• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marine recruiting station under attack... again

Wow! Goin' old school with the Kids in the Hall. "I crush your head!"

When I see people talk about people with "flat heads" my mind immediately goes to Mark McKinney as the "crushing your head" guy.
 
I didn't rewrite your post, I do not have the ability to edit someone else's post.


You charged me as saying:


-Its impossible to read the whole contract because they are the size of metropolitan phonebooks (Marine recruiting station under attack... again)


I never said that yet you claimed I did to justify your accusations iam lying or a dumbass or something equally brilliant.



You cited those examples because that is what you believed. Or you made up your claims assuming that no one on this forum had served in the military and therefore couldn't contradict your bogus claims. When you were called on your accusations you changed your story from there was no stop loss in the contract to its buried in a contract the size of a phone and even when you were shown that it is plain as day on your contract you are still trying to make the claim that stop loss is slavery.


I never changed my claim. I pointed out it is not a static part of the contract. I also never said it was "buried in a phone book sized contract.". Then you accuse me of assuming nobody on here has served? Lol. What joke.

Stop changing what I've said. Please.

I pointed out those examples to show not all Vets agree with each other. You guys simply accuse anyone of being a liar if they don't agree with you. Congratulations on resurrecting Saddam. You walk in his shadow.




You must care to a certain degree what someone thinks or you wouldn't be posting on a public forum for everyone and their mom to see.

Once again. Reading 101. I never said I don't care what "anyone" thinks. I said I don't care what you think.



I am no liberal and the only one I see being dishonest is you. Do you even have a dd 214?


You misquote me, accuse me of changing claims, imply iam not a Vet, make several other false accusations then you have the audacity to claim iam dishonest? Lol

And yes, you're a flaming lib like hellpuppy and goobie. You guys are just hiding behind a Conservative mask but you all support some of the most liberal policies in action today. Don't be ashamed to be a lib! Be proud!
 
Cain't ignore no facts that don't exist.

Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq, Iraq got invaded. End of that argument.

The contract those sojers sign? That there be a legal contract.


All Congress did was authorize use of force if necessary and even congress can't override our Treaty with the UN.


Article 6

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A6.html


It also violated the Nuremberg Charter (Article VI) and United Nations Charter (Article 2, Sec. 4 and Article 39) and U.N. Security Council Resolution #1441.


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/1120hawk.htm


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2005/1222belligerent.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2005/0324wilmshurst.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2004/0916illegal.htm
 
The problem some pro-Iraq war people don't understand is that just because could attack, doesn't mean we should have attacked.

Yes, the war was not illegal, however, it doesn't make it right either.
 
Show that the contracts are illegal.


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/archive/19_03/military_enlistment.pdf


There has be no Declaration of War.

I signed up in 1988 and Stop Loss had not been yet used so that could be why I hadn't heard of it until 90'.
 
The problem some pro-Iraq war people don't understand is that just because could attack, doesn't mean we should have attacked.

Yes, the war was not illegal, however, it doesn't make it right either.


When we violate any Treaty we are also violating the Constitution.
 
What is this? Strawman central? I never said:

"...there are no instances of a military contract having been declared 'illegal' by someone of relevance."


Why ignore what I said then put words in my mouth on top of that? Blimy. My argument is Stop Loss is a form of slavery. Can you understand what that means?

How is stop loss slavery? It's extending your term ... you agree to that in your contract. You are still paid the same as you were before extending.

Without stop loss if new forces were not added to the theater their would be gaps. Stop loss prevents these gaps. Yes being called back due to stop loss sucks, but the alternative is much worse.
 
How is stop loss slavery? It's extending your term ... you agree to that in your contract. You are still paid the same as you were before extending.

Without stop loss if new forces were not added to the theater their would be gaps. Stop loss prevents these gaps. Yes being called back due to stop loss sucks, but the alternative is much worse.


I already quoted the portion from the contract that states the enlistment may only be extended up to 6 months after the end of the war. That is very different than what is listed in Section 10. Moreover, since there has been no declaration of war how could any of troops be held under section 9(c).

I fully understand the reaction to what iam saying because yes, when you sign the enlistment contract that section is in there but it has already been abused to maintain occupations in iraq and afghanistan. When you hold someone "involuntarily" that is slavery, period. Hiding behind of the technicality of the clause being in the contract (and on top of that ignoring it clearly says "war" and "only up to 6 months after the war ends") is befuddling.

During WW2 there was no shortage of people signing up. Why? The war didn't need to be "sold" and this is an invaluable and overlooked event. The invasions of iraq and afghanistan have been accomplished not by the merits of the arguments put forth, but only by selling the idea of doing so no differently than how budweiser has to tell americans it is "beer" every thirty seconds. (Anyone who drinks real beer knows budweiser is chilled cat piss).

My main point is this: the Stop Loss program is designed to enslave those who have enlisted to maintain policies that are without positive evidence. It's already been abused on about 60,000 brave soldiers so how many does it have to happen to before the coffee gets sniffed?
 
When we violate any Treaty we are also violating the Constitution.

I am against the war in Iraq, however, the U.S. had the right to attack the way it did. However, I do not believe we should have.

My biggest problem was the BUsh administration FOCUSED on so called "stockpiles" of WMDs that the Bush administration claimed. That is where I have the problem, Iraq had no stockpiles of WMDs.

When no Stockpiles of WMDs were found, THEN they fell back to other reasons as the focus. But before the war, WMDs were the focus, which was false.
 
Last edited:
I am against the war in Iraq, however, the U.S. had the right to attack the way it did. However, I do not believe we should have.

My biggest problem was the BUsh administration FOCUSED on so called "stockpiles" of WMDs that the Bush administration claimed. That is where I have the problem, Iraq had no stockpiles of WMDs.

When no Stockpiles of WMDs were found, THEN they fell back to other reasons as the focus. But before the war, WMDs were the focus, which was false.



Anyone may have the opinion we had the "right" but from a legal pov, we did not have the authority to attack. It was the UN that gave us the authority in 1990, it was the UN that authorized the cease fire in 1991, and as I've already proven, no UN Resolution since then has granted unilateral military action to invade/occupy iraq.

I'm not sure what the hurdle is here...I've quote the relevent parts of the Constitution, the UN Charter, a few legal experts, so maybe we could address those?
 
None of what you have said has changed the fact that the last time we issued a declaration of war was for WW II.

Except for the fact that we issued a war authorization to invade Iraq, which is just fine and meets the Constitutional requirements.

The Congress isn't given different formats, it only has one; a declaration of war. It doesn't specify other formats so no other format is open to the Congress.

You're right. The Constitution doesn't specify any other formats.

The Constitution doesn't specify ANY format.

Argument done.

You lost, I'm bored with it.

You say that if it's not in the Constitution, the government is free to do what it likes.

You need to learn how to read. Start with the Tenth Amendment.

There's no specific form, so they government can make whatever form it wants and claim that's good enough and it's all hunky dory.

You haven't refuted it. The purpose of reserving the power to declare war to the Congress was to ensure the People's wishes were being followed and that we weren't being dragged into a war by a monomaniacal despot. That purpose was served by Congress's actions prior to our invasion of Iraq.

I've already told you this.

You could try reading the Federalist Papers sometime. It explains a lot of the Constitution you clearly don't understand at all.

In the end, this is our main difference. I see the Constitution as a restriction upon the government. It lists what the government can do, empowered by the People; and anything not mentioned doesn't belong to it. You seem to see the Constitution as a vague, non-specific road map of government power. If the People and States did not specifically reserve something, it belongs to the Federal government regardless as to whether or not that power was specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution. For this reason, we shall never agree. The Constitution restricts the government, not the People.

You have a truly misguided view on my view of the Constitution. However, I understand the document, you, and your president, do not.

Argument over.

Won.

Done.

Don't bother to respond further.
 
It was the UN that gave us the authority in 1990, it was the UN that authorized the cease fire in 1991, and as I've already proven, no UN Resolution since then has granted unilateral military action to invade/occupy iraq.

I'm not sure what the hurdle is here...I've quote the relevent parts of the Constitution, the UN Charter, a few legal experts, so maybe we could address those?

The U.N. gave the U.S. authorization to act if the cease fire was breached. It was numerous times by Iraq in the no-fly zones.

Again, the U.S. had the right to act and attack, however, I don't think it should have.

The reality of the situation is not that the U.s. didn't have the right to act, the problem is the U.S. chose to.

There was nothing illegal in the Iraq war, but just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is right which is the stance I take.
 
Argument over.

Won.

Done.

Don't bother to respond further.

Why, because you are arrogant and refuse to see what others are saying... some reason to believe you can dictate the path of a discussion. /s :roll:
 
Why, because you are arrogant and refuse to see what others are saying... some reason to believe you can dictate the path of a discussion. /s :roll:

I'm not dictating the path of any discussion.

I announced that one particular discussion was over as far as I'm concerned. Since the discussion in question involved my participation, that discussion is in fact over, and any further discussion on that particular topic will involve some other participants, and not myself, so it will, in fact, be a different discussion.

I did not dictate the path of the discussion.

I put a dead-end sign at the end of the path.
 
The U.N. gave the U.S. authorization to act if the cease fire was breached. It was numerous times by Iraq in the no-fly zones.

Again, the U.S. had the right to act and attack, however, I don't think it should have.

The reality of the situation is not that the U.s. didn't have the right to act, the problem is the U.S. chose to.

There was nothing illegal in the Iraq war, but just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is right which is the stance I take.



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."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2002/1108usstat.htm


Iam providing rock solid evidence proving the US was never given a blanket green light. Do you have any evidence in response?
 
You charged me as saying:


-Its impossible to read the whole contract because they are the size of metropolitan phonebooks (Marine recruiting station under attack... again)


I never said that yet you claimed I did to justify your accusations iam lying or a dumbass or something equally brilliant.

This is your statement not mine,click on the link it is your post-


http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970817-post120.html

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:





I never changed my claim. I pointed out it is not a static part of the contract.

You claimed it was not part of your contract and not only that in the same post you claimed that the military can call you back to service after your last day of service.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970450-post55.html


Stop Loss is not a part of the Contract.
It is something that can be instituted or withdrawn at anytime, which is why Second of Def Gates has recently rescinded the program. If it was "part of the contract" it would not be carte blanche. There is a part of the contract for IRR committments (inactive ready reserves) which means once your enlisted term is up and you've left the military it can call you back to active duty for up to 8 years after your last date of service.

I also never said it was "buried in a phone book sized contract.".

How are you going to claim you didn't say those things? IS someone else posting as you?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970817-post120.html

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:


Then you accuse me of assuming nobody on here has served?

Then why make up a bunch of bull **** that contracts are the size of phonebooks,that there is no stoploss in your contract?DO you have a dd 214?

Stop changing what I've said. Please.

No one is changing what you said.It is you who is changing what you said. First you claim stop loss is not part of your contract and then you claim its buried and then when it is pointed out to you that it is not you still stick to your claim it is slavery.
I pointed out those examples to show not all Vets agree with each other.

You made bogus claims support one your liberal notions that stop loss is a back door draft.




You misquote me,
No one misquoted you.

accuse me of changing claims,

You did change your claims.

.
-military contracts are a back door draft

-Its impossible to read the whole contract because they are the size of metropolitan phonebooks

-the military is making you stay longer than your enlistment

-stop loss is not part of the contract


-you can be called back to service up to 8 years of your last date of service


-Stop loss is slavery



imply iam not a Vet,
Surely a vet wouldn't imply all the bull**** you just stated. My contract wasn't the size of a metropolitan phone books and I am sure no one else's was either. If you really did serve then you should have a little packet with all your forms/contract in it or at least copies of those things in it and you can see that what you said is bull ****.



make several other false accusations then you have the audacity to claim iam dishonest? Lol


You are making dishonest claims like the ones above as well as the idiotic leftist lie that this war is illegal and then you are claiming that somehow what you said are examples of what other vets have stated. You are the one being dishonest. We can pull up your past post on this site.If I click on your user name a menue pops up and I can select "find more post by SkyCore" or I can just read this thread. So you should try very hard not to lie.



And yes, you're a flaming lib like hellpuppy and goobie. You guys are just hiding behind a Conservative mask but you all support some of the most liberal policies in action today. Don't be ashamed to be a lib! Be proud!

You tried to use McCain as some sort conservative reference to support your claim that stop loss is controversial, you are making the claim that stop loss is a back door draft(only libs do those things) and you are uttering the liberal lie that the war in Iraq is illegal(only libs do those things), who the hell are you to call anyone a liberal?
 
You charged me as saying:


-Its impossible to read the whole contract because they are the size of metropolitan phonebooks (Marine recruiting station under attack... again)


I never said that yet you claimed I did to justify your accusations iam lying or a dumbass or something equally brilliant.






I never changed my claim. I pointed out it is not a static part of the contract. I also never said it was "buried in a phone book sized contract.". Then you accuse me of assuming nobody on here has served? Lol. What joke.



http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970817-post120.html


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:


Funny I never have seen a contract for the military that big.

So lets review, your asvab score was so high that the put you in for "extra testing"

You signed a "triple phone book contract" that you didnt read.


You used a dead Iraqi's AK in the gulf war when you were bogged down for 18 hours after you ran out of ammo for your "m16's and nines"


Did I get all this right? :lol:

EPIC FAIL



And yes, you're a flaming lib like hellpuppy and goobie. You guys are just hiding behind a Conservative mask but you all support some of the most liberal policies in action today. Don't be ashamed to be a lib! Be proud!




I suspect a sock puppett here, can we get an ip check on aisle three...
 
Last edited:
This is your statement not mine,click on the link it is your post-


http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970817-post120.html

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:







You claimed it was not part of your contract and not only that in the same post you claimed that the military can call you back to service after your last day of service.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970450-post55.html


Stop Loss is not a part of the Contract.
It is something that can be instituted or withdrawn at anytime, which is why Second of Def Gates has recently rescinded the program. If it was "part of the contract" it would not be carte blanche. There is a part of the contract for IRR committments (inactive ready reserves) which means once your enlisted term is up and you've left the military it can call you back to active duty for up to 8 years after your last date of service.



How are you going to claim you didn't say those things? IS someone else posting as you?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970817-post120.html

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:




Then why make up a bunch of bull **** that contracts are the size of phonebooks,that there is no stoploss in your contract?DO you have a dd 214?



No one is changing what you said.It is you who is changing what you said. First you claim stop loss is not part of your contract and then you claim its buried and then when it is pointed out to you that it is not you still stick to your claim it is slavery.


You made bogus claims support one your liberal notions that stop loss is a back door draft.





No one misquoted you.



You did change your claims.

.
-military contracts are a back door draft

-Its impossible to read the whole contract because they are the size of metropolitan phonebooks

-the military is making you stay longer than your enlistment

-stop loss is not part of the contract


-you can be called back to service up to 8 years of your last date of service


-Stop loss is slavery




Surely a vet wouldn't imply all the bull**** you just stated. My contract wasn't the size of a metropolitan phone books and I am sure no one else's was either. If you really did serve then you should have a little packet with all your forms/contract in it or at least copies of those things in it and you can see that what you said is bull ****.






You are making dishonest claims like the ones above as well as the idiotic leftist lie that this war is illegal and then you are claiming that somehow what you said are examples of what other vets have stated. You are the one being dishonest. We can pull up your past post on this site.If I click on your user name a menue pops up and I can select "find more post by SkyCore" or I can just read this thread. So you should try very hard not to lie.





You tried to use McCain as some sort conservative reference to support your claim that stop loss is controversial, you are making the claim that stop loss is a back door draft(only libs do those things) and you are uttering the liberal lie that the war in Iraq is illegal(only libs do those things), who the hell are you to call anyone a liberal?



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.

As for the contract...for the fifth time, stop loss is not a static part of the contract. 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.


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? 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.


Then you add more lies. I never said "military contracts" are a backdoor draft. I said stop loss is a backdoor draft. 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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.


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


As for the contract...for the fifth time, stop loss is not a static part of the contract. 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.

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


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? 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.

Well if Perle admitted it! :roll:


Then you add more lies. I never said "military contracts" are a backdoor draft. I said stop loss is a backdoor draft. 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.

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 sure do complain about "lies" a lot and thats not very irie mon. :lol:
 
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057970817-post120.html


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:


Funny I never have seen a contract for the military that big.

So lets review, your asvab score was so high that the put you in for "extra testing"

You signed a "triple phone book contract" that you didnt read.


You used a dead Iraqi's AK in the gulf war when you were bogged down for 18 hours after you ran out of ammo for your "m16's and nines"


Did I get all this right? :lol:

EPIC FAIL








I suspect a sock puppett here, can we get an ip check on aisle three...



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




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! :roll:







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



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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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! :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom