SUPPORT THE TROOPS!! (bring them home)

[kal-el]

You bring the troops home now before the situation is stable you will have a blood bath in Iraq not seen in 500 years anywhere........Is that what you want?

As opposed to now?

 

[SKILMATIC]

"North Korea has one of the best, most robust bioweapons programs on earth." And they had 1.1 million tough, disciplined troops and had just put its 1.8 million reservistson alert. But Iraq needed immediate US invasion? Iraq is the central front on terrorism now, in 2005, in 2002 it was not.

Ok well letme ask you this. Would you permitt an invasion on NKorea?

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

Speaking of perspectives.....

The losses are catastrophic. Over fourteen times more Americans dead than we lost on 9/11, and almost twenty times as many as have died in Iraq since Saddam Hussein’s statue fell.

In 2004, 42,800 people died on America’s highways.

I cite this number to put some of the outrageous claims made by the Left into perspective.

I can't believe you would marginalize the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq by comparing civilian accidents to avoidable and deliberate killings!

 

[MSgt]

I can't believe you would marginalize the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq by comparing civilain accidents to deliberate killings! How twisted.

Still picking them apart to reflect what you want others to see? I'll simply state it again........

"Speaking of perspectives.....

The losses are catastrophic. Over fourteen times more Americans dead than we lost on 9/11, and almost twenty times as many as have died in Iraq since Saddam Hussein’s statue fell.

In 2004, 42,800 people died on America’s highways.

I cite this number to put some of the outrageous claims made by the Left into perspective. To listen to their rhetoric, you’d believe that our efforts in Iraq are a bloody disaster with few parallels in history. But the fact is that more Americans are going to die on our roads this Labor Day weekend than we’ve lost in the occupation of Iraq.

The truth is that, although every American Marine and soldier lost is painful, our casualties have been astonishingly low considering the magnitude of what we have done and continue to do. We liberated twenty-six million human beings from a monstrous dictator; we’re fighting the forces of terror and oppression on their home ground; and we are giving the broken world of the Middle East a chance to become whole again.

No American service member died in vain."



I love how you purposefully ignore the message of the comment. Typical.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

it seems like youre trying very hard to dodge the facts brought to you explaining why thats not the solution. please give me a detailed plan on how we could pull out of Iraq right now without having to face disasterous consequences.

Well, that's what the UN is for, isn't it?? :mrgreen:

 

[SKILMATIC]

As opposed to now?

Omg you are such an idiot. Its not a blood bath. Katrinas a blood bath.

I highly doubt that near 2000confirmed deaths is a blood bath compared to what we have done there. Now mabe 2000deaths in a church is a blood bath but not in a areathe land mass of California and a population of app. 50million. I may be wrong on the population. However the point is on the scale of the operaion compared to the loses is not a blood bath.

So you are once again wrong!!!

 

[kal-el]

Ok well letme ask you this. Would you permitt an invasion on NKorea?

No I would'nt, but I don't think it's unjustifiable. If we were to fight a war against N. Korea, it would be for a good reason, they were a threat to us- as they already acknowleged a premptive strike against the US. Iraq was not a threat, nor did it issue a threat, or attack us. So, there's no point in comparing the two.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Well, that's what the UN is for, isn't it??

You are going to rely on the UN to support our troops withdrawl? The very same org that you proclaimed was a failure?

Why dont you just put a target on all our troops backs and give all the terrorists M4A1 and tell them to have fun? You miles well do that.

 

[MSgt]

No I would'nt, but I don't think it's unjustifiable. If we were to fight a war against N. Korea, it would be for a good reason, they were a threat to us- as they already acknowleged a premptive strike against the US. Iraq was not a threat, nor did it issue a threat, or attack us. So, there's no point in comparing the two.

This is because you refuse to see the fundamental Islamic movement as a threat. Europe refused to see the spread of naziism as a threat too.

Did someone mention the UN as if they are a force to respect? Don't get me started on that. In fact I don't even want to get started on that.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

Still picking them apart to reflect what you want others to see? I'll simply state it again........

"Speaking of perspectives.....

The losses are catastrophic. Over fourteen times more Americans dead than we lost on 9/11, and almost twenty times as many as have died in Iraq since Saddam Hussein’s statue fell.

In 2004, 42,800 people died on America’s highways.

I cite this number to put some of the outrageous claims made by the Left into perspective. To listen to their rhetoric, you’d believe that our efforts in Iraq are a bloody disaster with few parallels in history. But the fact is that more Americans are going to die on our roads this Labor Day weekend than we’ve lost in the occupation of Iraq.

The truth is that, although every American Marine and soldier lost is painful, our casualties have been astonishingly low considering the magnitude of what we have done and continue to do. We liberated twenty-six million human beings from a monstrous dictator; we’re fighting the forces of terror and oppression on their home ground; and we are giving the broken world of the Middle East a chance to become whole again.

No American service member died in vain."



I love how you purposefully ignore the message of the comment. Typical.

Child, eh? Do you feel better now that you have that off of your chest?

Let me tell you again. I think it's twisted that you would cite civilian accidents to justify (and unwittingly) marginalize avoidable and deliberate war casualties. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. Sorry, to burst your bubble there Sargent!

 

[kal-el]

Omg you are such an idiot. Its not a blood bath. Katrinas a blood bath.

I highly doubt that near 2000confirmed deaths is a blood bath compared to what we have done there. Now mabe 2000deaths in a church is a blood bath but not in a areathe land mass of California and a population of app. 50million. I may be wrong on the population. However the point is on the scale of the operaion compared to the loses is not a blood bath.

So you are once again wrong!!!

Dude, we are so bogged down in Iraq it's not even funny. W has definetly decreased our security. If almost any country were to launch an attack on our soil, do we have enough military to fight? There's talk on sendingmore to their deaths over there. It's a kamikaze mission. You talk about the 2000 soliders, what about the civilians, o wait, you call it collateral damage.

 

[SKILMATIC]

No I would'nt, but I don't think it's unjustifiable. If we were to fight a war against N. Korea, it would be for a good reason, they were a threat to us- as they already acknowleged a premptive strike against the US. Iraq was not a threat, nor did it issue a threat, or attack us. So, there's no point in comparing the two.

Its a fact that you dont know what you would do. You are all over the place. So if N. Korea said (which they already have)they would use nukes against the US. You wouldnt go in an prevent such a catastrophe?

You seriosuly, and I am being very sincere here, you had better really think about what you are saying and beleive. Because if you were ever incharge of something I would really be scared.

 

[SKILMATIC]

You talk about the 2000 soliders, what about the civilians, o wait, you call it collateral damage.

No I call it no evidentiary support to make any claims. So therefore it is voided. Now if there were any confirmed civies KIA's then they certainly wouldnt be becasue we purposely killed that individual. You have no idea whats going on other than what you readon the washingtonpost. Thats a fact. Cause its all over your argument.

 

[MSgt]

Dude, we are so bogged down in Iraq it's not even funny. W has definetly decreased our security. If almost any country were to launch an attack on our soil, do we have enough military to fight? There's talk on sendingmore to their deaths over there. It's a kamikaze mission. You talk about the 2000 soliders, what about the civilians, o wait, you call it collateral damage.

I can squash that now. Hell yeah, we have enough to fight. The Division of Marines in Iraq, right now is the 2nd Marine Division (East Coast). The 1st Marine Division (West Coast) is currently state side having been relieved by the 2nd this last February. That is a whole lot of seasoned killing machines on American soil. I cannot speak for the Army, but we are currently rotating more than the soldiers. For the Navy, as long as they are not Corpsmen or pilots, they are largely not a part of this war (ground side). Their duty would be to blow anything out of the water that even attempts to enter our part of the ocean. They are very good at what they do. Our country is more than safe from any kind of invasion. Our only threat would be from terrorist cells, but there is nothing new here. We have and will always be threatened by the lone terrorist cells that could easily walk across the Mexican border. We are no more special than any other country. What makes us safer from this activity than before, is that no terrorist group would claim responsibility and no terrorist harboring nation would ever claim sponsership.

Let's forget the military. There are so many guns in America, that any foreign military wouldn't get far before neighborhood militias backed by former retired military personel couldn't take care of.

 

[MSgt]

Child, eh? Do you feel better now that you have that off of your chest?

Let me tell you again. I think it's twisted that you would cite civilian accidents to justify (and unwittingly) marginalize avoidable and deliberate war casualties. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. Sorry, to burst your bubble there Sargent!

1) It's spelled S-e-a-r-g-e-n-t and I am a Gunnery Seargent. I was a Seargent in 1999.

2) You continue to dismiss the point of the comment. Why can't you simply debate. Why do you always look to create an edge where there is none? This is why I wrote you off last week.

 

[Quid Pro Quo]

Actually, Jarhead, it's spelled Sergeant. Look below:

Sergeant ser·geant (särjnt)

Abbr. SGT or Sgt or Sgt. A noncommissioned rank in the U.S. Army or Marine Corps that is above corporal and below staff sergeant.

Any of several ranks of noncommissioned officers in the U.S. Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps: master gunnery sergeant; staff sergeant.

One who holds any of these ranks.

Goes to show the oxymoron of Military Intelligence. *prepares to do pushups*

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

1) It's spelled S-e-a-r-g-e-n-t and I am a Gunnery Seargent. I was a Seargent in 1999.

2) You continue to dismiss the point of the comment. Why can't you simply debate. Why do you always look to create an edge where there is none? This is why I wrote you off last week.

I apologize for the typo. But, I hope you aren't too offended seeing as you spelled it wrong yourself.:doh

Anywho, You still have not answered my Q: why aren't you in Iraq fighting the war you so desperately claim to promote? This goes to SKILLMATIC too. Again, not trying to make you angry. Just sincerely curious, that's all!

 

[Quid Pro Quo]

Being as I just got back from the mentioned war that we're promoting, I'll endeavor to answer.

The Travel Agents won't send us there.

You see, a unit comes down on specific orders....and they go. They do their time, they come back. Anywhere from 6 months to 18 months down the road, they can go back. Why is this? Because the military has to keep a balance of CONUS and OCONUS numbers. Also, it's hard on the soldier to endure such lengthy hardships from their family.

So, we go when our orders come down to us. Otherwise, we wait to go.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

... So, we go when our orders come down to us. Otherwise, we wait to go.

I can appreciate that. However, if you are eager to stay in the war, do you have an option to prolong your tour or take a shorter leave?

 

[MrFungus420]

Who cares about a solid link between Iraq and 9/11?


SUPPORT THE TROOPS!! (send them more ammo)

Why don't you and SKLIMATIC return to Iraq, since you love guns and ammo so much? I mean, you really do not seem all too suited for civilian life.

Ban, quote mining is an underhanded tactic. Especially when you run them together. It can be used to make people seem to say virtually anything. Please do us the courtesy of using complete quotations. If I were to use this tactic with your first post on this thread we can get:

The war in Iraq is linked to 9/11. Bush had planned enough. we should truly support our troops!!

See what can happen when you take partial quotes out of context?

 

[MSgt]

Actually, Jarhead, it's spelled Sergeant. Look below:

Sergeant ser·geant (särjnt)

Abbr. SGT or Sgt or Sgt. A noncommissioned rank in the U.S. Army or Marine Corps that is above corporal and below staff sergeant.

Any of several ranks of noncommissioned officers in the U.S. Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps: master gunnery sergeant; staff sergeant.

One who holds any of these ranks.

Goes to show the oxymoron of Military Intelligence. *prepares to do pushups*

Damn. I always spell it wrong. I even thought about it too. I don't know why that word always gives me trouble. I hadn't realized I spelled it wrong until you spelled it right. In Army, it is acceptable to refer to each other as SERGEANTS. In the Marine Corps we believe, as we get promoted, we should be called by our true ranks. What's the sense in being promoted if you aren't going to be called by your next rank?

I gave you ten pushups...no seriously, I did.

 

[MSgt]

I apologize for the typo. But, I hope you aren't too offended seeing as you spelled it wrong yourself.:doh

Anywho, You still have not answered my Q: why aren't you in Iraq fighting the war you so desperately claim to promote? This goes to SKILLMATIC too. Again, not trying to make you angry. Just sincerely curious, that's all!

I already answered this.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

Ban, quote mining is an underhanded tactic. Especially when you run them together. It can be used to make people seem to say virtually anything. Please do us the courtesy of using complete quotations. If I were to use this tactic with your first post on this thread we can get:

See what can happen when you take partial quotes out of context?

When I am talking to the specific person whom I am quoting, I feel I am free to leave whatever text in quotes that I want. Unless you can show me a rule stating that you have to quote the way you are talking about, I really can't take you too seriously.

Part of the reason why I selectively quote is so that the thread doesn't look massively redundant. The second reason I do this is to highlight the part of the argument to which I am referring. If I were to take:

Ban, quote mining is an underhanded tactic.

And respond to the statement, invariably you would understand that I am addressing this part of your argument. See? I am not using this method deceptively. It's just a simpler more efficient way to show the person what part of their writing I am addressing. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Quid Pro Quo]

:lol:

Having many a friend in the Marines, and being familiar with the ranks...I agree with you. Why be in for 18 years, make the rank of Sergeant First Class, and still get called the same thing you did a decade ago?

And to answer your question, Ban...no, you really don't have that option. You are assigned to your unit and are privvy to their orders, and the orders for such are not individual. Now, when you get back..you could always drop a 4187 and request transition to a new unit...and likewise call branch to see what units are up for deployment.

 

[MSgt]

I can appreciate that. However, if you are eager to stay in the war, do you have an option to prolong your tour or take a shorter leave?

In the Marine Corps...

There is such a thing called cross decking. It involves the crossing over from one unit to another while deployed. This entails orders from HQ and waivers. It is not routine, but in a war, it is unlikely. In a situation like Iraq where combat is likely, Marines, Navy Corpsmen, and soldiers are eager to come home and get the hell out of there. (No need to push fate.) Aside from personal safeties and feelings of loneliness and isolations from ones family, the military has to weigh the value of bringing back veterans to train soldiers and Marines heading over. They also do not need a force of burnt out warriors on their hands.