when I smack that down by quoting our ambassador who stated the exact opposite you pretend to not see what you claimed is utterly false. That's what is so pathetic about the pro-war crowd...they pretend to care.
    What ambassadors are infallible? As infallible as your vaunted UN?

    What's even funnier is accusing me of being a sock. Paranoia is a side effect of constantly lying. Lol...in addition...you view yourself so high that you believe someone would create a sock, as if your posts carry some type of weight. Sad.


    Hmm how did you even know what a sock puppet was? That's Irie sense of how things are my man...



    And I thought you were taking your ball and going home? Was that a lie?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #228
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    I never said it was "impossible to read the contract." Good freaking grief. When I responded to stryker and made the phonebook comment it was simply hyperbole. Do you know what that means? I didn't literally mean it was as big as a metro book and didn't think anyone would take that seriously but now I realize some go on constant "gotcha!" snipe hunts. Should I explain each statement so you will know the diff between hyperbolies and literal statements? Let me know what I can do to help you read.
    I do not need to lie or maipulate your statements.It is you who is lying.


    As for the contract...for the fifth time, stop loss is not a part of the contract.
    Yes it is.IF you really served in the military then you should still have a copy look at the back of dd form 4/1.


    Why do you ignoring the fact I have repeated that? When I said it wasn't part of the contract I was pointing out it's not a standing order. Obeying the UCMJ is a static part, but not Stop Loss. Thay was my point. Either you can't understand that or you are purposefully being obtuse.
    I am not ignoring what you said.You stated stoploss is not part of your contract. I showed you a contract and as far as I know everone joining the military signs this contract.

    As for iraq being illegal...nice job ignoring all the evidence I posted, including the fact Perle admitted it was illegal years ago. Is this how it works with you?
    Only liberals make the accusations that this war is illegal.Liberals also make the accusations that stoploss is a back door draft.


    Change what others say, make false accusations and then ignore factual information out of convenience? No wonder it isn't understand why you are a liberal.
    The only one changing what was said is you.

    Then you add more lies. I never said "military contracts" are a backdoor draft. I said stop loss is a backdoor draft.
    You made all kinds of bogus claims in that post about contract size,slavery,back door draft and about contracts.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970817-post120.html
    Originally Posted by SkyCore
    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.

    Then you claim I used mccain as a "conservative" reference point. I never made that claim either. He was simply one person from the linked article that disagrees with the policy.
    So you knowingly used liberals and a sell out RINO to make your point? The worst kind of people to use for any kind of opinions about the military.

    Go ahead and lie some more because it's funny to watch the pro-war crowd make themselves look so ridiculous they not only ignore every inconvenient fact but they have to continuously lie just to have something to say.
    You are the one lying and being inconsistent. What was your MOS in the military,do you have a dd 214 , where did you attend basic training,what was your rank by the time you ETS? What decorations,medals,badges,citations and campaign ribbons does your dd 214 state?
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  9. #229
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Under section 9(c) is where the SL policy may be found and it says:

    "In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed
    Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends,
    unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of
    the United States."
    http://www.rethinkingschools.org/arc...enlistment.pdf

    There has be no Declaration of War.
    There doesnt need to be a declaration of war for a state of war to exist, or for a soldier to be fighting in a war.

    Thus, your slavery argument is unsound.

  10. #230
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    What we have here is a failure to communicate. The UN never authorized the US to take unilateral military action. Once again, from the mouth of our former US Ambassador to the UN regarding Res 1441:


    "As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."
    Statement by Ambassador John Negroponte - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum


    Iam providing rock solid evidence proving the US was never given a blanket green light. Do you have any evidence in response?
    What you fail to realize is that the US (or any other country) does not need a UNSC resolution in order to 'legally' go to war.

Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ... 1321222324 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
  •