# Marines leaving Iraq!!!!!



## PatekPhilippe

Marines...proud...heads high...will leave Iraq knowing their duty was done to the best of their ability.  They kicked ass, took names and served with honor.

Marines end role in Iraq; Biden visits - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com










oh...and Murtha dishonored the Corps and himself with his attacks on fellow Marines that turned out to be a load of horseshit.


----------



## xotoxi

Thanks Marines!  Welcome Home!


----------



## CurveLight

The Marines, and all Soldiers who served deserve much better than America.  They are way too good for us.  We allowed them to be used for Colonialism instead of what they signed up for.  The height of our selfishness can be seen in the great divide between the pro war crowd and pro American crowd in that the two groups couldn't even work together to ensure our Troops received the best healthcare available.  Too many sit on their ass and whine instead of actually doing something and that is in all camps.

For the amateur heart string pullers, let me point out that no, our Troops did not Sacrifice their lives and limbs in Iraq in Defense of the US.  Their Service has been exploited by certain Policymakers, but that can never take away from the honorable Service our Troops have given.  I even recommend all Soldiers get out of the military until they get a nation of Citizens that cares just 5 percent as much about them as all US Troops care about America.  We don't deserve them.


----------



## rightwinger

Thanks USMC

Job well done!


----------



## Tom Clancy

> Marines Never Die -- They Just Go To Hell And Re-Group.



God Bless the Marine Corps! 

OORAH!

Now off to Afghan, Stay Safe.




> US Marines are the most peculiar breed of human beings I have ever witnessed. They treat service as if it was some kind of cult, plastering their emblem on almost everything they own, making themselves look like insane fanatics with haircuts to ungentlemanly lengths, worshipping their Commandant almost as if he was a god, and making wierd animal noises like a gang of savages. They'll fight like rabid dogs at the drop of a hat just for the sake of a little action, and are the cockiest sons of bitches I have ever known. Most have the foulest mouths and drink well beyond man's normal limits, but their high spirits and sense of brotherhood set them apart and, generally speaking, the United States Marines I've come in contact with are the most professional soldiers and the finest men and women I have ever had the pleasure to meet... - spoken by a British writer.


----------



## AmericasBrave58

PatekPhilippe said:


> Marines...proud...heads high...will leave Iraq knowing their duty was done to the best of their ability.  They kicked ass, took names and served with honor.
> 
> Marines end role in Iraq; Biden visits - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh...and Murtha dishonored the Corps and himself with his attacks on fellow Marines that turned out to be a load of horseshit.



 Thank the good lord they are leaving that Hell Hole!!!


----------



## SFC Ollie

I can only hope that they don't have to return.

Welcome home.


----------



## AmericasBrave58

SFC Ollie said:


> I can only hope that they don't have to return.
> 
> Welcome home.




 You to HUH?. I pray for our Armed Forces every day, and wish that this whole Middle East crisis, was over. I love and respect them all and i am proud as peach.!!!


----------



## Samson

*SEVEN YEARS?????*

The Marines didn't need to be deployed more than ONE year to IRAQ....WTF has the Army been doing?

BTW: If any of you read books, try *[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Joker-One-Platoons-Leadership-Brotherhood/dp/1400067731/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264301735&sr=1-1"]Joker One: A Marine Platoon's Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood[/ame] * by Donovan Campbell.


----------



## CurveLight

We are still keeping the occupation in place.  This rings the bell of the empty rhetoric on "Iraq had elections!"  I'm glad as hell some troops are leaving iraq but this is nothing to celebrate.  We have not accomplished anything in iraq and have only given legitimate reasons to attack the US.


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> We are still keeping the occupation in place.  This rings the bell of the empty rhetoric on "Iraq had elections!"  I'm glad as hell some troops are leaving iraq but this is nothing to celebrate.  We have not accomplished anything in iraq and have only given legitimate reasons to attack the US.



Good Example, Ding-Dong;

Speaking of "ringing the bell of empty rhetoric."


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are still keeping the occupation in place.  This rings the bell of the empty rhetoric on "Iraq had elections!"  I'm glad as hell some troops are leaving iraq but this is nothing to celebrate.  We have not accomplished anything in iraq and have only given legitimate reasons to attack the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Example, Ding-Dong;
> 
> Speaking of "ringing the bell of empty rhetoric."
Click to expand...



Empty rhetoric?  We fucking invaded a nation that never attacked us and have caused countless innocent deaths with our occupation.  Who the hell is silly enough to believe there won't be a price to pay for all the bloodshed?  Know what is truly sick?  When we get attacked your camp will sing the we-are-innocent song instead of being mature and honest by admitting we aren't innocent.  Just like that guy said years ago......9/11 was our chickens coming home to roost.  


Could anyone explain why we sent our troops to die (supposedly) to fight islamic extremists only to use their Sacrifices to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are still keeping the occupation in place.  This rings the bell of the empty rhetoric on "Iraq had elections!"  I'm glad as hell some troops are leaving iraq but this is nothing to celebrate.  We have not accomplished anything in iraq and have only given legitimate reasons to attack the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Example, Ding-Dong;
> 
> Speaking of "ringing the bell of empty rhetoric."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Empty rhetoric?  We fucking invaded a nation that never attacked us and have caused countless innocent deaths with our occupation.  Who the hell is silly enough to believe there won't be a price to pay for all the bloodshed?  Know what is truly sick?  When we get attacked your camp will sing the we-are-innocent song instead of being mature and honest by admitting we aren't innocent.  Just like that guy said years ago......9/11 was our chickens coming home to roost.
> 
> 
> Could anyone explain why we sent our troops to die (supposedly) to fight islamic extremists only to use their Sacrifices to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?
Click to expand...


I suppose that posting topically would be just to difficult a mental task, so rather, reheat, reserve, and rehash the same crap you're been posting in 1000 other threads.

Although, Now I'm only curious to see which moron will swallow the bait.


----------



## WillowTree

CurveLight said:


> The Marines, and all Soldiers who served deserve much better than America.  They are way too good for us.  We allowed them to be used for Colonialism instead of what they signed up for.  The height of our selfishness can be seen in the great divide between the pro war crowd and pro American crowd in that the two groups couldn't even work together to ensure our Troops received the best healthcare available.  Too many sit on their ass and whine instead of actually doing something and that is in all camps.
> 
> For the amateur heart string pullers, let me point out that no, our Troops did not Sacrifice their lives and limbs in Iraq in Defense of the US.  Their Service has been exploited by certain Policymakers, but that can never take away from the honorable Service our Troops have given.  I even recommend all Soldiers get out of the military until they get a nation of Citizens that cares just 5 percent as much about them as all US Troops care about America.  We don't deserve them.



I think a nice big FUck You is in Order.. When you denigrate America you speak for your own stupid self.. You don't speak for We The People so fuck you..


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are still keeping the occupation in place.  This rings the bell of the empty rhetoric on "Iraq had elections!"  I'm glad as hell some troops are leaving iraq but this is nothing to celebrate.  We have not accomplished anything in iraq and have only given legitimate reasons to attack the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Example, Ding-Dong;
> 
> Speaking of "ringing the bell of empty rhetoric."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Empty rhetoric?  We fucking invaded a nation that never attacked us and have caused countless innocent deaths with our occupation.  Who the hell is silly enough to believe there won't be a price to pay for all the bloodshed?  Know what is truly sick?  When we get attacked your camp will sing the we-are-innocent song instead of being mature and honest by admitting we aren't innocent.  Just like that guy said years ago......9/11 was our chickens coming home to roost.
> 
> 
> Could anyone explain why we sent our troops to die (supposedly) to fight islamic extremists only to use their Sacrifices to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?
Click to expand...


Dude...go find another thread to shit in you fucking scum.....this thread is to thank our Marines, not listen to your incessant whining.  Take your political crap to another thread and LEAVE THE MARINES OUT OF IT!!  Got that skippy?

You deserve mucho neg rep for your disrespect to our Marines.


----------



## CurveLight

WillowTree said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Marines, and all Soldiers who served deserve much better than America.  They are way too good for us.  We allowed them to be used for Colonialism instead of what they signed up for.  The height of our selfishness can be seen in the great divide between the pro war crowd and pro American crowd in that the two groups couldn't even work together to ensure our Troops received the best healthcare available.  Too many sit on their ass and whine instead of actually doing something and that is in all camps.
> 
> For the amateur heart string pullers, let me point out that no, our Troops did not Sacrifice their lives and limbs in Iraq in Defense of the US.  Their Service has been exploited by certain Policymakers, but that can never take away from the honorable Service our Troops have given.  I even recommend all Soldiers get out of the military until they get a nation of Citizens that cares just 5 percent as much about them as all US Troops care about America.  We don't deserve them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think a nice big FUck You is in Order.. When you denigrate America you speak for your own stupid self.. You don't speak for We The People so fuck you..
Click to expand...



If you can't handle my posts put me on ignore.  You wouldn't be the first who lacks what it takes.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Example, Ding-Dong;
> 
> Speaking of "ringing the bell of empty rhetoric."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empty rhetoric?  We fucking invaded a nation that never attacked us and have caused countless innocent deaths with our occupation.  Who the hell is silly enough to believe there won't be a price to pay for all the bloodshed?  Know what is truly sick?  When we get attacked your camp will sing the we-are-innocent song instead of being mature and honest by admitting we aren't innocent.  Just like that guy said years ago......9/11 was our chickens coming home to roost.
> 
> 
> Could anyone explain why we sent our troops to die (supposedly) to fight islamic extremists only to use their Sacrifices to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude...go find another thread to shit in you fucking scum.....this thread is to thank our Marines, not listen to your incessant whining.  Take your political crap to another thread and LEAVE THE MARINES OUT OF IT!!  Got that skippy?
> 
> You deserve mucho neg rep for your disrespect to our Marines.
Click to expand...



People like you cheer our Military being sent to Sacrifice their lives when it is not necessary nor justified but have the stupidity to accuse those who do have the balls to speak the truth as being "disrespectful."  Grow up because your little heart string game is burned to shit.  

I have little hope anyone will address why our Troops were sent to set up an Islamic Theocracy because the majority of the pro war crowd does not have the ability to be honest.  That is why they constantly try to exploit the troops to try and silence everyone who disagrees with them.  Newsflash:  you can't make our Troops the same as Policy.

If any of you can't handle what I have to say then put me on ignore because you're little whinefests accomplish nothing.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Empty rhetoric?  We fucking invaded a nation that never attacked us and have caused countless innocent deaths with our occupation.  Who the hell is silly enough to believe there won't be a price to pay for all the bloodshed?  Know what is truly sick?  When we get attacked your camp will sing the we-are-innocent song instead of being mature and honest by admitting we aren't innocent.  Just like that guy said years ago......9/11 was our chickens coming home to roost.
> 
> 
> Could anyone explain why we sent our troops to die (supposedly) to fight islamic extremists only to use their Sacrifices to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...go find another thread to shit in you fucking scum.....this thread is to thank our Marines, not listen to your incessant whining.  Take your political crap to another thread and LEAVE THE MARINES OUT OF IT!!  Got that skippy?
> 
> You deserve mucho neg rep for your disrespect to our Marines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People like you cheer our Military being sent to Sacrifice their lives when it is not necessary nor justified but have the stupidity to accuse those who do have the balls to speak the truth as being "disrespectful."  Grow up because your little heart string game is burned to shit.
> 
> I have little hope anyone will address why our Troops were sent to set up an Islamic Theocracy because the majority of the pro war crowd does not have the ability to be honest.  That is why they constantly try to exploit the troops to try and silence everyone who disagrees with them.  Newsflash:  you can't make our Troops the same as Policy.
> 
> If any of you can't handle what I have to say then put me on ignore because you're little whinefests accomplish nothing.
Click to expand...


Like I said...you need to stop disrespecting our Marines and go start the CurveLight whinefest thread.....


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...go find another thread to shit in you fucking scum.....this thread is to thank our Marines, not listen to your incessant whining.  Take your political crap to another thread and LEAVE THE MARINES OUT OF IT!!  Got that skippy?
> 
> You deserve mucho neg rep for your disrespect to our Marines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like you cheer our Military being sent to Sacrifice their lives when it is not necessary nor justified but have the stupidity to accuse those who do have the balls to speak the truth as being "disrespectful."  Grow up because your little heart string game is burned to shit.
> 
> I have little hope anyone will address why our Troops were sent to set up an Islamic Theocracy because the majority of the pro war crowd does not have the ability to be honest.  That is why they constantly try to exploit the troops to try and silence everyone who disagrees with them.  Newsflash:  you can't make our Troops the same as Policy.
> 
> If any of you can't handle what I have to say then put me on ignore because you're little whinefests accomplish nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said...you need to stop disrespecting our Marines and go start the CurveLight whinefest thread.....
Click to expand...



Do you really think that childishness will work?  If anyone is disrespectful to our Military it is people like you who don't give a fuck what happens to our Troops.  You don't care where they are sent or how many die if it helps you feel safe.  You're the kind of jerk that tried to justify them being sent for bullshit policies by saying it's an all volunteer military.  Like I said, if you can't handle what I say then put me on ignore because all your crying and all your little stupid rep comments don't accomplish a fucking thing except to reveal your frustration for being called out for what you are: a sell out.


----------



## California Girl

WillowTree said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Marines, and all Soldiers who served deserve much better than America.  They are way too good for us.  We allowed them to be used for Colonialism instead of what they signed up for.  The height of our selfishness can be seen in the great divide between the pro war crowd and pro American crowd in that the two groups couldn't even work together to ensure our Troops received the best healthcare available.  Too many sit on their ass and whine instead of actually doing something and that is in all camps.
> 
> For the amateur heart string pullers, let me point out that no, our Troops did not Sacrifice their lives and limbs in Iraq in Defense of the US.  Their Service has been exploited by certain Policymakers, but that can never take away from the honorable Service our Troops have given.  I even recommend all Soldiers get out of the military until they get a nation of Citizens that cares just 5 percent as much about them as all US Troops care about America.  We don't deserve them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think a nice big FUck You is in Order.. When you denigrate America you speak for your own stupid self.. You don't speak for We The People so fuck you..
Click to expand...


Seconded.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Maybe if we all ignore him he will go away? The problem is some liberal cry babies won't ignore him.


----------



## editec

Theirs was not to question why...so they deserve our respect and thanks

Ours is to question why, however, because we are the citizens for whom they reportedly serve.

Out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan, says I.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

editec said:


> Theirs was not to question why...so they deserve our respect and thanks
> 
> Ours is to question why, however, because we are the citizens for whom they reportedly serve.
> 
> Out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan, says I.



Ya fuck those Iraqis and Afghans, just let them die and live in dictatorships, fuck em all.

Look dumb ass, whether you think we should have gone or not is irrelevant now BECAUSE we went. We now have a RESPONSIBILITY to fix those Countries as we are in them.

You wanna see the World howl at us? Abandon both Countries as is and watch as they descend into Anarchy and all those turds that whined about us BEING there will be even louder and madder at us LEAVING.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Thankyou editec...you understand what those of us who have served honorably understand...we do not question our CinC and play politics.  We do what is asked of us, we do it well and with honor.

God bless all of the members of our Armed Forces.


----------



## CurveLight

California Girl said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Marines, and all Soldiers who served deserve much better than America.  They are way too good for us.  We allowed them to be used for Colonialism instead of what they signed up for.  The height of our selfishness can be seen in the great divide between the pro war crowd and pro American crowd in that the two groups couldn't even work together to ensure our Troops received the best healthcare available.  Too many sit on their ass and whine instead of actually doing something and that is in all camps.
> 
> For the amateur heart string pullers, let me point out that no, our Troops did not Sacrifice their lives and limbs in Iraq in Defense of the US.  Their Service has been exploited by certain Policymakers, but that can never take away from the honorable Service our Troops have given.  I even recommend all Soldiers get out of the military until they get a nation of Citizens that cares just 5 percent as much about them as all US Troops care about America.  We don't deserve them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think a nice big FUck You is in Order.. When you denigrate America you speak for your own stupid self.. You don't speak for We The People so fuck you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seconded.
Click to expand...


I never claimed to speak for We the People.  The only arrogant ones doing that are those telling others to shut up.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> Thankyou editec...you understand what those of us who have served honorably understand...we do not question our CinC and play politics.  We do what is asked of us, we do it well and with honor.
> 
> God bless all of the members of our Armed Forces.



That is pure fucking bullshit.  Anyone who knows the Oath knows that.


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theirs was not to question why...so they deserve our respect and thanks
> 
> Ours is to question why, however, because we are the citizens for whom they reportedly serve.
> 
> Out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan, says I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya fuck those Iraqis and Afghans, just let them die and live in dictatorships, fuck em all.
> 
> Look dumb ass, whether you think we should have gone or not is irrelevant now BECAUSE we went. We now have a RESPONSIBILITY to fix those Countries as we are in them.
> 
> You wanna see the World howl at us? Abandon both Countries as is and watch as they descend into Anarchy and all those turds that whined about us BEING there will be even louder and madder at us LEAVING.
Click to expand...


You just accidentally confessed to being completely fucking ignorant of the situations.  But we already knew that when you claimed Blackwater was given immunity in Iraq through a Treaty with iraq.  When it was proven that was not true at all you ran and hid instead of being a man and admitting you fucked up.


----------



## CurveLight

editec said:


> Theirs was not to question why...so they deserve our respect and thanks
> 
> Ours is to question why, however, because we are the citizens for whom they reportedly serve.
> 
> Out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan, says I.



That's buying into the pro war crowd bullshit of trying to make our Troops the same thing as Policy.  Pointing our we never should have redeployed ground forces in Iraq is not disrespecting our Troops.  I'll be damned if I let a bunch of rag tag heart string pullers think they can pull that bullshit.

As for the statement of "Theirs is not to question why."  That is completely false.  It is their duty to question all orders and only follow the legal ones.  That is why Lt Watada refused to deploy to iraq and the military's only response was to let him out of the military versus putting the legality of the war on trial.


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> Maybe if we all ignore him he will go away? The problem is some liberal cry babies won't ignore him.



You are a Liberal on foreign policy and don't even fucking realize it.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankyou editec...you understand what those of us who have served honorably understand...we do not question our CinC and play politics.  We do what is asked of us, we do it well and with honor.
> 
> God bless all of the members of our Armed Forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is pure fucking bullshit.  Anyone who knows the Oath knows that.
Click to expand...


You and people who think like you are irrelevant and relegated to society's trash heap.  Voice your opinion...PLEASE...we need for all Americans to see and hear what you have to say so that you and those like you are NEVER given power.

and you wonder why you were kicked out of the service.....if in fact you ever did serve....me personally..I think you're a fake vet...until you prove me wrong...it's my opinion because YOU HAVE LIED DAY IN AND DAY OUT on this message board.  There I said it...now prove me wrong.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theirs was not to question why...so they deserve our respect and thanks
> 
> Ours is to question why, however, because we are the citizens for whom they reportedly serve.
> 
> Out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan, says I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya fuck those Iraqis and Afghans, just let them die and live in dictatorships, fuck em all.
> 
> Look dumb ass, whether you think we should have gone or not is irrelevant now BECAUSE we went. We now have a RESPONSIBILITY to fix those Countries as we are in them.
> 
> You wanna see the World howl at us? Abandon both Countries as is and watch as they descend into Anarchy and all those turds that whined about us BEING there will be even louder and madder at us LEAVING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just accidentally confessed to being completely fucking ignorant of the situations.  But we already knew that when you claimed Blackwater was given immunity in Iraq through a Treaty with iraq.  When it was proven that was not true at all you ran and hid instead of being a man and admitting you fucked up.
Click to expand...


RETARD ALERT. If Iraq had jurisdiction you dumb ass we would not be having this conversation. Your ignorance is exceeded only by that head of yours. Have trouble getting through doors I bet.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankyou editec...you understand what those of us who have served honorably understand...we do not question our CinC and play politics.  We do what is asked of us, we do it well and with honor.
> 
> God bless all of the members of our Armed Forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is pure fucking bullshit.  Anyone who knows the Oath knows that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and people who think like you are irrelevant and relegated to society's trash heap.  Voice your opinion...PLEASE...we need for all Americans to see and hear what you have to say so that you and those like you are NEVER given power.
> 
> and you wonder why you were kicked out of the service.....if in fact you ever did serve....me personally..I think you're a fake vet...until you prove me wrong...it's my opinion because YOU HAVE LIED DAY IN AND DAY OUT on this message board.  There I said it...now prove me wrong.
Click to expand...


Lol....you're too much of a pathetic individual to get upset due to accusations.  As other Vets have already pointed out you accuse people of lying about their Service every time you can't adequately discuss an issue.  You think lying and saying I got kicked out of the Service helps you in any way?  It's even funnier you think so highly of yourself you assumed I would be upset because.....you.....rotfl......YOU.....accuse me of being a fake Vet.  Even if I stapled my DD214 to your forehead nothing would change.  You would still call me names and use the rep button to drop your stupid comments.  Once again when you can't discuss the topic because you got pwned you have to try and make it strictly personal. Grow up.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is pure fucking bullshit.  Anyone who knows the Oath knows that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and people who think like you are irrelevant and relegated to society's trash heap.  Voice your opinion...PLEASE...we need for all Americans to see and hear what you have to say so that you and those like you are NEVER given power.
> 
> and you wonder why you were kicked out of the service.....if in fact you ever did serve....me personally..I think you're a fake vet...until you prove me wrong...it's my opinion because YOU HAVE LIED DAY IN AND DAY OUT on this message board.  There I said it...now prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol....you're too much of a pathetic individual to get upset due to accusations.  As other Vets have already pointed out you accuse people of lying about their Service every time you can't adequately discuss an issue.  You think lying and saying I got kicked out of the Service helps you in any way?  It's even funnier you think so highly of yourself you assumed I would be upset because.....you.....rotfl......YOU.....accuse me of being a fake Vet.  Even if I stapled my DD214 to your forehead nothing would change.  You would still call me names and use the rep button to drop your stupid comments.  Once again when you can't discuss the topic because you got pwned you have to try and make it strictly personal. Grow up.
Click to expand...


Thank you for admitting you're a fake vet.

and thank you for shitting all over this thread with your lies.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

You see everyone....???  CurveLight's modus operandi is typical of left wing retard loons.  They come in, trash a pro-military thread that thanks our Marines for their service, then pick fights with the posters who support MY position with bullshit political content that has got nothing to do with the thanks we owe our Marines.  So now everyone knows why I question his service and I stick by my original statement.  I would encourage everyone to read his trash but ignore him in their replies.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and people who think like you are irrelevant and relegated to society's trash heap.  Voice your opinion...PLEASE...we need for all Americans to see and hear what you have to say so that you and those like you are NEVER given power.
> 
> and you wonder why you were kicked out of the service.....if in fact you ever did serve....me personally..I think you're a fake vet...until you prove me wrong...it's my opinion because YOU HAVE LIED DAY IN AND DAY OUT on this message board.  There I said it...now prove me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol....you're too much of a pathetic individual to get upset due to accusations.  As other Vets have already pointed out you accuse people of lying about their Service every time you can't adequately discuss an issue.  You think lying and saying I got kicked out of the Service helps you in any way?  It's even funnier you think so highly of yourself you assumed I would be upset because.....you.....rotfl......YOU.....accuse me of being a fake Vet.  Even if I stapled my DD214 to your forehead nothing would change.  You would still call me names and use the rep button to drop your stupid comments.  Once again when you can't discuss the topic because you got pwned you have to try and make it strictly personal. Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you're a fake vet.
> 
> and thank you for shitting all over this thread with your lies.
Click to expand...



I never admitted to being a fake Vet.  You making such a clearly false claim does nothing but make you look even more pathetic.  If anyone is inflating their service around here it's people like you who constantly accuse others of lying.  You are guilty of projection on this issue but I don't care.  You aren't worth the distraction from the thread topic.


----------



## Samson

Samson said:


> I suppose that posting topically would be just to difficult a mental task, so rather, reheat, reserve, and rehash the same crap you're been posting in 1000 other threads.
> 
> Although, Now I'm only curious to see which moron will swallow the bait.





WillowTree said:


> I think a nice big FUck You is in Order.. When you denigrate America you speak for your own stupid self.. You don't speak for We The People so fuck you..





PatekPhilippe said:


> Dude...go find another thread to shit in you fucking scum.....this thread is to thank our Marines, not listen to your incessant whining.  Take your political crap to another thread and LEAVE THE MARINES OUT OF IT!!  Got that skippy?
> 
> You deserve mucho neg rep for your disrespect to our Marines.



<<<<sigh>>>>


Willow and Patek bit the bait



RetiredGySgt said:


> Maybe if we all ignore him he will go away? The problem is some liberal cry babies won't ignore him.



Maybe if we retun to the topic?!


Marines Leaving Iraq AFTER 7 YEARS.

Should Marines be deployed for 7 fucking years? As I understand their mission, the Marines are essentially lightly armed assult troops whose tactical training is not to hold ground. 

Why didn't they Army replace them 5-6 years ago?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Thanks are due for our Marines when they come home.  I hope they get a ticker-tape parade down Broadway in NYC.  God knows they deserve it.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> You see everyone....???  CurveLight's modus operandi is typical of left wing retard loons.  They come in, trash a pro-military thread that thanks our Marines for their service, then pick fights with the posters who support MY position with bullshit political content that has got nothing to do with the thanks we owe our Marines.  So now everyone knows why I question his service and I stick by my original statement.  I would encourage everyone to read his trash but ignore him in there replies.




Your problem is you want a thread to support your views on Iraq without having those views being challenged.  You are exploiting their deployment from Iraq to do nothing but try and silence others.  Your typical "left loon" garbage is more blatant dishonesty.  Many war supporters seem to be stuck in a dimension warp where they believe only those on the left are against the occupations.  They have to be dishonest to try and maintain their views.  It's quite sad.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Samson said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that posting topically would be just to difficult a mental task, so rather, reheat, reserve, and rehash the same crap you're been posting in 1000 other threads.
> 
> Although, Now I'm only curious to see which moron will swallow the bait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a nice big FUck You is in Order.. When you denigrate America you speak for your own stupid self.. You don't speak for We The People so fuck you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...go find another thread to shit in you fucking scum.....this thread is to thank our Marines, not listen to your incessant whining.  Take your political crap to another thread and LEAVE THE MARINES OUT OF IT!!  Got that skippy?
> 
> You deserve mucho neg rep for your disrespect to our Marines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> <<<<sigh>>>>
> 
> 
> Willow and Patek bit the bait
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if we all ignore him he will go away? The problem is some liberal cry babies won't ignore him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe if we retun to the topic?!
> 
> 
> Marines Leaving Iraq AFTER 7 YEARS.
> 
> Should Marines be deployed for 7 fucking years? As I understand their mission, the Marines are essentially lightly armed assult troops whose tactical training is not to hold ground.
> 
> Why didn't they Army replace them 5-6 years ago?
Click to expand...



First of all you DON'T understand what a Marine is...work that out and come back with an intelligent post.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> You see everyone....???  CurveLight's modus operandi is typical of left wing retard loons.  They come in, trash a pro-military thread that thanks our Marines for their service, then pick fights with the posters who support MY position with bullshit political content that has got nothing to do with the thanks we owe our Marines.  So now everyone knows why I question his service and I stick by my original statement.  I would encourage everyone to read his trash but ignore him in there replies.




Your problem is you want a thread to support your views on Iraq without having those views being challenged.  You are exploiting their deployment from Iraq to do nothing but try and silence others.  Your typical "left loon" garbage is more blatant dishonesty.  Many war supporters seem to be stuck in a dimension warp where they believe only those on the left are against the occupations.  They have to be dishonest to try and maintain their views.  It's quite sad.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

I encourage anyone who's interested in seeing the services we offer our vets to check this website out...and then make a donation to any of the many sites that send CARE packages to our brother's in arms.

WarriorCare.mil - We Stand Together


----------



## Samson

PatekPhilippe said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that posting topically would be just to difficult a mental task, so rather, reheat, reserve, and rehash the same crap you're been posting in 1000 other threads.
> 
> Although, Now I'm only curious to see which moron will swallow the bait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <<<<sigh>>>>
> 
> 
> Willow and Patek bit the bait
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if we all ignore him he will go away? The problem is some liberal cry babies won't ignore him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe if we retun to the topic?!
> 
> 
> Marines Leaving Iraq AFTER 7 YEARS.
> 
> Should Marines be deployed for 7 fucking years? As I understand their mission, the Marines are essentially lightly armed assult troops whose tactical training is not to hold ground.
> 
> Why didn't they Army replace them 5-6 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all you DON'T understand what a Marine is...work that out and come back with an intelligent post.
Click to expand...


YOU DO know what the Marine Corps' Mission is?

I'll try again, although you'll probably be completely happy to moronically run around in circles after the shiny objects that CurveLight throws into the thread to get your attention.



> The official mission of the Marine Corps is established in the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1952.  _*Marines are trained, organized and equipped for
> Offensive amphibious employment and as a force in readiness.*_  According to the Act, Marines stand prepared to meet mission requirements.



So, wanna have an intelligent discussion, or would you like to entertain the idiot?

What about deploying Marines to Iraq for 7 years is anything like the mission the marine corps the National Security Act of 1947 spells out?


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya fuck those Iraqis and Afghans, just let them die and live in dictatorships, fuck em all.
> 
> Look dumb ass, whether you think we should have gone or not is irrelevant now BECAUSE we went. We now have a RESPONSIBILITY to fix those Countries as we are in them.
> 
> You wanna see the World howl at us? Abandon both Countries as is and watch as they descend into Anarchy and all those turds that whined about us BEING there will be even louder and madder at us LEAVING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just accidentally confessed to being completely fucking ignorant of the situations.  But we already knew that when you claimed Blackwater was given immunity in Iraq through a Treaty with iraq.  When it was proven that was not true at all you ran and hid instead of being a man and admitting you fucked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RETARD ALERT. If Iraq had jurisdiction you dumb ass we would not be having this conversation. Your ignorance is exceeded only by that head of yours. Have trouble getting through doors I bet.
Click to expand...



This is why I have absolutely no respect for people like you.  This is at least the third different attempt to avoid your claim the immunity was given in agreement with the Iraq government.  I'm the one who taught you Iraq did not have jurisdiction after you claimed there was a SOFA agreement!  Lol.  As for your shit about Iraqis and Afghanis.....I bet you didn't give a fuck about iraqis when they were dying from Sanctions and being bombed from illegal no fly zones.  From 1991-2003 we were doing that shit and we all know you didn't give a fuck then so don't pretend you suddenly care about Iraqis now just to try and defend your LIBERAL foreign policies.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Samson said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> <<<<sigh>>>>
> 
> 
> Willow and Patek bit the bait
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if we retun to the topic?!
> 
> 
> Marines Leaving Iraq AFTER 7 YEARS.
> 
> Should Marines be deployed for 7 fucking years? As I understand their mission, the Marines are essentially lightly armed assult troops whose tactical training is not to hold ground.
> 
> Why didn't they Army replace them 5-6 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all you DON'T understand what a Marine is...work that out and come back with an intelligent post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU DO know what the Marine Corps' Mission is?
> 
> I'll try again, although you'll probably be completely happy to moronically run around in circles after the shiny objects that CurveLight throws into the thread to get your attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The official mission of the Marine Corps is established in the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1952.  _*Marines are trained, organized and equipped for
> Offensive amphibious employment and as a force in readiness.*_  According to the Act, Marines stand prepared to meet mission requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, wanna have an intelligent discussion, or would you like to entertain the idiot?
> 
> What about deploying Marines to Iraq for 7 years is anything like the mission the marine corps the National Security Act of 1947 spells out?
Click to expand...


Reading the mission statement of the Marine Corps is fine....it doesn't represent reality and the history of The Corps.  Now read some history about World War One, World War Two, Korea, Viet Nam, tell me how "lightly armed assault troops" have elite fighter-bomber squadrons, numerous helicopter squadrons, main battle tanks and enough "Alligators" to cover the entire coast of China with heavily armed Divisions of Marines with their own artillery, Commando units, etc. etc.

and if the mission is to hold ground...they hold the ground ...That was their mission.  What part of that is bamboozling you.

and what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States as it applies to the service of our Marines in Iraq??


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> <<<<sigh>>>>
> 
> 
> Willow and Patek bit the bait
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if we retun to the topic?!
> 
> 
> Marines Leaving Iraq AFTER 7 YEARS.
> 
> Should Marines be deployed for 7 fucking years? As I understand their mission, the Marines are essentially lightly armed assult troops whose tactical training is not to hold ground.
> 
> Why didn't they Army replace them 5-6 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all you DON'T understand what a Marine is...work that out and come back with an intelligent post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU DO know what the Marine Corps' Mission is?
> 
> I'll try again, although you'll probably be completely happy to moronically run around in circles after the shiny objects that CurveLight throws into the thread to get your attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The official mission of the Marine Corps is established in the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1952.  _*Marines are trained, organized and equipped for
> Offensive amphibious employment and as a &#8220;force in readiness.&#8221;*_  According to the Act, Marines stand prepared to meet mission requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, wanna have an intelligent discussion, or would you like to entertain the idiot?
> 
> What about deploying Marines to Iraq for 7 years is anything like the mission the marine corps the National Security Act of 1947 spells out?
Click to expand...



Is that why you avoid explaining why our troops were used to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?  Go ahead and derail the thread instead of discussing what they are coming home from.


----------



## Samson

PatekPhilippe said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all you DON'T understand what a Marine is...work that out and come back with an intelligent post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU DO know what the Marine Corps' Mission is?
> 
> I'll try again, although you'll probably be completely happy to moronically run around in circles after the shiny objects that CurveLight throws into the thread to get your attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The official mission of the Marine Corps is established in the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1952.  _*Marines are trained, organized and equipped for
> Offensive amphibious employment and as a force in readiness.*_  According to the Act, Marines stand prepared to meet mission requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, wanna have an intelligent discussion, or would you like to entertain the idiot?
> 
> What about deploying Marines to Iraq for 7 years is anything like the mission the marine corps the National Security Act of 1947 spells out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading the mission statement of the Marine Corps is fine....it doesn't represent reality and the history of The Corps.  Now read some history about World War One, World War Two, Korea, Viet Nam, tell me how "lightly armed assault troops" have elite fighter-bomber squadrons, numerous helicopter squadrons, main battle tanks and enough "Alligators" to cover the entire coast of China with heavily armed Divisions of Marines with their own artillery, Commando units, etc. etc.
> 
> and if the mission is to hold ground...they hold the ground ...That was their mission.  What part of that is bamboozling you.
> 
> and what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States as it applies to the service of our Marines in Iraq??
Click to expand...


You should stick to simple things like shiny objects, Patek.






You clearly are pretty ignorant when it comes to distinguishing the ARMY from the MARINES missions.

Someone with more than a couple of brain cells here should post to the topic.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Samson said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU DO know what the Marine Corps' Mission is?
> 
> I'll try again, although you'll probably be completely happy to moronically run around in circles after the shiny objects that CurveLight throws into the thread to get your attention.
> 
> 
> 
> So, wanna have an intelligent discussion, or would you like to entertain the idiot?
> 
> What about deploying Marines to Iraq for 7 years is anything like the mission the marine corps the National Security Act of 1947 spells out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading the mission statement of the Marine Corps is fine....it doesn't represent reality and the history of The Corps.  Now read some history about World War One, World War Two, Korea, Viet Nam, tell me how "lightly armed assault troops" have elite fighter-bomber squadrons, numerous helicopter squadrons, main battle tanks and enough "Alligators" to cover the entire coast of China with heavily armed Divisions of Marines with their own artillery, Commando units, etc. etc.
> 
> and if the mission is to hold ground...they hold the ground ...That was their mission.  What part of that is bamboozling you.
> 
> and what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States as it applies to the service of our Marines in Iraq??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should stick to simple things like shiny objects, Patek.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly are pretty ignorant when it comes to distinguishing the ARMY from the MARINES missions.
> 
> Someone with more than a couple of brain cells here should post to the topic.
Click to expand...


So...what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States with respect to the Marine's mission in Iraq?


----------



## Samson

PatekPhilippe said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading the mission statement of the Marine Corps is fine....it doesn't represent reality and the history of The Corps.  Now read some history about World War One, World War Two, Korea, Viet Nam, tell me how "lightly armed assault troops" have elite fighter-bomber squadrons, numerous helicopter squadrons, main battle tanks and enough "Alligators" to cover the entire coast of China with heavily armed Divisions of Marines with their own artillery, Commando units, etc. etc.
> 
> and if the mission is to hold ground...they hold the ground ...That was their mission.  What part of that is bamboozling you.
> 
> and what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States as it applies to the service of our Marines in Iraq??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should stick to simple things like shiny objects, Patek.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly are pretty ignorant when it comes to distinguishing the ARMY from the MARINES missions.
> 
> Someone with more than a couple of brain cells here should post to the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States with respect to the Marine's mission in Iraq?
Click to expand...


I can read.

Can you?


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading the mission statement of the Marine Corps is fine....it doesn't represent reality and the history of The Corps.  Now read some history about World War One, World War Two, Korea, Viet Nam, tell me how "lightly armed assault troops" have elite fighter-bomber squadrons, numerous helicopter squadrons, main battle tanks and enough "Alligators" to cover the entire coast of China with heavily armed Divisions of Marines with their own artillery, Commando units, etc. etc.
> 
> and if the mission is to hold ground...they hold the ground ...That was their mission.  What part of that is bamboozling you.
> 
> and what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States as it applies to the service of our Marines in Iraq??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should stick to simple things like shiny objects, Patek.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly are pretty ignorant when it comes to distinguishing the ARMY from the MARINES missions.
> 
> Someone with more than a couple of brain cells here should post to the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States with respect to the Marine's mission in Iraq?
Click to expand...



Probably the same thing you use to justify your accusations on others:  ARROGANCE


----------



## PatekPhilippe

All Americans should thank the Marines for their valiant service in Iraq.  The last 3000 will be on their way home soon.  Then as part of Obama's planned troop increase they will redeploy to Afghanistan TO SECURE AND HOLD VAST SWATH'S OF TERRITORY IN THAT COUNTRY and conduct combat operations AS DIRECTED BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> All Americans should thank the Marines for their valiant service in Iraq.  The last 3000 will be on their way home soon.  Then as part of Obama's planned troop increase they will redeploy to Afghanistan TO SECURE AND HOLD VAST SWATH'S OF TERRITORY IN THAT COUNTRY and conduct combat operations AS DIRECTED BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.




I thank all Soldiers for their Service but I won't applaud the policies that sent them to Iraq nor claim it is a good thing they were used to install an Islamic Theocracy.  It also doesn't matter what the POTUS orders if it is not legal.  Iraq never was.  By international law afghanistan is legal but still another bullshit policy designed for colonialism and ensuring US friendly energy contracts and the growth of illegal drugs.  We use law enforcement in the US to imprison people for the drugs cultivated under the protection of our military in afghanistan.  But hey, don't let these facts damper your bullshit Nationalism.


----------



## CurveLight

Typical Callygirl leaves her petty insults on the rep button and actually thinks she is doing something.  That's why her camp is so fucking pathetic.  The bulk of their dialogue is to call people names and do everything possible to avoid addressing facts that shows their positions are pure bullshit.


----------



## SFC Ollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> Maybe if we all ignore him he will go away? The problem is some liberal cry babies won't ignore him.



LOL, I've had him on ignore the majority of the time I've been on this board. It may be permanent this time.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Samson said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should stick to simple things like shiny objects, Patek.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly are pretty ignorant when it comes to distinguishing the ARMY from the MARINES missions.
> 
> Someone with more than a couple of brain cells here should post to the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...what qualifies you to interpret the National Security Act and the orders of the President of the United States with respect to the Marine's mission in Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can read.
> 
> Can you?
Click to expand...


Yep...but the difference between you and me is I don't pay much attention to bullshit opinions in an MSNBC article like


> The Marines' extended stay in Anbar went against the grain of the Corps' usual role as a fighting force designed to quickly seize territory and then turn it over to the Army to maintain control from fixed bases.


Their orders to deploy to Iraq in 2003 didn't read "Conduct operations IAW the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1952."  It read what their operational orders were with reference to securing and holding Anbar Province in Iraq.

Now...care to address this or will you find some more cute t-shirts in your closet and post pictures of them.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Americans should thank the Marines for their valiant service in Iraq.  The last 3000 will be on their way home soon.  Then as part of Obama's planned troop increase they will redeploy to Afghanistan TO SECURE AND HOLD VAST SWATH'S OF TERRITORY IN THAT COUNTRY and conduct combat operations AS DIRECTED BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thank all Soldiers for their Service but I won't applaud the policies that sent them to Iraq nor claim it is a good thing they were used to install an Islamic Theocracy.
Click to expand...


Then start a different thread...don't bring your code pink baggage into this one.  Now...I'll be civil if you will.


----------



## WillowTree

CurveLight said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Marines, and all Soldiers who served deserve much better than America.  They are way too good for us.  We allowed them to be used for Colonialism instead of what they signed up for.  The height of our selfishness can be seen in the great divide between the pro war crowd and pro American crowd in that the two groups couldn't even work together to ensure our Troops received the best healthcare available.  Too many sit on their ass and whine instead of actually doing something and that is in all camps.
> 
> For the amateur heart string pullers, let me point out that no, our Troops did not Sacrifice their lives and limbs in Iraq in Defense of the US.  Their Service has been exploited by certain Policymakers, but that can never take away from the honorable Service our Troops have given.  I even recommend all Soldiers get out of the military until they get a nation of Citizens that cares just 5 percent as much about them as all US Troops care about America.  We don't deserve them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think a nice big FUck You is in Order.. When you denigrate America you speak for your own stupid self.. You don't speak for We The People so fuck you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't handle my posts put me on ignore.  You wouldn't be the first who lacks what it takes.
Click to expand...


Sucks to be you.l You don't get to tell me to put you on ignore. I do get to give you a big "Fuck You" when you deserve it.. Yep.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Americans should thank the Marines for their valiant service in Iraq.  The last 3000 will be on their way home soon.  Then as part of Obama's planned troop increase they will redeploy to Afghanistan TO SECURE AND HOLD VAST SWATH'S OF TERRITORY IN THAT COUNTRY and conduct combat operations AS DIRECTED BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thank all Soldiers for their Service but I won't applaud the policies that sent them to Iraq nor claim it is a good thing they were used to install an Islamic Theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then start a different thread...don't bring your code pink baggage into this one.  Now...I'll be civil if you will.
Click to expand...



Lol?  Civil?  You accuse a Combat Vet of lying about his Service then you demand others be civil?  Hahaha....

It's even worse when you keep referencing shit like code pink.  Is this intellectual dishonesty all you have to offer?  What do you say to those who have returned from Iraq and are against the occupation?  Do you accuse them of lying and spouting code pink?  You represent the worst of the Nationalistic hypocrites.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> You represent the worst of the Nationalistic hypocrites.



Ditto.


----------



## CurveLight

WillowTree said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a nice big FUck You is in Order.. When you denigrate America you speak for your own stupid self.. You don't speak for We The People so fuck you..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't handle my posts put me on ignore.  You wouldn't be the first who lacks what it takes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sucks to be you.l You don't get to tell me to put you on ignore. I do get to give you a big "Fuck You" when you deserve it.. Yep.
Click to expand...



I didn't tell you to put me on ignore.  I said IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE MY POSTS then put me on ignore.  Like Ollie did.  I pwned him so much all he could do is put me on ignore only to whine about me every chance he gets.  Now, can you respond to my posts or are you stuck in pate mode?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Yeah...your a real tough internet keyboard commando aren't you...always "pwning" someone....I bet your head must be pretty big right bitch?


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You represent the worst of the Nationalistic hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto.
Click to expand...


Thank you for continuing to prove your dishonesty.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> Thank you for continuing to prove your dishonesty.



Ditto.


----------



## Douger

That'll kick up the unemployment rolls a bit !


----------



## Gunny

CurveLight said:


> The Marines, and all Soldiers who served deserve much better than America.  They are way too good for us.  We allowed them to be used for Colonialism instead of what they signed up for.  The height of our selfishness can be seen in the great divide between the pro war crowd and pro American crowd in that the two groups couldn't even work together to ensure our Troops received the best healthcare available.  Too many sit on their ass and whine instead of actually doing something and that is in all camps.
> 
> For the amateur heart string pullers, let me point out that no, our Troops did not Sacrifice their lives and limbs in Iraq in Defense of the US.  Their Service has been exploited by certain Policymakers, but that can never take away from the honorable Service our Troops have given.  I even recommend all Soldiers get out of the military until they get a nation of Citizens that cares just 5 percent as much about them as all US Troops care about America.  We don't deserve them.


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> *SEVEN YEARS?????*
> 
> The Marines didn't need to be deployed more than ONE year to IRAQ....WTF has the Army been doing?
> 
> BTW: If any of you read books, try *Joker One: A Marine Platoon's Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood * by Donovan Campbell.



The Army was playing backgammon the whole time. 

They weren't patrolling, taking a bulk of the casualties, and involuntarily mobilizing reservists because they were short handed or anything like that.  

The Marines had an extended presence in Korea and Viet Nam too.  They have had an extended presence in Afghanistan.  They are an expeditionary force first, but they are always prepared to stay longer.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are still keeping the occupation in place.  This rings the bell of the empty rhetoric on "Iraq had elections!"  I'm glad as hell some troops are leaving iraq but this is nothing to celebrate.  We have not accomplished anything in iraq and have only given legitimate reasons to attack the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Example, Ding-Dong;
> 
> Speaking of "ringing the bell of empty rhetoric."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Empty rhetoric?  We fucking invaded a nation that never attacked us and have caused countless innocent deaths with our occupation.  Who the hell is silly enough to believe there won't be a price to pay for all the bloodshed?  Know what is truly sick?  When we get attacked your camp will sing the we-are-innocent song instead of being mature and honest by admitting we aren't innocent.  Just like that guy said years ago......9/11 was our chickens coming home to roost.
> 
> 
> Could anyone explain why we sent our troops to die (supposedly) to fight islamic extremists only to use their Sacrifices to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?
Click to expand...


I agree with that.  We've sowed the seeds for future radicalism out of Iraq.  

It was a poor policy move from the onset.  That doesn't make it the fault of the soldiers and marines, of course.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for continuing to prove your dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto.
Click to expand...


I haven't been dishonest about anything. You, otoh, resort to childish games every time you can't address an issue.  So tell us oh great supporter of our troops, what do you say to those who have returned and are against the occupation?  What do you say to those who have lost their arms, legs, ears, eyes, and other parts?  Do you also accuse them of lying? Do you call them code pink?  No.  We all know the answer.  You don't say a fucking word.


----------



## Samson

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> *SEVEN YEARS?????*
> 
> The Marines didn't need to be deployed more than ONE year to IRAQ....WTF has the Army been doing?
> 
> BTW: If any of you read books, try *Joker One: A Marine Platoon's Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood * by Donovan Campbell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Army was playing backgammon the whole time.
> 
> They weren't patrolling, taking a bulk of the casualties, and involuntarily mobilizing reservists because they were short handed or anything like that.
> 
> The Marines had an extended presence in Korea and Viet Nam too.  They are an expeditionary force first, but they are always prepared to stay longer.
Click to expand...


I don't argue that the Marines were also mis-deployed to Korea, or Vietnam (although, at least these theatres had coastlines to make their "extended presence justifiable). Nor should they not be prepared to stay "longer"....BUT 7 fucking YEARS longer???

My questions are:

Why are the Marines doing the Army's job?

Are the Marines Equipped to do the Army's Job?

If the Marine Corps is going to do the Army's job, then why seperate the services?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

The Marines are NOT doing the Army's job.  They are following the orders of the CinC.
Yes.  The Marines are equipped with the tools and weapons to complete their mission.
The Marine Corps is acting on orders from the Commander in Chief....just as the Army does.  Neither Service does the other's job.  They both have specific mission parameters as related to Iraq.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Example, Ding-Dong;
> 
> Speaking of "ringing the bell of empty rhetoric."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empty rhetoric?  We fucking invaded a nation that never attacked us and have caused countless innocent deaths with our occupation.  Who the hell is silly enough to believe there won't be a price to pay for all the bloodshed?  Know what is truly sick?  When we get attacked your camp will sing the we-are-innocent song instead of being mature and honest by admitting we aren't innocent.  Just like that guy said years ago......9/11 was our chickens coming home to roost.
> 
> 
> Could anyone explain why we sent our troops to die (supposedly) to fight islamic extremists only to use their Sacrifices to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with that.  We've sowed the seeds for future radicalism out of Iraq.
> 
> It was a poor policy move from the onset.  That doesn't make it the fault of the soldiers and marines, of course.
Click to expand...


No the soldiers are not to blame but the higher ranks, at least some of them, are to blame for following illegal orders.  I've seen some admit they failed to keep their Oath by allowing the occupation to continue.   For the past 7 years the pro war crowd has eternally tried to make our Soldiers=Policy and it is for one clear purpose:  to accuse war critics of hating our Troops.  It's a childish propaganda tool and in many ways it worked and it is still working in some circles.

I guarantee most war supporters either do not know we established a Theocracy or what it means for the region.  When Britain tried this a hundred years ago they utterly failed.  Some of their Generals told Iraqis they were there to "Liberate" them.  Sound familiar?  I'm also guessing most don't know it was the West that created Iraq and Kuwait.


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> *SEVEN YEARS?????*
> 
> The Marines didn't need to be deployed more than ONE year to IRAQ....WTF has the Army been doing?
> 
> BTW: If any of you read books, try *Joker One: A Marine Platoon's Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood * by Donovan Campbell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Army was playing backgammon the whole time.
> 
> They weren't patrolling, taking a bulk of the casualties, and involuntarily mobilizing reservists because they were short handed or anything like that.
> 
> The Marines had an extended presence in Korea and Viet Nam too.  They are an expeditionary force first, but they are always prepared to stay longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't argue that the Marines were also mis-deployed to Korea, or Vietnam (although, at least these theatres had coastlines to make their "extended presence justifiable). Nor should they not be prepared to stay "longer"....BUT 7 fucking YEARS longer???
> 
> My questions are:
> 
> Why are the Marines doing the Army's job?
> 
> Are the Marines Equipped to do the Army's Job?
> 
> If the Marine Corps is going to do the Army's job, then why seperate the services?
Click to expand...


Look amigo, infantry is infantry, and when you need infantry badly the branch of service doesn't really matter.  All of this might make some sense if the Army AND Marines weren't maxed out and having to recall people as it is.  I doubt the Marine Corps would be happy sitting at home while the Army was doing the fighting.  It's not really the National Guard's job to fight outside of the nation's borders, but they got sent too.  

So to answer your question:

1.)  The Marines aren't doing the *Army's job*.  They are pulling part of the DOD's total load.  

2.)   No.  The Marines are perpetually under-equipped.  That's not the Army's fault.  It's the Navy.  If you want to bemoan injustices meted out to the Marine Corps, bemoan the fact that they only get $.03 of every Navy dollar and end up doing 90% of the work.  The Army has absolutely nothing to do with the Marine's logistical needs.  

3.)  Historical reasons.  The Marines would be better funded and have access to more training opportunities if they were put under the Department of the Army.  That's never going to happen simply for tradition.

I don't see any plausible alternative that you are offering.  What would you have the Army do?  Permanently deploy every unit for seven years so that we don't screw up some mandate from 1947?

Guess what?  The President is Commander In Chief and pretty much has a trump card when it comes to dispersal of his forces.

I am glad we had the 3rd Marines to our north in Afghanistan.  

A.)  Their Helo pilots have big ones and will fly support in any weather.
B.)  My Battalion's AO was the size of Vermont (literally).  I suppose we could have tried to cover twice that area while the 3rd Marines sat in K-bay, but it wouldn't have ended up well.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> at least these theatres had coastlines to make their "extended presence justifiable



Iraq has 58 kilometers of coastline.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Empty rhetoric?  We fucking invaded a nation that never attacked us and have caused countless innocent deaths with our occupation.  Who the hell is silly enough to believe there won't be a price to pay for all the bloodshed?  Know what is truly sick?  When we get attacked your camp will sing the we-are-innocent song instead of being mature and honest by admitting we aren't innocent.  Just like that guy said years ago......9/11 was our chickens coming home to roost.
> 
> 
> Could anyone explain why we sent our troops to die (supposedly) to fight islamic extremists only to use their Sacrifices to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that.  We've sowed the seeds for future radicalism out of Iraq.
> 
> It was a poor policy move from the onset.  That doesn't make it the fault of the soldiers and marines, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the soldiers are not to blame but the higher ranks, at least some of them, are to blame for following illegal orders.  I've seen some admit they failed to keep their Oath by allowing the occupation to continue.   For the past 7 years the pro war crowd has eternally tried to make our Soldiers=Policy and it is for one clear purpose:  to accuse war critics of hating our Troops.  It's a childish propaganda tool and in many ways it worked and it is still working in some circles.
> 
> I guarantee most war supporters either do not know we established a Theocracy or what it means for the region.  When Britain tried this a hundred years ago they utterly failed.  Some of their Generals told Iraqis they were there to "Liberate" them.  Sound familiar?  I'm also guessing most don't know it was the West that created Iraq and Kuwait.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree.  When the best end state for Iraq is a pseudo-democracy like Saudi Arabia, then the outlook is pretty bleak.  

I am glad we are getting out of there.


----------



## Gunny

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for continuing to prove your dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't been dishonest about anything. You, otoh, resort to childish games every time you can't address an issue.  So tell us oh great supporter of our troops, what do you say to those who have returned and are against the occupation?  What do you say to those who have lost their arms, legs, ears, eyes, and other parts?  Do you also accuse them of lying? Do you call them code pink?  No.  We all know the answer.  You don't say a fucking word.
Click to expand...


You certainly to post anything worth bragging about.  Nothing new, original nor even noteworthy about your rhetoric, parrot.


----------



## CurveLight

Gunny said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been dishonest about anything. You, otoh, resort to childish games every time you can't address an issue.  So tell us oh great supporter of our troops, what do you say to those who have returned and are against the occupation?  What do you say to those who have lost their arms, legs, ears, eyes, and other parts?  Do you also accuse them of lying? Do you call them code pink?  No.  We all know the answer.  You don't say a fucking word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly to post anything worth bragging about.  Nothing new, original nor even noteworthy about your rhetoric, parrot.
Click to expand...


Never said I do post anything to brag about so what is your point?


----------



## Samson

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Army was playing backgammon the whole time.
> 
> They weren't patrolling, taking a bulk of the casualties, and involuntarily mobilizing reservists because they were short handed or anything like that.
> 
> The Marines had an extended presence in Korea and Viet Nam too.  They are an expeditionary force first, but they are always prepared to stay longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't argue that the Marines were also mis-deployed to Korea, or Vietnam (although, at least these theatres had coastlines to make their "extended presence justifiable). Nor should they not be prepared to stay "longer"....BUT 7 fucking YEARS longer???
> 
> My questions are:
> 
> Why are the Marines doing the Army's job?
> 
> Are the Marines Equipped to do the Army's Job?
> 
> If the Marine Corps is going to do the Army's job, then why seperate the services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look amigo, infantry is infantry, and when you need infantry badly the branch of service doesn't really matter.  All of this might make some sense if the Army AND Marines weren't maxed out and having to recall people as it is.  I doubt the Marine Corps would be happy sitting at home while the Army was doing the fighting.  It's not really the National Guard's job to fight outside of the nation's borders, but they got sent too.
> 
> So to answer your question:
> 
> 1.)  The Marines aren't doing the Army's job.  They are doing pulling part of the DOD's total load.
> 
> 2.)   No.  The Marines are perpetually under-equipped.  That's not the Army's fault.  It's the Navy.  If you want to bemoan injustices meted out to the Marine Corps, bemoan the fact that they only get $.03 of every Navy dollar and end up doing 90% of the work.  The Army has absolutely nothing to do with the Marine's logistical needs.
> 
> 3.)  Historical reasons.  The Marines would be better funded and have access to more training opportunities if they were put under the Department of the Army.  That's never going to happen simply for tradition.
Click to expand...


I disagree with anyone that says Nothing Will Ever Change, for any reason, particularly "Tradition," and particularly in the military, and particularly in the US Military.

Basically, you're answers: The Army cannot do the "job alone" justifies a larger Army, not continued support of an antiquated service that is underfunded and overutilized (Whatever the Navy's role).

The Marines should NOT be rolled into the Army, but not because they represent some historical icon, but because they represent the REAL need for an lightly armed fast reaction force that should be deployed for short-term missions. When they're hanging out for 7 years in Iraq, this military ability is jeapordised and the original mission of the Marines is made meaningless.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> When they're hanging out for 7 years in Iraq, this military ability is jeapordised and the original mission of the Marines is made meaningless.



Missions change as the needs of the Nation change.  The ability to adapt, overcome any obstacle is the Marine's greatest weapon.  One minute they are a heavily armed, overwhelming force and the next minute they are a lightly armed reaction force aka FAST.

The Army has lightly armed divisions as well.  The mission dictates the role of the Armed Forces.  A service doesn't have to adhere to a mission statement from 1947 to be an effective fighting force.


----------



## Gunny

CurveLight said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been dishonest about anything. You, otoh, resort to childish games every time you can't address an issue.  So tell us oh great supporter of our troops, what do you say to those who have returned and are against the occupation?  What do you say to those who have lost their arms, legs, ears, eyes, and other parts?  Do you also accuse them of lying? Do you call them code pink?  No.  We all know the answer.  You don't say a fucking word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly to post anything worth bragging about.  Nothing new, original nor even noteworthy about your rhetoric, parrot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said I do post anything to brag about so what is your point?
Click to expand...


That you call someone else dishonest while posting your own dishonest bullshit.  A fairly simple and obvious point.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.


Welcome Home Marines


----------



## CurveLight

Gunny said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly to post anything worth bragging about.  Nothing new, original nor even noteworthy about your rhetoric, parrot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I do post anything to brag about so what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you call someone else dishonest while posting your own dishonest bullshit.  A fairly simple and obvious point.
Click to expand...



Oh by all means, what have I posted that is dishonest?  Quote it specifically with the whole post and none of that typical editing some choose to live by.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said: "Iraq was an illegal war".... for starters.....


----------



## namvet

thank you GW Bush. you know to win. unlike this limp dick coward Osama.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said: "Iraq was an illegal war".... for starters.....



How is that dishonest?  It is illegal.


----------



## Big Black Dog

I guess the Marines (and Navy corpsmen)  must have gotten all the bad asses if they are leaving the Army in charge.


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> thank you GW Bush. you know to win. unlike this limp dick coward Osama.




We have over 35,000 dead or seriously wounded from Iraq.  What did Dubya win?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Big Black Dog said:


> I guess the Marines (and Navy corpsmen)  must have gotten all the bad asses if they are leaving the Army in charge.



Now now.

Different Uniforms.
Different missions.
Same Flag


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> I disagree with anyone that says Nothing Will Ever Change, for any reason, particularly "Tradition," and particularly in the military, and particularly in the US Military.



Tradition might not be a good answer, but it is still an answer and it's important in the military.  So what do you want to change?  What is your solution?  You've pointed the finger at the Army, as if the Army had anything to do with this.  The Army has absolutely no say over the deployment of units that belong to the Navy.  



> Basically, you're answers: The Army cannot do the "job alone" justifies a larger Army, not continued support of an antiquated service that is underfunded and overutilized (Whatever the Navy's role).



Great.  Then expand the Army.  A 5-10 year fix doesn't address the problem at hand, though.

You don't have a workable alternative.  Like I said, the Guard isn't really supposed to go abroad either, but the needs of the mission drive the use of the troops.  

Like I said, you might have a point if the Army wasn't already maxed out.  When Bush decided to fight two wars at once he automatically created a manpower problem.  Don't blame the Army for it.  



> The Marines should NOT be rolled into the Army, but not because they represent some historical icon, but because they represent the REAL need for an lightly armed fast reaction force that should be deployed for short-term missions.



That mission is not unique to the Marines.  The Army has rapid reaction forces as well.  The whole 18th Airborne Corps is rapid deployment.  The 75th Ranger Regiment is rapid deployment too.  The Marines are specialized infantry that do amphibious landings.  That doesn't exclude them from doing long term military operations.   



> When they're hanging out for 7 years in Iraq, this military ability is jeapordised and the original mission of the Marines is made meaningless.



Oh please.  Whether you agree with the war or not, if you are going to state that Iraq and Afghanistan were not the most important missions on the DOD's agenda for the past eight years, you have missed the bus.

What do you propose the Marines do in a time of war, hang out on ships and wait for amphibious landings?

The nature of warfare has changed a tad since 1947, you know.

If you are going to play armchair general, then at least come up with a workable alternative.  Further maxing out the Army while leaving the Marines out of the fight makes no sense.  It would just serve to piss the Army and Marines off.


----------



## Gunny

CurveLight said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I do post anything to brag about so what is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you call someone else dishonest while posting your own dishonest bullshit.  A fairly simple and obvious point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh by all means, what have I posted that is dishonest?  Quote it specifically with the whole post and none of that typical editing some choose to live by.
Click to expand...


Don't presume to tell me what I will and won't quote, huh?  I make the damned rules here.  You don't.



> Empty rhetoric? We fucking invaded a nation that never attacked us and have caused countless innocent deaths with our occupation. Who the hell is silly enough to believe there won't be a price to pay for all the bloodshed? Know what is truly sick? When we get attacked your camp will sing the we-are-innocent song instead of being mature and honest by admitting we aren't innocent. Just like that guy said years ago......9/11 was our chickens coming home to roost.
> 
> 
> Could anyone explain why we sent our troops to die (supposedly) to fight islamic extremists only to use their Sacrifices to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?




We invaded a nation that attacked us regularly.  Saddam fired SAAms at our aircraft all the time.  Dishonest comment on your part since the facts prove otherwise and you have obviously chosen to ignore  them.

9/11 was an unprovoked attack by an Islamic extremist organization benty on conversion or death.  There were no "chickens coming home to roost."  That's bullshit.

We didn't send our troops to Iraq to fight Islamic extremists.  We've BEEN sending our troops to Kuwait, then Iraq since 1990.  We sent our troops into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and his government from power.

The people of Iraq voted for their government.  We didn't "set it up."

That's just ONE of your BS-laden posts I just spanked all over the court.  Your entire argument is dishonest.

Now go away.  You aren't weren't the effort I spent typing a response.


----------



## CurveLight

Gunny said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you call someone else dishonest while posting your own dishonest bullshit.  A fairly simple and obvious point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh by all means, what have I posted that is dishonest?  Quote it specifically with the whole post and none of that typical editing some choose to live by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't presume to tell me what I will and won't quote, huh?  I make the damned rules here.  You don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empty rhetoric? We fucking invaded a nation that never attacked us and have caused countless innocent deaths with our occupation. Who the hell is silly enough to believe there won't be a price to pay for all the bloodshed? Know what is truly sick? When we get attacked your camp will sing the we-are-innocent song instead of being mature and honest by admitting we aren't innocent. Just like that guy said years ago......9/11 was our chickens coming home to roost.
> 
> 
> Could anyone explain why we sent our troops to die (supposedly) to fight islamic extremists only to use their Sacrifices to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We invaded a nation that attacked us regularly.  Saddam fired SAAms at our aircraft all the time.  Dishonest comment on your part since the facts prove otherwise and you have obviously chosen to ignore  them.
> 
> 9/11 was an unprovoked attack by an Islamic extremist organization benty on conversion or death.  There were no "chickens coming home to roost."  That's bullshit.
> 
> We didn't send our troops to Iraq to fight Islamic extremists.  We've BEEN sending our troops to Kuwait, then Iraq since 1990.  We sent our troops into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and his government from power.
> 
> The people of Iraq voted for their government.  We didn't "set it up."
> 
> That's just ONE of your BS-laden posts I just spanked all over the court.  Your entire argument is dishonest.
> 
> Now go away.  You aren't weren't the effort I spent typing a response.
Click to expand...


Iraq fired on our aircraft for violating Iraq's airspace.  The No Fly Zone was never part of any UN Resolution and was instituted mainly by the US after the Ceasefire agreement had already been made.  The only dishonesty here is your obvious ignorance.  Before you try speaking on an issue you should at least fake doing a little fucking homework.

9E was unprovoked?  Hmmm....who to believe.....you or a guy much more informed?  I don't give a shit what you think on this because you are a Nationalist and will always find a way to pretend the US is completely innocent.  

As for why we sent our Troops to iraq, I notice you didn't say anything about WMD. You can't even fake being honest eh?  How many times did the Bush admin announce we invaded to remove Saddam and set up a new government?  How many times did they say we went because of WMD and 9/11?

Then you say the people of iraq voted for their government?  Holy Fuck.  You truly don't have the first fucking clue about how the Shiite dominated Islamic Theocracy was set up in Iraq.  Then you finish your post by saying you spanked my arguments?  Rotfl!  You didn't even know the NFZ were not legal!  That info is about 19 years old.  What's next?  You going to announce you discovered lead paint is not healthy?


----------



## CurveLight

Oh and Gunny, it doesn't matter if you make the rules here or not.  When you accuse someone of being dishonest you should have enough self respect to back that up.  No, I would not be surprised if you banned anyone because you couldn't handle the debate.  Don't think you can intimidate me because it's your site.  Your little power trip reveals your character, or lack of it.  You probably also preach about Troops but like many others on here you only care about those who agree with your politics.


----------



## Samson

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with anyone that says Nothing Will Ever Change, for any reason, particularly "Tradition," and particularly in the military, and particularly in the US Military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tradition might not be a good answer, but it is still an answer and it's important in the military.  So what do you want to change?  What is your solution?  You've pointed the finger at the Army, as if the Army had anything to do with this.  The Army has absolutely no say over the deployment of units that belong to the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, you're answers: The Army cannot do the "job alone" justifies a larger Army, not continued support of an antiquated service that is underfunded and overutilized (Whatever the Navy's role).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great.  Then expand the Army.  A 5-10 year fix doesn't address the problem at hand, though.
> 
> You don't have a workable alternative.  Like I said, the Guard isn't really supposed to go abroad either, but the needs of the mission drive the use of the troops.
> 
> Like I said, you might have a point if the Army wasn't already maxed out.  When Bush decided to fight two wars at once he automatically created a manpower problem.  Don't blame the Army for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Marines should NOT be rolled into the Army, but not because they represent some historical icon, but because they represent the REAL need for an lightly armed fast reaction force that should be deployed for short-term missions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That mission is not unique to the Marines.  The Army has rapid reaction forces as well.  The whole 18th Airborne Corps is rapid deployment.  The 75th Ranger Regiment is rapid deployment too.  The Marines are specialized infantry that do amphibious landings.  That doesn't exclude them from doing long term military operations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they're hanging out for 7 years in Iraq, this military ability is jeapordised and the original mission of the Marines is made meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Whether you agree with the war or not, if you are going to state that Iraq and Afghanistan were not the most important missions on the DOD's agenda for the past eight years, you have missed the bus.
> 
> What do you propose the Marines do in a time of war, hang out on ships and wait for amphibious landings?
> 
> The nature of warfare has changed a tad since 1947, you know.
> 
> If you are going to play armchair general, then at least come up with a workable alternative.  Further maxing out the Army while leaving the Marines out of the fight makes no sense.  It would just serve to piss the Army and Marines off.
Click to expand...




You actually think we should base decisions regarding defense of the country on weather or not the Army or Marines are pissed off in their roles? Jaysus you don't need to be an armchair general to realise this is ridiculous!

With this level of military genius, its no wonder that the combined forces of the most modern, powerful, and expensive military ever on the face of the planet is taking almost a decade to pacify a bunch of goat-herders with 4th grade educations.

Since you asked for a "workable alternative," I guess I'll need to paint a picture for you: in time of war I expect marines to spearhead assult forces....PERIOD....this is their mission, and it is for this mission for which they should be equipped. Their mission and design has nothing to do with hanging out in a land-locked country for 7 fucking years. This is the Army's mission, and if the army isn't big enough to do it, then make it larger.

Placing the Corps in such a situation is not only foolish because it deploys assets which are not designed for the mission: it also jeapordises the nation's defense. Since you've demonstrated nothing short of extraordinarily myoptic reasoning, you probably haven't considered that we may need the Marines Corps for unforseen events.


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with anyone that says Nothing Will Ever Change, for any reason, particularly "Tradition," and particularly in the military, and particularly in the US Military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tradition might not be a good answer, but it is still an answer and it's important in the military.  So what do you want to change?  What is your solution?  You've pointed the finger at the Army, as if the Army had anything to do with this.  The Army has absolutely no say over the deployment of units that belong to the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Then expand the Army.  A 5-10 year fix doesn't address the problem at hand, though.
> 
> You don't have a workable alternative.  Like I said, the Guard isn't really supposed to go abroad either, but the needs of the mission drive the use of the troops.
> 
> Like I said, you might have a point if the Army wasn't already maxed out.  When Bush decided to fight two wars at once he automatically created a manpower problem.  Don't blame the Army for it.
> 
> 
> 
> That mission is not unique to the Marines.  The Army has rapid reaction forces as well.  The whole 18th Airborne Corps is rapid deployment.  The 75th Ranger Regiment is rapid deployment too.  The Marines are specialized infantry that do amphibious landings.  That doesn't exclude them from doing long term military operations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they're hanging out for 7 years in Iraq, this military ability is jeapordised and the original mission of the Marines is made meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Whether you agree with the war or not, if you are going to state that Iraq and Afghanistan were not the most important missions on the DOD's agenda for the past eight years, you have missed the bus.
> 
> What do you propose the Marines do in a time of war, hang out on ships and wait for amphibious landings?
> 
> The nature of warfare has changed a tad since 1947, you know.
> 
> If you are going to play armchair general, then at least come up with a workable alternative.  Further maxing out the Army while leaving the Marines out of the fight makes no sense.  It would just serve to piss the Army and Marines off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think we should base decisions regarding defense of the country on weather or not the Army or Marines are pissed off in their roles? Jaysus you don't need to be an armchair general to realise this is ridiculous!
> 
> With this level of military genius, its no wonder that the combined forces of the most modern, powerful, and expensive military ever on the face of the planet is taking almost a decade to pacify a bunch of goat-herders with 4th grade educations.
> 
> Since you asked for a "workable alternative," I guess I'll need to paint a picture for you: in time of war I expect marines to spearhead assult forces....PERIOD....this is their mission, and it is for this mission for which they should be equipped. Their mission and design has nothing to do with hanging out in a land-locked country for 7 fucking years. This is the Army's mission, and if the army isn't big enough to do it, then make it larger.
> 
> Placing the Corps in such a situation is not only foolish because it deploys assets which are not designed for the mission: it also jeapordises the nation's defense. Since you've demonstrated nothing short of extraordinarily myoptic reasoning, you probably haven't considered that we may need the Marines Corps for unforseen events.
Click to expand...


He was talking about troop morale and in case you are unaware that is an extremely fluid and high priority issue.  Also, he didn't say all defense decisions should be made based on the emotional response from troops but if you think that is not a factor then you truly have no platform to speak from.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said: "Iraq was an illegal war".... for starters.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that dishonest?  It is illegal.
Click to expand...


Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said: "Iraq was an illegal war".... for starters.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that dishonest?  It is illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.
Click to expand...



Why use a dishonest question?  I'll tell you why.  Because you know it is illegal so you create a bullshit standard that is fully hypocritical.


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> We have over 35,000 dead or seriously wounded from Iraq.  What did Dubya win?





CurveLight said:


> He was talking about troop morale and in case you are unaware that is an extremely fluid and high priority issue.  Also, he didn't say all defense decisions should be made based on the emotional response from troops but if you think that is not a factor then you truly have no platform to speak from.



The troll needs attention:

Just because you're a whiny pussy, doesn't mean Marines Corps will curl into fetal positions if they aren't allowed to remain in Iraq for 7 years, you fucking moron.

And at least try to be consistant in your idiotic opinions.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that dishonest?  It is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why use a dishonest question?  I'll tell you why.  Because you know it is illegal so you create a bullshit standard that is fully hypocritical.
Click to expand...


Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha a ha ha ha ha ha...now..back to that request....
Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have over 35,000 dead or seriously wounded from Iraq.  What did Dubya win?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was talking about troop morale and in case you are unaware that is an extremely fluid and high priority issue.  Also, he didn't say all defense decisions should be made based on the emotional response from troops but if you think that is not a factor then you truly have no platform to speak from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The troll needs attention:
> 
> Just because you're a whiny pussy, doesn't mean Marines Corps will curl into fetal positions if they aren't allowed to remain in Iraq for 7 years, you fucking moron.
> 
> And at least try to be consistant in your idiotic opinions.
Click to expand...


What does my being a pussy have to do with you taking two different posts responding to two different positions then try to conjure some type of inconsistency?  This is your camp's normal MO.  Every time you can't defend something you pretend it doesn't exist or resort to childish distractions.  Since you're so happy with the outcome in Iraq why don't you advocate the US becoming an Islamic Theocracy?


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why use a dishonest question?  I'll tell you why.  Because you know it is illegal so you create a bullshit standard that is fully hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha a ha ha ha ha ha...now..back to that request....
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.
Click to expand...



Bin laden has never been convicted of any crime in the US so are you willing to maintain your standard and say he isn't guilty of illegal actions against the US?  

Even if I could show a soldier was found not guilty or had charges dismissed for being awol because of refusing to deploy based on the claim the war is illegal you would still squirm and slither every which possible way to avoid the facts.  So on top of your hypocritical question, why are you even wasting time?  If such a case existed you would still ignore the facts, and we all know it.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> claim the war is illegal



Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
...now..back to that request....
Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> claim the war is illegal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
> ...now..back to that request....
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.
Click to expand...


You must first prove your standard is consistent.  I never said it is illegal based on a court room verdict.  That is your strawman.


----------



## CurveLight

"Lt. Cmdr Robert Klant found Pablo guilty of missing his ship's movement by design, but dismissed the charge of unauthorized absence."


"I think that the government has successfully proved that any
service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."
-- Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant, presiding at Pablo Paredes' court-martial."
The ACTivist magazine - Navy Judge Finds War Protest Reasonable


So here we have a Soldier who refused to deploy on the grounds iraq is illegal and the Judge agreed by dropping the UA charge.  So even when we have a court case I'm betting some will still try to dance and jive.  This case only happened about five years ago so I understand why many war supporters were ignorant it happened.  That camp is usually anywhere between 100 to 17,000 years behind regarding information.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said: "The war in Iraq was illegal."


> That is your strawman.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

...now..back to that request....
Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal.  SPECIFICALLY!


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said: "The war in Iraq was illegal."
> 
> 
> 
> That is your strawman.
Click to expand...



You obviously don't know the definition.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

...now..back to that request....
Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> ...now..back to that request....
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!




Already posted it.  You know what is so damn funny?  Even with your typical strawmen response I still support the claim and I have no doubt you will be utterly consistent in your inability to address facts you don't like.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

...now..back to that request....
Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> ...now..back to that request....
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!




It's clear you will continue to actively ignore the fact I posted a court verdict where a military judge agreed with a soldier who refused to deploy based on the war being illegal.  There really are no words capable of describing people like you.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

now..back to that request....
Show your irrefutable *proof*, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> now..back to that request....
> Show your irrefutable *proof*, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!




Thank you for proving you are simply and purely one of the best examples of a dishonest person.  When I go the extra mile and prove your first strawman you create another one right behind it and totally ignore the facts.  You are the worst kind of American and the blood of our Soldiers is on your hands, as well as everyone like you.  Even as you are drowning in the blood of our Soldiers I think you love it so much you use it as a sexual lubricant.  The best contribution people like you make to America is when you are no longer in existence.


----------



## sboyle24

CurveLight said:


> The Marines, and all Soldiers who served deserve much better than America.  They are way too good for us.  We allowed them to be used for Colonialism instead of what they signed up for.  The height of our selfishness can be seen in the great divide between the pro war crowd and pro American crowd in that the two groups couldn't even work together to ensure our Troops received the best healthcare available.  Too many sit on their ass and whine instead of actually doing something and that is in all camps.
> 
> For the amateur heart string pullers, let me point out that no, our Troops did not Sacrifice their lives and limbs in Iraq in Defense of the US.  Their Service has been exploited by certain Policymakers, but that can never take away from the honorable Service our Troops have given.  I even recommend all Soldiers get out of the military until they get a nation of Citizens that cares just 5 percent as much about them as all US Troops care about America.  We don't deserve them.



I can't agree more.


----------



## sboyle24

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> now..back to that request....
> Show your irrefutable *proof*, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving you are simply and purely one of the best examples of a dishonest person.  When I go the extra mile and prove your first strawman you create another one right behind it and totally ignore the facts.  You are the worst kind of American and the blood of our Soldiers is on your hands, as well as everyone like you.  Even as you are drowning in the blood of our Soldiers I think you love it so much you use it as a sexual lubricant.  The best contribution people like you make to America is when you are no longer in existence.
Click to expand...


This is a rather disturbing post lol


----------



## CurveLight

sboyle24 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> now..back to that request....
> Show your irrefutable *proof*, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving you are simply and purely one of the best examples of a dishonest person.  When I go the extra mile and prove your first strawman you create another one right behind it and totally ignore the facts.  You are the worst kind of American and the blood of our Soldiers is on your hands, as well as everyone like you.  Even as you are drowning in the blood of our Soldiers I think you love it so much you use it as a sexual lubricant.  The best contribution people like you make to America is when you are no longer in existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a rather disturbing post lol
Click to expand...



Yes.  Yes it is.  The imagery was designed as an interpretation of the contempt shown for facts and how hollow their words are when they squeal about supporting the troops.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

PatekPhilippe said:


> now..back to that request....
> Show your irrefutable *proof*, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!


----------



## PatekPhilippe

sboyle24 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> now..back to that request....
> Show your irrefutable *proof*, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving you are simply and purely one of the best examples of a dishonest person.  When I go the extra mile and prove your first strawman you create another one right behind it and totally ignore the facts.  You are the worst kind of American and the blood of our Soldiers is on your hands, as well as everyone like you.  Even as you are drowning in the blood of our Soldiers I think you love it so much you use it as a sexual lubricant.  The best contribution people like you make to America is when you are no longer in existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a rather disturbing post lol
Click to expand...


Wow...you nailed it sboyle...CurveLight is a rather disturbed person.....notice the sexual references and death threats.  These are typical progressive tactics used when they realize they have *LOST the argument*.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> sboyle24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving you are simply and purely one of the best examples of a dishonest person.  When I go the extra mile and prove your first strawman you create another one right behind it and totally ignore the facts.  You are the worst kind of American and the blood of our Soldiers is on your hands, as well as everyone like you.  Even as you are drowning in the blood of our Soldiers I think you love it so much you use it as a sexual lubricant.  The best contribution people like you make to America is when you are no longer in existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rather disturbing post lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Yes it is.  The imagery was designed as an interpretation of the contempt shown for facts and how hollow their words are when they squeal about supporting the troops.
Click to expand...


and the imagery YOU DESIGNED shows the depth of your psychosis...seek help CureLight ...or better yet have yourself committed.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> sboyle24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving you are simply and purely one of the best examples of a dishonest person.  When I go the extra mile and prove your first strawman you create another one right behind it and totally ignore the facts.  You are the worst kind of American and the blood of our Soldiers is on your hands, as well as everyone like you.  Even as you are drowning in the blood of our Soldiers I think you love it so much you use it as a sexual lubricant.  The best contribution people like you make to America is when you are no longer in existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rather disturbing post lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow...you nailed it sboyle...CurveLight is a rather disturbed person.....notice the sexual references and death threats.  These are typical progressive tactics used when they realize they have *LOST the argument*.
Click to expand...


Rotfl!  Is that why you ignored the fact a military judge agreed with a Soldier who refused to deploy on the basis the war is illegal?  Even your pro war buddies are too dishonest to address the facts.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sboyle24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rather disturbing post lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Yes it is.  The imagery was designed as an interpretation of the contempt shown for facts and how hollow their words are when they squeal about supporting the troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and the imagery YOU DESIGNED shows the depth of your psychosis...seek help CureLight ...or better yet have yourself committed.
Click to expand...


Once again when you can't address the facts you try to make it all strictly personal.  Does it make you feel better to know you prance around preaching about caring for troops while you work so hard to ignore the facts?  You don't give a shit about the Troops and you know it so stop pretending.


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> You actually think we should base decisions regarding defense of the country on weather or not the Army or Marines are pissed off in their roles? Jaysus you don't need to be an armchair general to realise this is ridiculous!



You also don't have to be a General to realize that after about 9 months of combined operations your troops are worn out and approaching mission ineffectiveness.  I saw it when I was in country.  We don't have enough troops to get the job done, and you want to leave out a whole Corps worth of soldiers simply due to some pre-Viet Nam era document that has been ignored since it's inception?  

Okay....



> With this level of military genius, its no wonder that the combined forces of the most modern, powerful, and expensive military ever on the face of the planet is taking almost a decade to pacify a bunch of goat-herders with 4th grade educations.



I am sure we would have done much better if only you had been there to help us.



> Since you asked for a "workable alternative," I guess I'll need to paint a picture for you: in time of war I expect marines to spearhead assult forces....PERIOD....this is their mission, and it is for this mission for which they should be equipped. Their mission and design has nothing to do with hanging out in a land-locked country for 7 fucking years. This is the Army's mission, and if the army isn't big enough to do it, then make it larger.



Yeah, my unit's mission was jungle warfare and light infantry.  That's why we were stationed in Hawaii.  Guess what?  We ended up in the desert as mechanized infantry.  By strict definition, airborne units' mission is to parachute into a country and be quickly be relieved by heavier infantry units.  That hasn't happened since World War II.  It actually didn't even happen in World War II.  By your logic, the SEALs shouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan either, but they are.  

Mission requirements trump most everything else.  It would be another matter if we were talking about throwing the Coast Guard into an infantry role, but we aren't.  The Marines can do long missions that aren't tied to an amphibious assault.  If we are going to limit the Marines to amphibious assaults, they'd have had little utility to the country after Inchon.  

If you want to expand the Army, then great.  That doesn't fix the problem now.  Like I said, it's not like we have this great untapped reserve of troops to pull from to meet mission.  When the Army is calling up the IRR en masse, they are at the bottom of their deck.  

Other than that, the only option is to just leave the Army there indefinitely and not rotate units out, which would be a disaster.   



> Placing the Corps in such a situation is not only foolish because it deploys assets which are not designed for the mission: it also jeapordises the nation's defense. Since you've demonstrated nothing short of extraordinarily myoptic reasoning, you probably haven't considered that we may need the Marines Corps for unforseen events.



The Marines aren't designed for Infantry Missions?  You act as if a Marine can't function away from a coastline.

As for "unforseen" events, it doesn't really matter since, by your, limitations the entire Army is in Iraq-istan and the Marines are limited to taking beachheads.  

Whose going to relieve them?  The boyscouts?


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have over 35,000 dead or seriously wounded from Iraq.  What did Dubya win?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was talking about troop morale and in case you are unaware that is an extremely fluid and high priority issue.  Also, he didn't say all defense decisions should be made based on the emotional response from troops but if you think that is not a factor then you truly have no platform to speak from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The troll needs attention:
> 
> Just because you're a whiny pussy, doesn't mean Marines Corps will curl into fetal positions if they aren't allowed to remain in Iraq for 7 years, you fucking moron.
> 
> And at least try to be consistant in your idiotic opinions.
Click to expand...


Out of curiosity, did you support going into Iraq?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

PatekPhilippe said:


> now..back to that request....
> Show your irrefutable *proof*, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> now..back to that request....
> Show your irrefutable *proof*, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!
Click to expand...



A soldier refused to deploy specifically on the claim the war is illegal.

A military judge specifically agreed and dismissed the UA charge.

The fact you keep ignoring this shows there is nothing in the world that would make you be honest.  People like you are truly nauseating because all you care about is yourself while pretending to care about the Troops.  I have no doubt you will once again ignore the facts and I have no doubt your pro war buddies will continue to ignore it as well. That's why the politics section of this board sucks.  It's filled with dishonest fucking losers.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> claim the war is illegal



I'll say it again....


> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!



Making claims is NOT PROOF.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Notice to Mods...CurveLight and drsmith1072 may be the same person.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> That's why the politics section of this board sucks. It's filled with dishonest fucking losers.


Goodbye


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hey PP how ya doin. I may not agree with the war but I will ALWAYS support our troops. I know you and others may think those are contradictory but I feel otherwise. I am PROUD of the job those marines did in an almost IMPOSSIBLE position that they were put in.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> claim the war is illegal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say it again....
> 
> 
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making claims is NOT PROOF.
Click to expand...



Already posted the military case so you continue to lie and prove to be a dishonest loser.  Then you accuse me of having a sock?  What fucking staff member is dumb enough to give you credibility?  You ignore a legal case just to throw out more childish accusations.  You truly hate our Troops.  That is the only logical explanation.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

PatekPhilippe said:


> claim the war is illegal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say it again....
> 
> 
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making claims is NOT PROOF.
Click to expand...


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> claim the war is illegal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say it again....
> 
> 
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making claims is NOT PROOF.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Already posted the military case so you continue to lie and prove to be a dishonest loser.  Then you accuse me of having a sock?  What fucking staff member is dumb enough to give you credibility?  You ignore a legal case just to throw out more childish accusations.  You truly hate our Troops.  That is the only logical explanation.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say it again....
> 
> 
> Making claims is NOT PROOF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Already posted the military case so you continue to lie and prove to be a dishonest loser.  Then you accuse me of having a sock?  What fucking staff member is dumb enough to give you credibility?  You ignore a legal case just to throw out more childish accusations.  You truly hate our Troops.  That is the only logical explanation.
Click to expand...


Goodbye


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> now..back to that request....
> Show your irrefutable *proof*, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> You are the worst kind of American and the blood of our Soldiers is on your hands, as well as everyone like you.  Even as you are drowning in the blood of our Soldiers I think you love it so much you use it as a sexual lubricant.
Click to expand...


What a pervert CurveLight is!!!


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already posted the military case so you continue to lie and prove to be a dishonest loser.  Then you accuse me of having a sock?  What fucking staff member is dumb enough to give you credibility?  You ignore a legal case just to throw out more childish accusations.  You truly hate our Troops.  That is the only logical explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goodbye
Click to expand...



Run like the pathetic fat ass coward you have proven to be time and time again.

"Lt. Cmdr Robert Klant found Pablo guilty of missing his ship's movement by design, but dismissed the charge of unauthorized absence."


"I think that the government has successfully proved that any
service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."
-- Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant, presiding at Pablo Paredes' court-martial."
The ACTivist magazine - Navy Judge Finds War Protest Reasonable


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> reasonable cause to believe



Hint for the sea lawyers and terminally stupid.

reasonable cause IS NOT IRREFUTABLE PROOF!


----------



## sboyle24




----------



## California Girl

PatekPhilippe said:


> reasonable cause to believe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hint for the sea lawyers and terminally stupid.
> 
> reasonable cause IS NOT IRREFUTABLE PROOF!
Click to expand...


True, dat.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> reasonable cause to believe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hint for the sea lawyers and terminally stupid.
> 
> reasonable cause IS NOT IRREFUTABLE PROOF!
Click to expand...


The judge found him not guilty of UA by dismissing the charge based on the decision the war is not legal.  There will never be a court case that you will satisfy you because you would always find a way to ignore the facts.  You would say it was in the wrong zip code or the prosecutor didn't wear the right shoes or the verdict was given after lunch and not before.  I'm a fucking idiot for wasting this much time on such a dishonest fat ass lazy hypocrite like you.


----------



## CurveLight

California Girl said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reasonable cause to believe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hint for the sea lawyers and terminally stupid.
> 
> reasonable cause IS NOT IRREFUTABLE PROOF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, dat.
Click to expand...


The judge agreed with the soldier for refusing to deploy because the war is illegal.  That's why none of you fucking Troop hating losers will address the facts.


----------



## sboyle24

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reasonable cause to believe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hint for the sea lawyers and terminally stupid.
> 
> reasonable cause IS NOT IRREFUTABLE PROOF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The judge found him not guilty of UA by dismissing the charge based on the decision the war is not legal.  There will never be a court case that you will satisfy you because you would always find a way to ignore the facts.  You would say it was in the wrong zip code or the prosecutor didn't wear the right shoes or the verdict was given after lunch and not before.  I'm a fucking idiot for wasting this much time on such a dishonest fat ass lazy hypocrite like you.
Click to expand...


Well, you get credit for trying lol
This is the perfect example of one of these fun smilies:
 
I haven't been paying attention to the argument a lot but ignoring facts is lame


----------



## CurveLight

sboyle24 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hint for the sea lawyers and terminally stupid.
> 
> reasonable cause IS NOT IRREFUTABLE PROOF!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The judge found him not guilty of UA by dismissing the charge based on the decision the war is not legal.  There will never be a court case that you will satisfy you because you would always find a way to ignore the facts.  You would say it was in the wrong zip code or the prosecutor didn't wear the right shoes or the verdict was given after lunch and not before.  I'm a fucking idiot for wasting this much time on such a dishonest fat ass lazy hypocrite like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you get credit for trying lol
> This is the perfect example of one of these fun smilies:
> 
> I haven't been paying attention to the argument a lot but ignoring facts is lame
Click to expand...



The funniest part is I simply claimed the war is illegal.  He creates the strawman of a court room verdict so even after I provide that evidence he creates another strawman.

Ask him if bin laden is innocent of attacking Americans.  I bet he will say no but if you demand a court case showing bin laden has been convicted he won't be able to provide any because it hasn't happened.  So his entire response has been to ignore the court martial that acquitted a Soldier of UA, strawmen, and hypocrisy.  It's all quite sad.  The funniest part is his cowardly camp will use the rep button to drop little childish one liners instead of addressing the facts.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hint for the sea lawyers and terminally stupid.
> 
> reasonable cause IS NOT IRREFUTABLE PROOF!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, dat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The judge agreed with the soldier for refusing to deploy because the war is illegal.  That's why none of you fucking Troop hating losers will address the facts.
Click to expand...


and here is the lie CurveLight attempts to perpetrate....
"The judge agreed with the soldier for refusing to deploy because the war is illegal."

and here are the facts of the case.
Judge Klant dismissed the Unauthorized Absence charge due to it being "duplicative".  For the terminally stupid here, duplicative means that Missing Movement and UA are basically the same charge.  One involves the absence from the place of duty and the other involves missing movement which means you are ABSENT from the place of duty.


----------



## California Girl

CurveLight said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hint for the sea lawyers and terminally stupid.
> 
> reasonable cause IS NOT IRREFUTABLE PROOF!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, dat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The judge agreed with the soldier for refusing to deploy because the war is illegal.  That's why none of you fucking Troop hating losers will address the facts.
Click to expand...


To save you the effort, I'm informing the board that I negged you for that remark. You have already been told about my fiancee, you nasty mouthed asshole. Anonymity doesn't not make it ok to deliberately make comments spefically to hurt another poster. Happily, your opinion means less than nothing to me. I just thought the board should be aware what a very vicious and unpleasant person you are.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> sboyle24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The judge found him not guilty of UA by dismissing the charge based on the decision the war is not legal.  There will never be a court case that you will satisfy you because you would always find a way to ignore the facts.  You would say it was in the wrong zip code or the prosecutor didn't wear the right shoes or the verdict was given after lunch and not before.  I'm a fucking idiot for wasting this much time on such a dishonest fat ass lazy hypocrite like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you get credit for trying lol
> This is the perfect example of one of these fun smilies:
> 
> I haven't been paying attention to the argument a lot but ignoring facts is lame
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The funniest part is I simply claimed the war is illegal.
Click to expand...


Hint for the terminally stupid....

Making claims is NOT PROOF

now...back to the request....
Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, dat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The judge agreed with the soldier for refusing to deploy because the war is illegal.  That's why none of you fucking Troop hating losers will address the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and here is the lie CurveLight attempts to perpetrate....
> "The judge agreed with the soldier for refusing to deploy because the war is illegal."
> 
> and here are the facts of the case.
> Judge Klant dismissed the Unauthorized Absence charge due to it being "duplicative".  For the terminally stupid here, duplicative means that Missing Movement and UA are basically the same charge.  One involves the absence from the place of duty and the other involves missing movement which means you are ABSENT from the place of duty.
Click to expand...



No, they do not mean the same thing.  Not even close.  Missing Movement is a wholly separate charge from an Unauthorized Absence.  The UA is the Navy's equivalent to the Army's AWOL.  By dismissing the UA charge the judge agreed with the Soldier's claim he had Authorized Absence because the war is illegal.  If the judge had sided with the prosecution that the war is legal he would have found the soldier guilty of an Unauthorized Absence.  Instead he found him not guilty by dismissing the UA charge.  Even when you attempt to address the facts you are still super dishonest.  Grow up.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sboyle24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you get credit for trying lol
> This is the perfect example of one of these fun smilies:
> 
> I haven't been paying attention to the argument a lot but ignoring facts is lame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The funniest part is I simply claimed the war is illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hint for the terminally stupid....
> 
> Making claims is NOT PROOF
> 
> now...back to the request....
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!
Click to expand...


----------



## CurveLight

California Girl said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, dat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The judge agreed with the soldier for refusing to deploy because the war is illegal.  That's why none of you fucking Troop hating losers will address the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To save you the effort, I'm informing the board that I negged you for that remark. You have already been told about my fiancee, you nasty mouthed asshole. Anonymity doesn't not make it ok to deliberately make comments spefically to hurt another poster. Happily, your opinion means less than nothing to me. I just thought the board should be aware what a very vicious and unpleasant person you are.
Click to expand...


I'm sure your fiancée is in Heaven looking down on you and at you for your complicit and active support of forcing other Soldiers to give their lives needlessly and he's probably thankful to be spared from a life stuck with such a selfish person like you.  Don't fucking pull the heart string game with me because I will fuck you up every time. Now whine some more because you are too fucking selfish to realize what is happening is more important than you losing your fiancée and it's fucking disgusting you Politicize his Sacrifice all the time when you can't support your views.  All the neg reps in the world can't erase the truth I have just posted.  And. You. Know. It.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

here's the next lie CurveLight attempts to perpetrate....


> Instead he found him not guilty by dismissing the UA charge



Since when is dismissing a charge a finding of not guilty by a judge.  Any lawyers here?  CurveLight must have gotten his Masters in Stupidity from Dumbfuck U.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The judge agreed with the soldier for refusing to deploy because the war is illegal.  That's why none of you fucking Troop hating losers will address the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To save you the effort, I'm informing the board that I negged you for that remark. You have already been told about my fiancee, you nasty mouthed asshole. Anonymity doesn't not make it ok to deliberately make comments spefically to hurt another poster. Happily, your opinion means less than nothing to me. I just thought the board should be aware what a very vicious and unpleasant person you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure your fiancée is in Heaven looking down on you and at you for your complicit and active support of forcing other Soldiers to give their lives needlessly and *he's probably thankful to be spared from a life stuck with such a selfish person like you*.  Don't fucking pull the heart string game with me because I will fuck you up every time. Now whine some more because you are too fucking selfish to realize what is happening is more important than you losing your fiancée and it's fucking disgusting you Politicize his Sacrifice all the time when you can't support your views.  All the neg reps in the world can't erase the truth I have just posted.  And. You. Know. It.
Click to expand...


You are one heartless bastard.  I hope you get negged out of existence for that comment.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> The judge found him not guilty of UA by dismissing the charge based on the decision the war is not legal.



No matter how many times you say it...it doesn't make it irrefutable PROOF that the war was illegal.

and please cite the judges exact words where he said he dismissed the charges because the Iraq war was illegal.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> To save you the effort, I'm informing the board that I negged you for that remark. You have already been told about my fiancee, you nasty mouthed asshole. Anonymity doesn't not make it ok to deliberately make comments spefically to hurt another poster. Happily, your opinion means less than nothing to me. I just thought the board should be aware what a very vicious and unpleasant person you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure your fiancée is in Heaven looking down on you and at you for your complicit and active support of forcing other Soldiers to give their lives needlessly and *he's probably thankful to be spared from a life stuck with such a selfish person like you*.  Don't fucking pull the heart string game with me because I will fuck you up every time. Now whine some more because you are too fucking selfish to realize what is happening is more important than you losing your fiancée and it's fucking disgusting you Politicize his Sacrifice all the time when you can't support your views.  All the neg reps in the world can't erase the truth I have just posted.  And. You. Know. It.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless bastard.  I hope you get negged out of existence for that comment.
Click to expand...



Last time I checked....I don't give a fuck who calls me heartless because one selfish person keeps bringing up a lost loved when she can't debate the issue.  There are tens and tens of thousands of people who have lost their parents friends wives siblings and other people they cared about and it has been done as a consequence of our actions. It is still happening and I'll be damned if I let one selfish person try to use her fiancee's Sacrifice as a muzzle on those who disagree.  She did when I first got here, and even then posters who had been here way before me pointed out she was doing that shit. 

Then your punk ass tells me to keep my comments more "civil?"  You regularly accuse Vets of lying simply because you don't like their politics.  And as you have proven again, you practice dishonesty on a regular basis.  You claim Missing Movement is basically the same as being UA/AWOL when they are no where near the same crime.  You made that claim to keep trying to avoid the facts.  Then you want to get technical and claim since the Judge dismissed the UA charge that isn't the same as being found not guilty?  You are an unbelievably pathetic fat fuck and if you ever come to Boston please let me know because I would love to buy you a beer so we could discuss this face to face.


----------



## California Girl

CurveLight said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The judge agreed with the soldier for refusing to deploy because the war is illegal.  That's why none of you fucking Troop hating losers will address the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To save you the effort, I'm informing the board that I negged you for that remark. You have already been told about my fiancee, you nasty mouthed asshole. Anonymity doesn't not make it ok to deliberately make comments spefically to hurt another poster. Happily, your opinion means less than nothing to me. I just thought the board should be aware what a very vicious and unpleasant person you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure your fiancée is in Heaven looking down on you and at you for your complicit and active support of forcing other Soldiers to give their lives needlessly and he's probably thankful to be spared from a life stuck with such a selfish person like you.  Don't fucking pull the heart string game with me because I will fuck you up every time. Now whine some more because you are too fucking selfish to realize what is happening is more important than you losing your fiancée and it's fucking disgusting you Politicize his Sacrifice all the time when you can't support your views.  All the neg reps in the world can't erase the truth I have just posted.  And. You. Know. It.
Click to expand...


Nah, he'd be saying 'Oooorah, my little WMD' and laughing at your cowardly ass. You can't 'fuck with me'... in order for that to happen, I would have to care about what you say. I don't. You and the truth haven't met yet. I doubt you ever will. In order to recognize truth, you have to be an honest person. You are not. You are a cowardly, anonymous poster. You mean nothing. Not to me, not to anyone here and, probably, not to many people who actually know you. 

You are a loser. Your cross to bear, I will not help you carry it.


----------



## CurveLight

California Girl said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> To save you the effort, I'm informing the board that I negged you for that remark. You have already been told about my fiancee, you nasty mouthed asshole. Anonymity doesn't not make it ok to deliberately make comments spefically to hurt another poster. Happily, your opinion means less than nothing to me. I just thought the board should be aware what a very vicious and unpleasant person you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure your fiancée is in Heaven looking down on you and at you for your complicit and active support of forcing other Soldiers to give their lives needlessly and he's probably thankful to be spared from a life stuck with such a selfish person like you.  Don't fucking pull the heart string game with me because I will fuck you up every time. Now whine some more because you are too fucking selfish to realize what is happening is more important than you losing your fiancée and it's fucking disgusting you Politicize his Sacrifice all the time when you can't support your views.  All the neg reps in the world can't erase the truth I have just posted.  And. You. Know. It.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, he'd be saying 'Oooorah, my little WMD' and laughing at your cowardly ass. You can't 'fuck with me'... in order for that to happen, I would have to care about what you say. I don't. You and the truth haven't met yet. I doubt you ever will. In order to recognize truth, you have to be an honest person. You are not. You are a cowardly, anonymous poster. You mean nothing. Not to me, not to anyone here and, probably, not to many people who actually know you.
> 
> You are a loser. Your cross to bear, I will not help you carry it.
Click to expand...



You "cared" enough to yet again totally politicize your finance's Sacrifice just to respond to me.  Think about this the next time you try to pull this shit again.


----------



## California Girl

CurveLight said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure your fiancée is in Heaven looking down on you and at you for your complicit and active support of forcing other Soldiers to give their lives needlessly and he's probably thankful to be spared from a life stuck with such a selfish person like you.  Don't fucking pull the heart string game with me because I will fuck you up every time. Now whine some more because you are too fucking selfish to realize what is happening is more important than you losing your fiancée and it's fucking disgusting you Politicize his Sacrifice all the time when you can't support your views.  All the neg reps in the world can't erase the truth I have just posted.  And. You. Know. It.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, he'd be saying 'Oooorah, my little WMD' and laughing at your cowardly ass. You can't 'fuck with me'... in order for that to happen, I would have to care about what you say. I don't. You and the truth haven't met yet. I doubt you ever will. In order to recognize truth, you have to be an honest person. You are not. You are a cowardly, anonymous poster. You mean nothing. Not to me, not to anyone here and, probably, not to many people who actually know you.
> 
> You are a loser. Your cross to bear, I will not help you carry it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You "cared" enough to yet again totally politicize your finance's Sacrifice just to respond to me.  Think about this the next time you try to pull this shit again.
Click to expand...


Your opinion does not equate to a fact. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


----------



## CurveLight

California Girl said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, he'd be saying 'Oooorah, my little WMD' and laughing at your cowardly ass. You can't 'fuck with me'... in order for that to happen, I would have to care about what you say. I don't. You and the truth haven't met yet. I doubt you ever will. In order to recognize truth, you have to be an honest person. You are not. You are a cowardly, anonymous poster. You mean nothing. Not to me, not to anyone here and, probably, not to many people who actually know you.
> 
> You are a loser. Your cross to bear, I will not help you carry it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You "cared" enough to yet again totally politicize your finance's Sacrifice just to respond to me.  Think about this the next time you try to pull this shit again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion does not equate to a fact. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...


Your pity party is over.


----------



## Samson

California Girl said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, dat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The judge agreed with the soldier for refusing to deploy because the war is illegal.  That's why none of you fucking Troop hating losers will address the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To save you the effort, I'm informing the board that I negged you for that remark. You have already been told about my fiancee, you nasty mouthed asshole. Anonymity doesn't not make it ok to deliberately make comments spefically to hurt another poster. Happily, your opinion means less than nothing to me. I just thought the board should be aware what a very vicious and unpleasant person you are.
Click to expand...


----------



## Big Black Dog

I don't actually believe that the Marines job is really done in Iraq.  I believe that Obama is pulling the Marines out simply so he can say that he's made progress there so he can have something positive to talk about in the State of the Union Message on Wednesday night.


----------



## CurveLight

Big Black Dog said:


> I don't actually believe that the Marines job is really done in Iraq.  I believe that Obama is pulling the Marines out simply so he can say that he's made progress there so he can have something positive to talk about in the State of the Union Message on Wednesday night.




I fully agree their redeployment is politically calculated but at the same time our presence in iraq is one of the foundations of the violence.  This art of politically plotting deployments has been the method from the very start.  If people will remember there was a lot of debate over how many troops should have been sent in back in 03' and if you look at two points of common sense you will realize two things:

1.  There was never any concern over WMD.

2.  The combination of the shock and awe air attack with insufficient ground troops was designed to justify a permanent military presence.  


In addition to my MOS I was also the NBC-NCO for my unit so I know decontamination from WMD is not as simple as hosing down and rolling out.  If there was any real threat of WMD we would not have placed that many troops on the ground to invade Baghdad.  If our troops got hit with Chemicals they could not have lasted very long because being in MOPP level 4 in desert temps of 110+ degrees is not a good combination.  If we had lost 4,000 troops in two weeks the first response would have been "If you knew Saddam had WMD why the hell did you put our troops in a place where he could kill so many?"  That's common sense point one.


At the end of WW2 we didn't drop the nukes on Japan's military.  Why not?  We knew the locations of high concentration troop levels so why didn't we hit them?  It's because we needed Japan's remaining military to help keep order once the surrender was complete.  Iow, we strategically planned to avoid lawlessness to make the transition as smooth as possible.  In iraq, we did the exact opposite.  Every major decision was based around one idea: chaos.  If there had been a semi-smooth transition in iraq there would have been no need to keep such large forces in place to continue a war that was optional from the word go.


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The judge agreed with the soldier for refusing to deploy because the war is illegal.  That's why none of you fucking Troop hating losers will address the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To save you the effort, I'm informing the board that I negged you for that remark. You have already been told about my fiancee, you nasty mouthed asshole. Anonymity doesn't not make it ok to deliberately make comments spefically to hurt another poster. Happily, your opinion means less than nothing to me. I just thought the board should be aware what a very vicious and unpleasant person you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Couldn't you be more creative?  Hiding behind the troll banner to avoid dialogue you are not equipped to handle is pretty moldy.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Big Black Dog said:


> I don't actually believe that the Marines job is really done in Iraq.  I believe that Obama is pulling the Marines out simply so he can say that he's made progress there so he can have something positive to talk about in the State of the Union Message on Wednesday night.



You could have something there.


----------



## geauxtohell

SFC Ollie said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't actually believe that the Marines job is really done in Iraq.  I believe that Obama is pulling the Marines out simply so he can say that he's made progress there so he can have something positive to talk about in the State of the Union Message on Wednesday night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could have something there.
Click to expand...


I thought he was "following Bush's timeline"?


----------



## SFC Ollie

geauxtohell said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't actually believe that the Marines job is really done in Iraq.  I believe that Obama is pulling the Marines out simply so he can say that he's made progress there so he can have something positive to talk about in the State of the Union Message on Wednesday night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could have something there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought he was "following Bush's timeline"?
Click to expand...


He pretty much has up until now and for all we know this is part of it. I only pray that we don't have to send any troops back.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure your fiancée is in Heaven looking down on you and at you for your complicit and active support of forcing other Soldiers to give their lives needlessly and *he's probably thankful to be spared from a life stuck with such a selfish person like you*.  Don't fucking pull the heart string game with me because I will fuck you up every time. Now whine some more because you are too fucking selfish to realize what is happening is more important than you losing your fiancée and it's fucking disgusting you Politicize his Sacrifice all the time when you can't support your views.  All the neg reps in the world can't erase the truth I have just posted.  And. You. Know. It.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one heartless bastard.  I hope you get negged out of existence for that comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked....I don't give a fuck who calls me heartless because one selfish person keeps bringing up a lost loved when she can't debate the issue.  There are tens and tens of thousands of people who have lost their parents friends wives siblings and other people they cared about and it has been done as a consequence of our actions. It is still happening and I'll be damned if I let one selfish person try to use her fiancee's Sacrifice as a muzzle on those who disagree.  She did when I first got here, and even then posters who had been here way before me pointed out she was doing that shit.
> 
> Then your punk ass tells me to keep my comments more "civil?"  You regularly accuse Vets of lying simply because you don't like their politics.  And as you have proven again, you practice dishonesty on a regular basis.  You claim Missing Movement is basically the same as being UA/AWOL when they are no where near the same crime.  You made that claim to keep trying to avoid the facts.  Then you want to get technical and claim since the Judge dismissed the UA charge that isn't the same as being found not guilty?  You are an unbelievably pathetic fat fuck and if you ever come to Boston please let me know because I would love to buy you a beer so we could discuss this face to face.
Click to expand...


See you in about 3 weeks punk.


So....
now...
back to the original request...

How does a judge dismissing a charge make it a finding of not guilty?

Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!


----------



## PatekPhilippe

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could have something there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought he was "following Bush's timeline"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He pretty much has up until now and for all we know this is part of it. I only pray that we don't have to send any troops back.
Click to expand...


President Obama is following the guidelines set out in the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by President Bush when he was in office.  Bush said all combat troops would be out of Iraq by 2011.  I don't think we will be going back there in the near future.


----------



## Gunny

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> To save you the effort, I'm informing the board that I negged you for that remark. You have already been told about my fiancee, you nasty mouthed asshole. Anonymity doesn't not make it ok to deliberately make comments spefically to hurt another poster. Happily, your opinion means less than nothing to me. I just thought the board should be aware what a very vicious and unpleasant person you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't you be more creative?  Hiding behind the troll banner to avoid dialogue you are not equipped to handle is pretty moldy.
Click to expand...


You still here lying your idiot ass off?  I guess "Go away" was beyond your reading and comprehension level.

Romper Room is down the hall.  I'm sure the preschoolers will serve your ass as well, but you might have a moment where you keep up.

You're not stupid so one can conclude that you are a liar since the facts belie your swill.  Sell it down the road, chump.


----------



## B L Zeebub

I have similar feelings as to when our cutting edge regimements (the Para's) were withdrawn from Northern Ireland, I think the reasons are the same.


----------



## Gunny

B L Zeebub said:


> I have similar feelings as to when our cutting edge regimements (the Para's) were withdrawn from Northern Ireland, I think the reasons are the same.



FTR, I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq.  However, I have sound, logical and fact-based reasons why.  I didn't have to make up a bunch of bullshit to throw against the wall and see if it sticks.  

CurveLight is obviously and uneducated lump, incapable of anything but parroting rhetoric.


----------



## B L Zeebub

Good morning,I was referring to the feelings I had and have, not curvedlights.

Like you I did not want the invasion, but I supported the troops from all the nations that had to go there.

Ours is not to question why, ours is just to do our die.


----------



## CurveLight

B L Zeebub said:


> Good morning,I was referring to the feelings I had and have, not curvedlights.
> 
> Like you I did not want the invasion, but I supported the troops from all the nations that had to go there.
> 
> Ours is not to question why, ours is just to do our die.




This cliche:

"Ours is not to question why, ours is just to do our die."


Is absolutely pure bullshit.  That is not the Oath.  The Oath was specifically designed for every Soldier to question "why" to help prevent fucked up orders.


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY



Who gives a shit about US law, how about International law...


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one heartless bastard.  I hope you get negged out of existence for that comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked....I don't give a fuck who calls me heartless because one selfish person keeps bringing up a lost loved when she can't debate the issue.  There are tens and tens of thousands of people who have lost their parents friends wives siblings and other people they cared about and it has been done as a consequence of our actions. It is still happening and I'll be damned if I let one selfish person try to use her fiancee's Sacrifice as a muzzle on those who disagree.  She did when I first got here, and even then posters who had been here way before me pointed out she was doing that shit.
> 
> Then your punk ass tells me to keep my comments more "civil?"  You regularly accuse Vets of lying simply because you don't like their politics.  And as you have proven again, you practice dishonesty on a regular basis.  You claim Missing Movement is basically the same as being UA/AWOL when they are no where near the same crime.  You made that claim to keep trying to avoid the facts.  Then you want to get technical and claim since the Judge dismissed the UA charge that isn't the same as being found not guilty?  You are an unbelievably pathetic fat fuck and if you ever come to Boston please let me know because I would love to buy you a beer so we could discuss this face to face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See you in about 3 weeks punk.
> 
> 
> So....
> now...
> back to the original request...
> 
> How does a judge dismissing a charge make it a finding of not guilty?
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!
Click to expand...



It doesn't get any more specific than a Judge acquitting a Soldier for refusing to deploy based on the war being illegal.  Keep embarrassing yourself like the pathetic individual you keep proving to be.  You'll be in Boston in about 3 weeks?  Great!


----------



## sboyle24

Why the hell do you keep using big red text to send a pointless message
Sorry, you probably aren't an asshole i just needed to use the avatar by any means necessary.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought he was "following Bush's timeline"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He pretty much has up until now and for all we know this is part of it. I only pray that we don't have to send any troops back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama is following the guidelines set out in the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by President Bush when he was in office.  Bush said all combat troops would be out of Iraq by 2011.  I don't think we will be going back there in the near future.
Click to expand...



Yep.  Considering how reliable Bush's claims were it makes perfect sense to believe what he said.  (Holy fuck how
 can people be so ignorant)


----------



## Dr Grump

sboyle24 said:


> Why the hell do you keep using big red text to send a pointless message
> Sorry, you probably aren't an asshole i just needed to use the avatar by any means necessary.



No, you're right, he's an arsehole....


----------



## CurveLight

Gunny said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't you be more creative?  Hiding behind the troll banner to avoid dialogue you are not equipped to handle is pretty moldy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still here lying your idiot ass off?  I guess "Go away" was beyond your reading and comprehension level.
> 
> Romper Room is down the hall.  I'm sure the preschoolers will serve your ass as well, but you might have a moment where you keep up.
> 
> You're not stupid so one can conclude that you are a liar since the facts belie your swill.  Sell it down the road, chump.
Click to expand...



It's sadly ironic you make romper room remarks while you ignore facts just to call people names.


----------



## CurveLight

sboyle24 said:


> Why the hell do you keep using big red text to send a pointless message
> Sorry, you probably aren't an asshole i just needed to use the avatar by any means necessary.



Because that is the only tool available to him and his camp.  They believe if they scream loud enough they can hide the fact they do everything but discuss the issue.  Look at a few posts from just the last page and the pattern is clear.  They are so damn lockstep it looks like one person posting under ten different names.


----------



## CurveLight

Dr Grump said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit about US law, how about International law...
Click to expand...


I believe the Judge agreed with the Soldiers defense for not deploying on the basis of a combination of US and international law.  That's just another area of deep hypocrisy by the pro war crowd.  They love to justify iraq by screaming saddam violated UN Resolutions but then say the UN doesn't matter when it's shown the invasion violated the UN Charter.


----------



## CurveLight

Gunny said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have similar feelings as to when our cutting edge regimements (the Para's) were withdrawn from Northern Ireland, I think the reasons are the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FTR, I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq.  However, I have sound, logical and fact-based reasons why.  I didn't have to make up a bunch of bullshit to throw against the wall and see if it sticks.
> 
> CurveLight is obviously and uneducated lump, incapable of anything but parroting rhetoric.
Click to expand...



I'm uneducated and you're informed?  Rotfl!  Is that why you didn't know the No Fly Zone was not legal nor part of any UN Resolution?  All you do is throw out empty accusations and call people names.  You're such an impressive example of "sound logic."


----------



## Dr Grump

CurveLight said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit about US law, how about International law...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the Judge agreed with the Soldiers defense for not deploying on the basis of a combination of US and international law.  That's just another area of deep hypocrisy by the pro war crowd.  They love to* justify iraq by screaming saddam violated UN Resolutions but then say the UN doesn't matter *when it's shown the invasion violated the UN Charter.
Click to expand...


Bingo...

...gee, I wonder who they're fooling....


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Dr Grump said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit about US law, how about International law...
Click to expand...


Fuck international law.  Ours trumps your international law any day of the week....
NEXT!


----------



## CurveLight

Dr Grump said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit about US law, how about International law...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the Judge agreed with the Soldiers defense for not deploying on the basis of a combination of US and international law.  That's just another area of deep hypocrisy by the pro war crowd.  They love to* justify iraq by screaming saddam violated UN Resolutions but then say the UN doesn't matter *when it's shown the invasion violated the UN Charter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo...
> 
> ...gee, I wonder who they're fooling....
Click to expand...



If it didn't involve so much tragedy it would be entertaining to see them continually reinforce their own deceptions while working so hard to convince each other they know the truth and it's the other 5,900,000,000 people on earth who are ignorant.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit about US law, how about International law...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck international law.  Ours trumps your international law any day of the week....
> NEXT!
Click to expand...


As a member of the UNSC we are bound by those international laws.  But, given your affinity for ignoring facts I'm sure that won't slow you down one bit from shoving your head up your ass so fast your ears melt from wind shear.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Dr Grump said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit about US law, how about International law...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the Judge agreed with the Soldiers defense for not deploying on the basis of a combination of US and international law.  That's just another area of deep hypocrisy by the pro war crowd.  They love to* justify iraq by screaming saddam violated UN Resolutions but then say the UN doesn't matter *when it's shown the invasion violated the UN Charter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo...
> 
> ...gee, I wonder who they're fooling....
Click to expand...


Obviously you, as an outsider, haven't a clue about US military law.  Speculate all you want...it's irrelevant and only your opinion...which in a military courts martial which has already convicted the perpetrator..is completely moot.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit about US law, how about International law...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck international law.  Ours trumps your international law any day of the week....
> NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a member of the UNSC we are bound by those international laws.  But, given your affinity for ignoring facts I'm sure that won't slow you down one bit from shoving your head up your ass so fast your ears melt from wind shear.
Click to expand...


Wrong again.  U.S. military law and the laws passed by our Congress is all we adhere to when our own national interests are concerned.

now back to the original request.....
Show us your PROOF that the Iraq War is illegal...SPECIFIC PROOF...NOT CLAIMS..BUT SPECIFIC PROOF THAT HAS BEEN VETTED IN A U.S. COURT OF LAW AND RESULTED IN A CONVICTION.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked....I don't give a fuck who calls me heartless because one selfish person keeps bringing up a lost loved when she can't debate the issue.  There are tens and tens of thousands of people who have lost their parents friends wives siblings and other people they cared about and it has been done as a consequence of our actions. It is still happening and I'll be damned if I let one selfish person try to use her fiancee's Sacrifice as a muzzle on those who disagree.  She did when I first got here, and even then posters who had been here way before me pointed out she was doing that shit.
> 
> Then your punk ass tells me to keep my comments more "civil?"  You regularly accuse Vets of lying simply because you don't like their politics.  And as you have proven again, you practice dishonesty on a regular basis.  You claim Missing Movement is basically the same as being UA/AWOL when they are no where near the same crime.  You made that claim to keep trying to avoid the facts.  Then you want to get technical and claim since the Judge dismissed the UA charge that isn't the same as being found not guilty?  You are an unbelievably pathetic fat fuck and if you ever come to Boston please let me know because I would love to buy you a beer so we could discuss this face to face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See you in about 3 weeks punk.
> 
> 
> So....
> now...
> back to the original request...
> 
> How does a judge dismissing a charge make it a finding of not guilty?
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't get any more specific than a Judge acquitting a Soldier for refusing to deploy based on the war being illegal.  Keep embarrassing yourself like the pathetic individual you keep proving to be.  You'll be in Boston in about 3 weeks?  Great!
Click to expand...


Oh my GOD!!!  look at this pathetic fuck!!!!  First he says people who support the war use blood as a sexual lubricant...now he is saying the Judge who dismissed one of the charges as "duplicative" equates to AQUITTING the sailor!!!!  AFTER HE SAID THE GUY WAS CONVICTED!!!!!!

CurveLight is what we refer to as a "dim bulb" meaning he lacks the basic intelligence of someone representing the human race.

I asked for specific proof the war was illegal.  CurveLight thinks that if someone makes the claim "The war is illegal." that this is legal proof.

Nothing could be further from reality....just like CurveLight...it's about as far from reality as one can get.

CurveLight...YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT...get over it and move on.


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit about US law, how about International law...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck international law.  Ours trumps your international law any day of the week....
> NEXT!
Click to expand...


Oh, cool. So you're a rogue nation like North Korea...thanks for clearing that up...


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the Judge agreed with the Soldiers defense for not deploying on the basis of a combination of US and international law.  That's just another area of deep hypocrisy by the pro war crowd.  They love to* justify iraq by screaming saddam violated UN Resolutions but then say the UN doesn't matter *when it's shown the invasion violated the UN Charter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo...
> 
> ...gee, I wonder who they're fooling....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you, as an outsider, haven't a clue about US military law.  Speculate all you want...it's irrelevant and only your opinion...which in a military courts martial which has already convicted the perpetrator..is completely moot.
Click to expand...


Which has what to do with what I was saying? (hint: Nothing you moron)....


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck international law.  Ours trumps your international law any day of the week....
> NEXT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a member of the UNSC we are bound by those international laws.  But, given your affinity for ignoring facts I'm sure that won't slow you down one bit from shoving your head up your ass so fast your ears melt from wind shear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  U.S. military law and the laws passed by our Congress is all we adhere to when our own national interests are concerned.
> 
> now back to the original request.....
> Show us your PROOF that the Iraq War is illegal...SPECIFIC PROOF...NOT CLAIMS..BUT SPECIFIC PROOF THAT HAS BEEN VETTED IN A U.S. COURT OF LAW AND RESULTED IN A CONVICTION.
Click to expand...



Prove that your war was legal. Under what jurisdiction did you go to war? What were the circumstances? What was the immediate threat to the US?


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight...YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT...get over it and move on.



when you provide a decent argument, let the rest of us know....


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Dr Grump said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit about US law, how about International law...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck international law.  Ours trumps your international law any day of the week....
> NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, cool. So you're a rogue nation like North Korea...thanks for clearing that up...
Click to expand...


Sorry.  You failed.  When our national interests are threatened our law trumps international law...and besides..the UN authorized us to use military force....now...try again.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Dr Grump said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a member of the UNSC we are bound by those international laws.  But, given your affinity for ignoring facts I'm sure that won't slow you down one bit from shoving your head up your ass so fast your ears melt from wind shear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  U.S. military law and the laws passed by our Congress is all we adhere to when our own national interests are concerned.
> 
> now back to the original request.....
> Show us your PROOF that the Iraq War is illegal...SPECIFIC PROOF...NOT CLAIMS..BUT SPECIFIC PROOF THAT HAS BEEN VETTED IN A U.S. COURT OF LAW AND RESULTED IN A CONVICTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that your war was legal. Under what jurisdiction did you go to war? What were the circumstances? What was the immediate threat to the US?
Click to expand...



Uhhhh...sorry...you have failed AGAIN!  The UN authorized us to use military force in Iraq.  Then our own Congress authorized the President to use military force in Iraq based on what was known at the time...NEXT!!!


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Dr Grump said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo...
> 
> ...gee, I wonder who they're fooling....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you, as an outsider, haven't a clue about US military law.  Speculate all you want...it's irrelevant and only your opinion...which in a military courts martial which has already convicted the perpetrator..is completely moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which has what to do with what I was saying? ....
Click to expand...


Think about real hard moron...then get back to me.

NEXT!


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Dr Grump said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight...YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT...get over it and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when you provide a decent argument, let the rest of us know....
Click to expand...


Apparently you CANNOT REFUTE A SINGLE THING I SAID otherwise you would have...so what's left...attack the poster...typical left wing eurotrash behavior.

NEXT


----------



## PatekPhilippe

now back to the original request.....
Show us your PROOF that the Iraq War is illegal...SPECIFIC PROOF...NOT CLAIMS..BUT SPECIFIC PROOF THAT HAS BEEN VETTED IN A U.S. COURT OF LAW AND RESULTED IN A CONVICTION.


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck international law.  Ours trumps your international law any day of the week....
> NEXT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, cool. So you're a rogue nation like North Korea...thanks for clearing that up...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry.  You failed.  When our national interests are threatened our law trumps international law...and besides..the UN authorized us to use military force....now...try again.
Click to expand...


So which is it, UN or US law? Make up your mind..take your time....


----------



## jillian

PatekPhilippe said:


> now back to the original request.....
> Show us your PROOF that the Iraq War is illegal...SPECIFIC PROOF...NOT CLAIMS..BUT SPECIFIC PROOF THAT HAS BEEN VETTED IN A U.S. COURT OF LAW AND RESULTED IN A CONVICTION.



That might be a better question had it ever been addressed in this country. The lack of any such finding here isn't indicative of legality under circumstances where its never been before any court.

and whether something is legal under international law is a function of international law and the treaties to which we're signatories. That's why "TREATIES" are specifically mentioned in the Constitution... because they have EQUAL weight.


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you, as an outsider, haven't a clue about US military law.  Speculate all you want...it's irrelevant and only your opinion...which in a military courts martial which has already convicted the perpetrator..is completely moot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which has what to do with what I was saying? ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about real hard moron...then get back to me.
> 
> NEXT!
Click to expand...


I don't need to. You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about....carry on!


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> [q
> 
> Uhhhh...sorry...you have failed AGAIN!  The UN authorized us to use military force in Iraq.  !!!



They did? Are you sure? Again, think about it before you answer....


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Exactly...so all it is is spin from the left.

Now can you tell, me as a lawyer...does a Judge dismissing a charge equate to a finding of "not guilty" or "aquittal"?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Dr Grump said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has what to do with what I was saying? ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about real hard moron...then get back to me.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to. You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about....carry on!
Click to expand...


Pot meet kettle...


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> [
> 
> Apparently you CANNOT REFUTE A SINGLE THING I SAID otherwise you would have...so what's left...attack the poster...typical left wing eurotrash behavior.
> 
> NEXT



What is the point of trying to refute somebody who obviously has no idea what they are talking about ? 

To paraphrase the Ultimate Moron on this board: "next!"


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Dr Grump said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> [q
> 
> Uhhhh...sorry...you have failed AGAIN!  The UN authorized us to use military force in Iraq.  !!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did? Are you sure? Again, think about it before you answer....
Click to expand...


Yes...they did.


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> Exactly...so all it is is spin from the left.
> 
> Now can you tell, me as a lawyer...does a Judge dismissing a charge equate to a finding of "not guilty" or "aquittal"?



Did the UN sanction the invasion of Iraq?


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> [q
> 
> Uhhhh...sorry...you have failed AGAIN!  The UN authorized us to use military force in Iraq.  !!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did? Are you sure? Again, think about it before you answer....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...they did.
Click to expand...


Please quote the resolution...


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck international law.  Ours trumps your international law any day of the week....
> NEXT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a member of the UNSC we are bound by those international laws.  But, given your affinity for ignoring facts I'm sure that won't slow you down one bit from shoving your head up your ass so fast your ears melt from wind shear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  U.S. military law and the laws passed by our Congress is all we adhere to when our own national interests are concerned.
> 
> now back to the original request.....
> Show us your PROOF that the Iraq War is illegal...SPECIFIC PROOF...NOT CLAIMS..BUT SPECIFIC PROOF THAT HAS BEEN VETTED IN A U.S. COURT OF LAW AND RESULTED IN A CONVICTION.
Click to expand...



You sound like a pack of mice trapped in a coffee can.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the Judge agreed with the Soldiers defense for not deploying on the basis of a combination of US and international law.  That's just another area of deep hypocrisy by the pro war crowd.  They love to* justify iraq by screaming saddam violated UN Resolutions but then say the UN doesn't matter *when it's shown the invasion violated the UN Charter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo...
> 
> ...gee, I wonder who they're fooling....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you, as an outsider, haven't a clue about US military law.  Speculate all you want...it's irrelevant and only your opinion...which in a military courts martial which has already convicted the perpetrator..is completely moot.
Click to expand...



Saddam was convicted under Iraqi law, and one that conveniently put him to death before he could be put on trial that would explain why Rumsfeld gave him a rimjob in 83'.   (I know you had to be talking about Saddam because you could not possibly be so dumb as to reference the case I cited because that Soldier was not convicted for UA.  It's also funny as hell you try to claim to be informed on military law after you claimed the charge of Missing Movement is basically the same as being UA/AWOL.)

You're a fucking joke.


----------



## jillian

PatekPhilippe said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> [q
> 
> Uhhhh...sorry...you have failed AGAIN!  The UN authorized us to use military force in Iraq.  !!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did? Are you sure? Again, think about it before you answer....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...they did.
Click to expand...


No. They didn't. In fact, Kofi Annan specifically called it illegal on September 16, 2004.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> See you in about 3 weeks punk.
> 
> 
> So....
> now...
> back to the original request...
> 
> How does a judge dismissing a charge make it a finding of not guilty?
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't get any more specific than a Judge acquitting a Soldier for refusing to deploy based on the war being illegal.  Keep embarrassing yourself like the pathetic individual you keep proving to be.  You'll be in Boston in about 3 weeks?  Great!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my GOD!!!  look at this pathetic fuck!!!!  First he says people who support the war use blood as a sexual lubricant...now he is saying the Judge who dismissed one of the charges as "duplicative" equates to AQUITTING the sailor!!!!  AFTER HE SAID THE GUY WAS CONVICTED!!!!!!
> 
> CurveLight is what we refer to as a "dim bulb" meaning he lacks the basic intelligence of someone representing the human race.
> 
> I asked for specific proof the war was illegal.  CurveLight thinks that if someone makes the claim "The war is illegal." that this is legal proof.
> 
> Nothing could be further from reality....just like CurveLight...it's about as far from reality as one can get.
> 
> CurveLight...YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT...get over it and move on.
Click to expand...



Holy shit you never stop lying.  You didn't ask for specific proof the war is illegal and that is because there is a ton of evidence proving so that you tried to avoid tha by demanding a court case showing it is illegal.  The funny part is you didn't know that court case existed and after it was provided you still ignored it.  Lol.  Now you want to hang everything on that word "duplicative" and pretend you know what you are talking about.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  U.S. military law and the laws passed by our Congress is all we adhere to when our own national interests are concerned.
> 
> now back to the original request.....
> Show us your PROOF that the Iraq War is illegal...SPECIFIC PROOF...NOT CLAIMS..BUT SPECIFIC PROOF THAT HAS BEEN VETTED IN A U.S. COURT OF LAW AND RESULTED IN A CONVICTION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that your war was legal. Under what jurisdiction did you go to war? What were the circumstances? What was the immediate threat to the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhhh...sorry...you have failed AGAIN!  The UN authorized us to use military force in Iraq.  Then our own Congress authorized the President to use military force in Iraq based on what was known at the time...NEXT!!!
Click to expand...




HOLY FUCKING BATPICKLES!  You have just confirmed I'm a big dumbass.  Yes, you have proven I'm a fucking idiot.  Do you know why?  I've been debating someone who doesn't even know the UN never authorized us to go back into Iraq.  You are even more pathetic than I thought before, and I didn't think you could sink much lower but by golly you found a subterranean nuclear shovel.  Bye bye.


----------



## CurveLight

jillian said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did? Are you sure? Again, think about it before you answer....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. They didn't. In fact, Kofi Annan specifically called it illegal on September 16, 2004.
> 
> BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
Click to expand...



He'll probably do the same old dance of trying to use an older resolution which will confirm what I said about his camp screaming international doesn't matter but then tries to use international to justify the invasion.  Fucking hypocrites are like a merry-go-round of tiny razor blades.  From a distance it looks like a neat sparkling ride until you get closer and realize all it does is slice up anyone dumb enough to get close and stand there.  Like I did.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Dr Grump said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit about US law, how about International law...
Click to expand...


The USA follows US law. We may decide to follow international treaties that we have agreed to. But International law? According to whom?


----------



## SFC Ollie

jillian said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did? Are you sure? Again, think about it before you answer....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. They didn't. In fact, Kofi Annan specifically called it illegal on September 16, 2004.
> 
> BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
Click to expand...



Discussion on UN Resolution 1441
 "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 discussion.[But] if the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce the relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security."( U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte)(The British ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, agreed. )

International Law - War in Iraq - United Nations - Iraq


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. They didn't. In fact, Kofi Annan specifically called it illegal on September 16, 2004.
> 
> BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Discussion on UN Resolution 1441
> "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 discussion&#8230;.[But] if the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce the relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security."( U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte)(The British ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, agreed. )
> 
> International Law - War in Iraq - United Nations - Iraq
Click to expand...




You just helped prove why the invasion and occupation is illegal.  Thank you.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show your irrefutable proof, that STOOD up in a U.S. Court of Law, the war in Iraq was illegal. SPECIFICALLY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit about US law, how about International law...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA follows US law. We may decide to follow international treaties that we have agreed to. But International law? According to whom?
Click to expand...



According to US law the US must abide by all Treaties it is a signatory member of.  Tomorrow we will discuss the reasons for sliced bread and gas caps.


----------



## B L Zeebub

CurveLight said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning,I was referring to the feelings I had and have, not curvedlights.
> 
> Like you I did not want the invasion, but I supported the troops from all the nations that had to go there.
> 
> Ours is not to question why, ours is just to do our die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This cliche:
> 
> "Ours is not to question why, ours is just to do our die."
> 
> 
> Is absolutely pure bullshit.  That is not the Oath.  The Oath was specifically designed for every Soldier to question "why" to help prevent fucked up orders.
Click to expand...

In the context of your country maybe, not in the UK.


----------



## B L Zeebub

yesterday the most senior Lawyer in our Foreign Office, gave evidence to the inquiry re the invasion of Iraq.

He stated that he informed the various ministers that were involved, that without a specific UN mandate the invasion would be illegal.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Dr Grump said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...so all it is is spin from the left.
> 
> Now can you tell, me as a lawyer...does a Judge dismissing a charge equate to a finding of "not guilty" or "aquittal"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the UN sanction the invasion of Iraq?
Click to expand...


What are you a Jew...do you normally deflect and obfuscate when asked a question?  Please grow up.


----------



## Queen

PatekPhilippe said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...so all it is is spin from the left.
> 
> Now can you tell, me as a lawyer...does a Judge dismissing a charge equate to a finding of "not guilty" or "aquittal"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the UN sanction the invasion of Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you a Jew...do you normally deflect and obfuscate when asked a question?  Please grow up.
Click to expand...


Wow. 

What are you, a bigot?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

jillian said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did? Are you sure? Again, think about it before you answer....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. They didn't. In fact, Kofi Annan specifically called it illegal on September 16, 2004.
> 
> BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
Click to expand...


Sorry Jillian...you left out the part of the story that said this....


> When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. *I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." *



Now...this is where the war was legal from the standpoint of the UN....Resolution 1441authorizes the use of military force against Iraq.  What part of "all necessary means" is confusing everyone?



> Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) *authorized Member States to use all
> necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 *(1990) of 2 August
> 1990 *and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 *(1990) and to restore
> international peace and security in the area,


ODS HOME PAGE

and then there is this LAW signed by our Congress...

US Government Printing Office - FDsys - More Information

The sooner you progressives realize that OUR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY and OUR OWN LAWS trump International law...the sooner we can move on.

and then theres this...if the war was illegal...how come no charges have been filed against anyone?  How come there have been no trials of anyone?

Sorry...you guys just have to accept the fact that the war WAS LEGAL.  Now move on.

NO ONE HERE has provided specific proof that the war in Iraq was illegal.  Not a single one.  I've made my case for it's legality and apparently, the the law is on my side.  All you guys have is opinion...not a single fact proven in any court of law.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit about US law, how about International law...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA follows US law. We may decide to follow international treaties that we have agreed to. But International law? According to whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to US law the US must abide by all Treaties it is a signatory member of.
Click to expand...


WRONG!... When the National Security of the United States is threatened international law DOESN'T MEAN A DAMN THING and by OUR OWN LAWS WE DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY...  You got that yet?


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The USA follows US law. We may decide to follow international treaties that we have agreed to. But International law? According to whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to US law the US must abide by all Treaties it is a signatory member of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRONG!... When the National Security of the United States is threatened international law DOESN'T MEAN A DAMN THING and by OUR OWN LAWS WE DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY...  You got that yet?
Click to expand...

but if it has been proven international laws have been broken?

Ps I'm a Jew, is that a problem for you?


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...so all it is is spin from the left.
> 
> Now can you tell, me as a lawyer...does a Judge dismissing a charge equate to a finding of "not guilty" or "aquittal"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the UN sanction the invasion of Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you a Jew...do you normally deflect and obfuscate when asked a question?  Please grow up.
Click to expand...


Biologically? 1/8th Jew...why?

As for the above, the question you asked was aimed at Jillian, who is both Jewish and a lawyer...

And what was the Security Council vote on 1441 re the invasion of Iraq in 2003?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. They didn't. In fact, Kofi Annan specifically called it illegal on September 16, 2004.
> 
> BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discussion on UN Resolution 1441
> "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 discussion&#8230;.[But] if the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce the relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security."( U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte)(The British ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, agreed. )
> 
> International Law - War in Iraq - United Nations - Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just helped prove why the invasion and occupation is illegal.  Thank you.
Click to expand...


No he didn't...he showed HOW the UN sanctioned the use of military force in Iraq!!!!

and then there's this....
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/res-iraq-07mar03-en-rev.pdf

Iraq was in material breech of UN R.1441...plain and simple.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Dr Grump said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the UN sanction the invasion of Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you a Jew...do you normally deflect and obfuscate when asked a question?  Please grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biologically? 1/8th Jew...why?
> 
> As for the above, the question you asked was aimed at Jillian, who is both Jewish and a lawyer...
> 
> And what was the Security Council vote on 1441 re the invasion of Iraq in 2003?
Click to expand...


Good...now let Jillian answer it.


----------



## B L Zeebub

Blair is infront of the inquiry next week


----------



## PatekPhilippe

B L Zeebub said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to US law the US must abide by all Treaties it is a signatory member of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG!... When the National Security of the United States is threatened international law DOESN'T MEAN A DAMN THING and by OUR OWN LAWS WE DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY...  You got that yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but if it has been proven international laws have been broken?
> 
> Ps I'm a Jew, is that a problem for you?
Click to expand...


No it's not a problem for me....and the speculation that international laws being broken with respect to Iraq are meaningless....specific UN resolutions and US law authorized the use of military force in Iraq.  It was legal.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

B L Zeebub said:


> Blair is infront of the inquiry next week



Irrelevant.  Nothing will happen to him.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a member of the UNSC we are bound by those international laws.  But, given your affinity for ignoring facts I'm sure that won't slow you down one bit from shoving your head up your ass so fast your ears melt from wind shear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  U.S. military law and the laws passed by our Congress is all we adhere to when our own national interests are concerned.
> 
> now back to the original request.....
> Show us your PROOF that the Iraq War is illegal...SPECIFIC PROOF...NOT CLAIMS..BUT SPECIFIC PROOF THAT HAS BEEN VETTED IN A U.S. COURT OF LAW AND RESULTED IN A CONVICTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a pack of mice trapped in a coffee can.
Click to expand...



and you sound like you lost another argument.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't get any more specific than a Judge acquitting a Soldier for refusing to deploy based on the war being illegal.  Keep embarrassing yourself like the pathetic individual you keep proving to be.  You'll be in Boston in about 3 weeks?  Great!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my GOD!!!  look at this pathetic fuck!!!!  First he says people who support the war use blood as a sexual lubricant...now he is saying the Judge who dismissed one of the charges as "duplicative" equates to AQUITTING the sailor!!!!  AFTER HE SAID THE GUY WAS CONVICTED!!!!!!
> 
> CurveLight is what we refer to as a "dim bulb" meaning he lacks the basic intelligence of someone representing the human race.
> 
> I asked for specific proof the war was illegal.  CurveLight thinks that if someone makes the claim "The war is illegal." that this is legal proof.
> 
> Nothing could be further from reality....just like CurveLight...it's about as far from reality as one can get.
> 
> CurveLight...YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT...get over it and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit you never stop lying.  You didn't ask for specific proof the war is illegal and that is because there is a ton of evidence proving so that you tried to avoid tha by demanding a court case showing it is illegal.  The funny part is you didn't know that court case existed and after it was provided you still ignored it.  Lol.  Now you want to hang everything on that word "duplicative" and pretend you know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


You definately got some screws loose there pal...You better get checked out at a mental hospital.  The exact words of the judge spoken in a Military court and recorded by a court stenographer.."The charge of unauthorized absence, Article 86, is dismissed as it's duplicative."

Why did he do this?

Here's why.
From Article 87


> (1) Movement. &#8220;Movement&#8221; as used in Article 87 includes a move, transfer, or shift of a ship, aircraft, or unit involving a substantial distance and period of time. Whether a particular movement is substantial is a question to be determined by the court-martial considering all the circumstances. Changes which do not constitute a &#8220;movement&#8221; include practice marches of a short duration with a return to the point of departure, and minor changes in location of ships, aircraft, or units, as when a ship is shifted from one berth to another in the same shipyard or harbor or when a unit is moved from one barracks to another on the same post.



From Article 86:
absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.&#8221; 

by missing movement..he absented himself from his place of duty....DUPLICATIVE....


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blair is infront of the inquiry next week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Nothing will happen to him.
Click to expand...

of course nothing will happen to him or Dubya, but with the statement from the Foreign Office lawyer and others, and the fact that the 160+ cross party Mp's who tabled a rebel amendment on the legality of this farce being proven right, it may enlighten the great unwashed who in the future will be more skeptical of the efficacy of leaders with hidden agenda's.

This will prove a very uncomfortable meeting for Blur.


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> No it's not a problem for me....and the speculation that international laws being broken with respect to Iraq are meaningless....specific UN resolutions and US law authorized the use of military force in Iraq.  It was legal.



Israel is currently in violation of UN resolutions. When does the invasion begin?

Under what US law did you go into Iraq? What right did you have to invade the country? Hint: You didn't....


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my GOD!!!  look at this pathetic fuck!!!!  First he says people who support the war use blood as a sexual lubricant...now he is saying the Judge who dismissed one of the charges as "duplicative" equates to AQUITTING the sailor!!!!  AFTER HE SAID THE GUY WAS CONVICTED!!!!!!
> 
> CurveLight is what we refer to as a "dim bulb" meaning he lacks the basic intelligence of someone representing the human race.
> 
> I asked for specific proof the war was illegal.  CurveLight thinks that if someone makes the claim "The war is illegal." that this is legal proof.
> 
> Nothing could be further from reality....just like CurveLight...it's about as far from reality as one can get.
> 
> CurveLight...YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT...get over it and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit you never stop lying.  You didn't ask for specific proof the war is illegal and that is because there is a ton of evidence proving so that you tried to avoid tha by demanding a court case showing it is illegal.  The funny part is you didn't know that court case existed and after it was provided you still ignored it.  Lol.  Now you want to hang everything on that word "duplicative" and pretend you know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You definately got some screws loose there pal...You better get checked out at a mental hospital.  The exact words of the judge spoken in a Military court and recorded by a court stenographer.."The charge of unauthorized absence, Article 86, is dismissed as it's duplicative."
> 
> Why did he do this?
> 
> Here's why.
> From Article 87
> 
> 
> 
> (1) Movement. &#8220;Movement&#8221; as used in Article 87 includes a move, transfer, or shift of a ship, aircraft, or unit involving a substantial distance and period of time. Whether a particular movement is substantial is a question to be determined by the court-martial considering all the circumstances. Changes which do not constitute a &#8220;movement&#8221; include practice marches of a short duration with a return to the point of departure, and minor changes in location of ships, aircraft, or units, as when a ship is shifted from one berth to another in the same shipyard or harbor or when a unit is moved from one barracks to another on the same post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Article 86:
> absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.&#8221;
> 
> by missing movement..he absented himself from his place of duty....DUPLICATIVE....
Click to expand...



Your dishonesty is purely fucking entertaining but also quite sad.  You just posted the evidence the two charges are completely different but you're so selfish and insecure you pretend they are the same thing.  Then you quote the judge but totally ignore the other quote by the Judge where he agreed with the Soldier for why he refused to deploy.  If you knew ANYTHING about the military you would know his not being sentenced to prison followed by a direct DisDis is a victory for refusing to deploy.  Instead the judge dropped the UA charge and gave him a slap on the wrist.

Look at another case of a soldier refusing to deploy:


"Stewart had already been convicted &#8212; and
reduced in rank from sergeant to specialist &#8212; of being absent without leave when the bulk of the regiment deployed last summer."

Gee.  That says he was convicted of being AWOL.  Then read:


"Spc. Benjamin Stewart, 25, of the 2nd Stryker Cavalry
Regiment, pleaded guilty Wednesday to missing movement on Jan. 7, 2008, when he was scheduled to deploy to Iraq."
Soldier gets 6-month sentence for refusing to deploy to Iraq | Stars and Stripes Mobile

(the two sentences are from the same paragraph but I reversed the order to highlight the two charges are certainly different and not duplicative)


Since you have proven to be incapable of addressing obvious facts I need to point out this utterly crushes your "duplicative" claim because a Soldier cannot be convicted twice of the same thing.  You totally fail to be honest about any of the facts.  This is just like when you claimed Ready Reserves are all Drilling Units but completely ignored the fact the RR category has several sub-categories including the IRR who never Drill.  One thing you have certainly Drilled home is you are an utterly thorough pathetic individual.  Who the hell is so fucked up they quote the very evidence that proves them wrong only to claim it proves their claim correct?


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...so all it is is spin from the left.
> 
> Now can you tell, me as a lawyer...does a Judge dismissing a charge equate to a finding of "not guilty" or "aquittal"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the UN sanction the invasion of Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you a Jew...do you normally deflect and obfuscate when asked a question?  Please grow up.
Click to expand...


Figures you're an antiSemitic trash heap.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Dr Grump said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not a problem for me....and the speculation that international laws being broken with respect to Iraq are meaningless....specific UN resolutions and US law authorized the use of military force in Iraq.  It was legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is currently in violation of UN resolutions. When does the invasion begin?
> 
> Under what US law did you go into Iraq? What right did you have to invade the country? Hint: You didn't....
Click to expand...



See posts above for specific LEGAL authorization to invade Iraq.  As far as the right to invade?  Please see the plethora of UN security council resolutions that LEGALLY authorized un to invade Iraq.
Hint:  It was legal

Oh Dr. Grump...you are blinded by your petty hatred of America and her pro-active foreign policy.  Yet when the shit hit's the fan you and other european types begin to whine "Where's America???!!!  Why didn't they stop it!!!????  Please try to remember if it wasn't for us intervening on your country's behalf in WW2 more than likely you would have squinty eyes and buck teeth.

and as far as Israel...why don't you put "invade Israel" in your government's suggestion box.


----------



## B L Zeebub

Lord Goldsmith(the governments most senior legal adviser at the time) gave evidence to Chilcot this morning, to paraphrase, he thought the invasion would be illegal and told Bush and Blair this, they did not like it, he changed his mind just before the invasion and after a visit to the US.

This afternoon he will be cross examined on what caused his sudden epiphany.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. They didn't. In fact, Kofi Annan specifically called it illegal on September 16, 2004.
> 
> BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Jillian...you left out the part of the story that said this....
> 
> 
> 
> When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. *I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now...this is where the war was legal from the standpoint of the UN....Resolution 1441authorizes the use of military force against Iraq.  What part of "all necessary means" is confusing everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) *authorized Member States to use all
> necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 *(1990) of 2 August
> 1990 *and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 *(1990) and to restore
> international peace and security in the area,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ODS HOME PAGE
> 
> and then there is this LAW signed by our Congress...
> 
> US Government Printing Office - FDsys - More Information
> 
> The sooner you progressives realize that OUR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY and OUR OWN LAWS trump International law...the sooner we can move on.
> 
> and then theres this...if the war was illegal...how come no charges have been filed against anyone?  How come there have been no trials of anyone?
> 
> Sorry...you guys just have to accept the fact that the war WAS LEGAL.  Now move on.
> 
> NO ONE HERE has provided specific proof that the war in Iraq was illegal.  Not a single one.  I've made my case for it's legality and apparently, the the law is on my side.  All you guys have is opinion...not a single fact proven in any court of law.
Click to expand...



Hahahahaha....what a stupid mofo!  You dumbass!  You just contradicted yourself.  If the invasion was legal by the UN then why would you need to claim US law TRUMPS International law????  You need to re-read that question.  Then you continue to be a dishonest shitbag and totally ignore the part of 1441 that specifically points that resolution has no hidden triggers nor automacity and that the UNSC needs to meet and approve a military response to Iraq.  Gee. Why would you ignore that.

(iam almost begging your dumbass to point to the part that says a Member may use force if they are in imminent danger.  Please, please try to use that to justify the invasion because now you're nothing but a laughing stock.  You've embarrassed yourself so much even your pro war buddies won't even try to rescue you.)


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the UN sanction the invasion of Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you a Jew...do you normally deflect and obfuscate when asked a question?  Please grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figures you're an antiSemitic trash heap.
Click to expand...


Oh...the whiner of the year is on line awfully early these days....

Good morning douchebag...guess what...everyone of your lame ass CLAIMS was shot down in flames.  You still refuse to admit you lost the argument...which you did beyond a reasonble doubt..  Looks like the law is on my side......so you have to attack the person instead of 
show irrefutable proof that the war in Iraq was illegal..SPECIFICALLY.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. They didn't. In fact, Kofi Annan specifically called it illegal on September 16, 2004.
> 
> BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Jillian...you left out the part of the story that said this....
> 
> 
> Now...this is where the war was legal from the standpoint of the UN....Resolution 1441authorizes the use of military force against Iraq.  What part of "all necessary means" is confusing everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) *authorized Member States to use all
> necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 *(1990) of 2 August
> 1990 *and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 *(1990) and to restore
> international peace and security in the area,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ODS HOME PAGE
> 
> and then there is this LAW signed by our Congress...
> 
> US Government Printing Office - FDsys - More Information
> 
> The sooner you progressives realize that OUR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY and OUR OWN LAWS trump International law...the sooner we can move on.
> 
> and then theres this...if the war was illegal...how come no charges have been filed against anyone?  How come there have been no trials of anyone?
> 
> Sorry...you guys just have to accept the fact that the war WAS LEGAL.  Now move on.
> 
> NO ONE HERE has provided specific proof that the war in Iraq was illegal.  Not a single one.  I've made my case for it's legality and apparently, the the law is on my side.  All you guys have is opinion...not a single fact proven in any court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahaha....what a stupid mofo!  You dumbass!  You just contradicted yourself.  If the invasion was legal by the UN then why would you need to claim US law TRUMPS International law????  You need to re-read that question.  Then you continue to be a dishonest shitbag and totally ignore the part of 1441 that specifically points that resolution has no hidden triggers nor automacity and that the UNSC needs to meet and approve a military response to Iraq.  Gee. Why would you ignore that.
> 
> (iam almost begging your dumbass to point to the part that says a Member may use force if they are in imminent danger.  Please, please try to use that to justify the invasion because now you're nothing but a laughing stock.  You've embarrassed yourself so much even your pro war buddies won't even try to rescue you.)
Click to expand...


Even an absolute idiot can see through your lame ass claims...as international law granted us legal permission to use military force in Iraq, the President cannot use military force without the specific authorization of Congress for longer than 60 days....hence the Iraq Use of Force Resolution that further enforced the LEGAL RIGHT to use military force in Iraq.

Please continue to make an absolute ass out of yourself and continue with the petty name calling   It only re-enforces that fact that you are admitting I'm correct.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

B L Zeebub said:


> Lord Goldsmith(the governments most senior legal adviser at the time) gave evidence to Chilcot this morning, to paraphrase, he thought the invasion would be illegal and told Bush and Blair this, they did not like it, he changed his mind just before the invasion and after a visit to the US.
> 
> This afternoon he will be cross examined on what caused his sudden epiphany.



By what law is he basing his OPINION on?


----------



## CurveLight

I overlooked the part where the wee wee PP claimed the law says the invasion was legal.  Someone already pointed out top UK law experts have stated it is illegal:

wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&storyId=6143602&index=1

Then there's

War On Iraq Was Illegal, Say Top Lawyers

I could also post 100 more links from legal experts from all over the world who prove it is illegal but why bother?  Even when a US MILITARY JUDGE says Soldiers have grounds to refuse to deploy based on it being illegal you ignore that so there is nothing anyone can do but sit back and laugh at your stupid arrogant and pathetic displays of the worst kind of Nationalism.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit you never stop lying.  You didn't ask for specific proof the war is illegal and that is because there is a ton of evidence proving so that you tried to avoid tha by demanding a court case showing it is illegal.  The funny part is you didn't know that court case existed and after it was provided you still ignored it.  Lol.  Now you want to hang everything on that word "duplicative" and pretend you know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You definately got some screws loose there pal...You better get checked out at a mental hospital.  The exact words of the judge spoken in a Military court and recorded by a court stenographer.."The charge of unauthorized absence, Article 86, is dismissed as it's duplicative."
> 
> Why did he do this?
> 
> Here's why.
> From Article 87
> 
> 
> 
> (1) Movement. Movement as used in Article 87 includes a move, transfer, or shift of a ship, aircraft, or unit involving a substantial distance and period of time. Whether a particular movement is substantial is a question to be determined by the court-martial considering all the circumstances. Changes which do not constitute a movement include practice marches of a short duration with a return to the point of departure, and minor changes in location of ships, aircraft, or units, as when a ship is shifted from one berth to another in the same shipyard or harbor or when a unit is moved from one barracks to another on the same post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Article 86:
> absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
> 
> by missing movement..he absented himself from his place of duty....DUPLICATIVE....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your dishonesty is purely fucking entertaining but also quite sad.  You just posted the evidence the two charges are completely different but you're so selfish and insecure you pretend they are the same thing.  Then you quote the judge but totally ignore the other quote by the Judge where he agreed with the Soldier for why he refused to deploy.  If you knew ANYTHING about the military you would know his not being sentenced to prison followed by a direct DisDis is a victory for refusing to deploy.  Instead the judge dropped the UA charge and gave him a slap on the wrist.
> 
> Look at another case of a soldier refusing to deploy:
> 
> 
> "Stewart had already been convicted  and
> reduced in rank from sergeant to specialist  of being absent without leave when the bulk of the regiment deployed last summer."
> 
> Gee.  That says he was convicted of being AWOL.  Then read:
> 
> 
> "Spc. Benjamin Stewart, 25, of the 2nd Stryker Cavalry
> Regiment, pleaded guilty Wednesday to missing movement on Jan. 7, 2008, when he was scheduled to deploy to Iraq."
> Soldier gets 6-month sentence for refusing to deploy to Iraq | Stars and Stripes Mobile
> 
> (the two sentences are from the same paragraph but I reversed the order to highlight the two charges are certainly different and not duplicative)
> 
> 
> Since you have proven to be incapable of addressing obvious facts I need to point out this utterly crushes your "duplicative" claim because a Soldier cannot be convicted twice of the same thing.  You totally fail to be honest about any of the facts.  This is just like when you claimed Ready Reserves are all Drilling Units but completely ignored the fact the RR category has several sub-categories including the IRR who never Drill.  One thing you have certainly Drilled home is you are an utterly thorough pathetic individual.  Who the hell is so fucked up they quote the very evidence that proves them wrong only to claim it proves their claim correct?
Click to expand...


My my my...your pathetic spin is laughable even to the stupidest lawyers in the United Staes...

What you are failing to see is that there were 2 SEPARATE incidences where he was ordered to deploy...the first one he didn't show for duty PRIOR TO HIS UNIT DEPLOYING so he was charged with being UA.  The second and totally separate charge and incident of Missing Movement resulted when he didn't show up when his UNIT LEFT THE COUNTRY!!!

You know how I know they are 2 separate incidences you STUPID idiot?  They have this thing called DOUBLE JEOPARDY...you cannot be tried for the same crime TWICE.

Now go pout and cry to momma that big meany Patek kicked your ass again.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> I overlooked the part where the wee wee PP claimed the law says the invasion was legal.  Someone already pointed out top UK law experts have stated it is illegal:
> 
> wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&storyId=6143602&index=1
> 
> Then there's
> 
> War On Iraq Was Illegal, Say Top Lawyers
> 
> I could also post 100 more links from legal experts from all over the world who prove it is illegal but why bother?  Even when a US MILITARY JUDGE says Soldiers have grounds to refuse to deploy based on it being illegal you ignore that so there is nothing anyone can do but sit back and laugh at your stupid arrogant and pathetic displays of the worst kind of Nationalism.



and since all you have is opinion whereas I have the law on my side...YOU LOSE AGAIN!!!!

*Now go pout and cry to momma that big meany Patek kicked your ass again.*


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Until you can cite a legal case that specifically says the War in Iraq is illegal and gives the basis for that...YOU LOSE.  All you have is opinions and I have the law on my side.

show irrefutable proof, cited in a court case, that the war in Iraq was illegal..SPECIFICALLY.

making claims about this and that doesn't mean shit....LEGALLY you don't have a leg to stand on...


----------



## PatekPhilippe

What did you do CurveLight...smash your keyboard again?


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lord Goldsmith(the governments most senior legal adviser at the time) gave evidence to Chilcot this morning, to paraphrase, he thought the invasion would be illegal and told Bush and Blair this, they did not like it, he changed his mind just before the invasion and after a visit to the US.
> 
> This afternoon he will be cross examined on what caused his sudden epiphany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By what law is he basing his OPINION on?
Click to expand...



Your hypocrisy is revealed yet again.  Earlier you wanted to know what legal experts thought of the Judge dismissing the UA charge on Paradese so when you THINK you can find experts to back up your claim then you give credit but when legal experts reveal you for the arrogant idiot you are you suddenly try to dismiss their expertise as "opinion."   lol.....


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lord Goldsmith(the governments most senior legal adviser at the time) gave evidence to Chilcot this morning, to paraphrase, he thought the invasion would be illegal and told Bush and Blair this, they did not like it, he changed his mind just before the invasion and after a visit to the US.
> 
> This afternoon he will be cross examined on what caused his sudden epiphany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By what law is he basing his OPINION on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your hypocrisy is revealed yet again.  Earlier you wanted to know what legal experts thought of the Judge dismissing the UA charge on Paradese so when you THINK you can find experts to back up your claim then you give credit but when legal experts reveal you for the arrogant idiot you are you suddenly try to dismiss their expertise as "opinion."   lol.....
Click to expand...


Sorry.  I have cited specific international and U.S. laws that granted express permission for the President, George W. Bush, to use military force in Iraq.

You have given NOTHING but opinions, obfuscation, spin...in other words you have presented NOTHING to back up your claim that the Iraq War was illegal according to any Court of Law in the U.S.A. that has NOT CONVICTED A SINGLE PERSON.

You lost again.  Better luck next time.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You definately got some screws loose there pal...You better get checked out at a mental hospital.  The exact words of the judge spoken in a Military court and recorded by a court stenographer.."The charge of unauthorized absence, Article 86, is dismissed as it's duplicative."
> 
> Why did he do this?
> 
> Here's why.
> From Article 87
> 
> 
> From Article 86:
> absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.&#8221;
> 
> by missing movement..he absented himself from his place of duty....DUPLICATIVE....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dishonesty is purely fucking entertaining but also quite sad.  You just posted the evidence the two charges are completely different but you're so selfish and insecure you pretend they are the same thing.  Then you quote the judge but totally ignore the other quote by the Judge where he agreed with the Soldier for why he refused to deploy.  If you knew ANYTHING about the military you would know his not being sentenced to prison followed by a direct DisDis is a victory for refusing to deploy.  Instead the judge dropped the UA charge and gave him a slap on the wrist.
> 
> Look at another case of a soldier refusing to deploy:
> 
> 
> "Stewart had already been convicted &#8212; and
> reduced in rank from sergeant to specialist &#8212; of being absent without leave when the bulk of the regiment deployed last summer."
> 
> Gee.  That says he was convicted of being AWOL.  Then read:
> 
> 
> "Spc. Benjamin Stewart, 25, of the 2nd Stryker Cavalry
> Regiment, pleaded guilty Wednesday to missing movement on Jan. 7, 2008, when he was scheduled to deploy to Iraq."
> Soldier gets 6-month sentence for refusing to deploy to Iraq | Stars and Stripes Mobile
> 
> (the two sentences are from the same paragraph but I reversed the order to highlight the two charges are certainly different and not duplicative)
> 
> 
> Since you have proven to be incapable of addressing obvious facts I need to point out this utterly crushes your "duplicative" claim because a Soldier cannot be convicted twice of the same thing.  You totally fail to be honest about any of the facts.  This is just like when you claimed Ready Reserves are all Drilling Units but completely ignored the fact the RR category has several sub-categories including the IRR who never Drill.  One thing you have certainly Drilled home is you are an utterly thorough pathetic individual.  Who the hell is so fucked up they quote the very evidence that proves them wrong only to claim it proves their claim correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My my my...your pathetic spin is laughable even to the stupidest lawyers in the United Staes...
> 
> What you are failing to see is that there were 2 SEPARATE incidences where he was ordered to deploy...the first one he didn't show for duty PRIOR TO HIS UNIT DEPLOYING so he was charged with being UA.  The second and totally separate charge and incident of Missing Movement resulted when he didn't show up when his UNIT LEFT THE COUNTRY!!!
> 
> You know how I know they are 2 separate incidences you STUPID idiot?  They have this thing called DOUBLE JEOPARDY...you cannot be tried for the same crime TWICE.
> 
> Now go pout and cry to momma that big meany Patek kicked your ass again.
Click to expand...


Holy shit you're an idiot.  His unit had already left the country before being hit with missing movement.  The fact they hit him with missing movement shows it is not the same as UA.  By you pointing out double jeopardy you just showed why your dumbass claim is wrong and just like when you cited TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES to prove you are correct you're too arrogant to see you proved they are not duplicative.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your dishonesty is purely fucking entertaining but also quite sad.  You just posted the evidence the two charges are completely different but you're so selfish and insecure you pretend they are the same thing.  Then you quote the judge but totally ignore the other quote by the Judge where he agreed with the Soldier for why he refused to deploy.  If you knew ANYTHING about the military you would know his not being sentenced to prison followed by a direct DisDis is a victory for refusing to deploy.  Instead the judge dropped the UA charge and gave him a slap on the wrist.
> 
> Look at another case of a soldier refusing to deploy:
> 
> 
> "Stewart had already been convicted  and
> reduced in rank from sergeant to specialist  of being absent without leave when the bulk of the regiment deployed last summer."
> 
> Gee.  That says he was convicted of being AWOL.  Then read:
> 
> 
> "Spc. Benjamin Stewart, 25, of the 2nd Stryker Cavalry
> Regiment, pleaded guilty Wednesday to missing movement on Jan. 7, 2008, when he was scheduled to deploy to Iraq."
> Soldier gets 6-month sentence for refusing to deploy to Iraq | Stars and Stripes Mobile
> 
> (the two sentences are from the same paragraph but I reversed the order to highlight the two charges are certainly different and not duplicative)
> 
> 
> Since you have proven to be incapable of addressing obvious facts I need to point out this utterly crushes your "duplicative" claim because a Soldier cannot be convicted twice of the same thing.  You totally fail to be honest about any of the facts.  This is just like when you claimed Ready Reserves are all Drilling Units but completely ignored the fact the RR category has several sub-categories including the IRR who never Drill.  One thing you have certainly Drilled home is you are an utterly thorough pathetic individual.  Who the hell is so fucked up they quote the very evidence that proves them wrong only to claim it proves their claim correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My my my...your pathetic spin is laughable even to the stupidest lawyers in the United Staes...
> 
> What you are failing to see is that there were 2 SEPARATE incidences where he was ordered to deploy...the first one he didn't show for duty PRIOR TO HIS UNIT DEPLOYING so he was charged with being UA.  The second and totally separate charge and incident of Missing Movement resulted when he didn't show up when his UNIT LEFT THE COUNTRY!!!
> 
> You know how I know they are 2 separate incidences you STUPID idiot?  They have this thing called DOUBLE JEOPARDY...you cannot be tried for the same crime TWICE.
> 
> Now go pout and cry to momma that big meany Patek kicked your ass again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit you're an idiot.  His unit had already left the country before being hit with missing movement.  The fact they hit him with missing movement shows it is not the same as UA.  By you pointing out double jeopardy you just showed why your dumbass claim is wrong and just like when you cited TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES to prove you are correct you're too arrogant to see you proved they are not duplicative.
Click to expand...


Wow...you are just too stupid to explain legal concepts, like double jeopardy, to.

Perhaps you may want to consider finishing highschool before entering into any more discussions on this board.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I overlooked the part where the wee wee PP claimed the law says the invasion was legal.  Someone already pointed out top UK law experts have stated it is illegal:
> 
> wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&storyId=6143602&index=1
> 
> Then there's
> 
> War On Iraq Was Illegal, Say Top Lawyers
> 
> I could also post 100 more links from legal experts from all over the world who prove it is illegal but why bother?  Even when a US MILITARY JUDGE says Soldiers have grounds to refuse to deploy based on it being illegal you ignore that so there is nothing anyone can do but sit back and laugh at your stupid arrogant and pathetic displays of the worst kind of Nationalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and since all you have is opinion whereas I have the law on my side...YOU LOSE AGAIN!!!!
> 
> *Now go pout and cry to momma that big meany Patek kicked your ass again.*
Click to expand...



How can the law be on your side when countless world top lawyers point out it is illegal?  Suddenly experts on the law don't matter because you know better?  Rotfl!

You said you were coming to boston in a couple of weeks.  I look forward to buying you a beer, or if you prefer a shirley temple, I'll be happy to get you that.  When you know the exact day let me know.  We can meet at the Purple Shamrock and when you get there just use their landline phone to give me a ring to confirm you're there and I will arrive shortly after.  Yes, I'll give you a cell number you can call.  Look forward to it PP!


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> My my my...your pathetic spin is laughable even to the stupidest lawyers in the United Staes...
> 
> What you are failing to see is that there were 2 SEPARATE incidences where he was ordered to deploy...the first one he didn't show for duty PRIOR TO HIS UNIT DEPLOYING so he was charged with being UA.  The second and totally separate charge and incident of Missing Movement resulted when he didn't show up when his UNIT LEFT THE COUNTRY!!!
> 
> You know how I know they are 2 separate incidences you STUPID idiot?  They have this thing called DOUBLE JEOPARDY...you cannot be tried for the same crime TWICE.
> 
> Now go pout and cry to momma that big meany Patek kicked your ass again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit you're an idiot.  His unit had already left the country before being hit with missing movement.  The fact they hit him with missing movement shows it is not the same as UA.  By you pointing out double jeopardy you just showed why your dumbass claim is wrong and just like when you cited TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES to prove you are correct you're too arrogant to see you proved they are not duplicative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow...you are just too stupid to explain legal concepts, like double jeopardy, to.
> 
> Perhaps you may want to consider finishing highschool before entering into any more discussions on this board.
Click to expand...


I know they are separate incidents you dumbass.  I used it to point out the charges are two different crimes.  That's why the UCMJ has them listed under two different Articles with two different legal definitions.  Lol...you are a riot.  You probably believe your own bullshit eh?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

This is the first incident that resulted in a misdemeanor conviction.  A conviction LAST SUMMER means a trial took place LAST SUMMER which was sometime between June21-September 21.


> Stewart had already been convicted &#8212; and reduced in rank from sergeant to specialist &#8212; of being absent without leave when the bulk of the regiment deployed last summer.



This is the second incident and resulted in another conviction...a felony conviction.


> pleaded guilty Wednesday to missing movement on Jan. 7, 2008, when he was scheduled to deploy to Iraq.



Double jeopardy prevents him from being tried and convicted twice for the same incident.

You lose again CurveLight.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I overlooked the part where the wee wee PP claimed the law says the invasion was legal.  Someone already pointed out top UK law experts have stated it is illegal:
> 
> wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&storyId=6143602&index=1
> 
> Then there's
> 
> War On Iraq Was Illegal, Say Top Lawyers
> 
> I could also post 100 more links from legal experts from all over the world who prove it is illegal but why bother?  Even when a US MILITARY JUDGE says Soldiers have grounds to refuse to deploy based on it being illegal you ignore that so there is nothing anyone can do but sit back and laugh at your stupid arrogant and pathetic displays of the worst kind of Nationalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and since all you have is opinion whereas I have the law on my side...YOU LOSE AGAIN!!!!
> 
> *Now go pout and cry to momma that big meany Patek kicked your ass again.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How can the law be on your side when countless world top lawyers point out it is illegal?  Suddenly experts on the law don't matter because you know better?  Rotfl!
> 
> You said you were coming to boston in a couple of weeks.  I look forward to buying you a beer, or if you prefer a shirley temple, I'll be happy to get you that.  When you know the exact day let me know.  We can meet at the Purple Shamrock and when you get there just use their landline phone to give me a ring to confirm you're there and I will arrive shortly after.  Yes, I'll give you a cell number you can call.  Look forward to it PP!
Click to expand...


Please cite the court cases, legal precedents and laws specifically relating to the Iraq Use of Force Resolution being illegal to back up your claim.

Otherwise...You lose again CurveLight.  The law is on my side right now...all you have is opinions from a bunch of anti-war lawyers AND NOT A SINGLE CONVICTION.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit you're an idiot.  His unit had already left the country before being hit with missing movement.  The fact they hit him with missing movement shows it is not the same as UA.  By you pointing out double jeopardy you just showed why your dumbass claim is wrong and just like when you cited TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES to prove you are correct you're too arrogant to see you proved they are not duplicative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...you are just too stupid to explain legal concepts, like double jeopardy, to.
> 
> Perhaps you may want to consider finishing highschool before entering into any more discussions on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know they are separate incidents you dumbass.  I used it to point out the charges are two different crimes.  That's why the UCMJ has them listed under two different Articles with two different legal definitions.  Lol...you are a riot.  You probably believe your own bullshit eh?
Click to expand...


Both charges relate to 2 different incidences of this soldier not reporting for duty.  They BOTH involve absence from is unit without permission.  The other court case you cite as proof the war is illegal consisted of ONE SINGLE INCIDENT so they went with ONE CHARGE due to the other one being "duplicative".

Try again.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Don't smash your keyboard again...those things get expensive after 3 or 4 times...


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> and since all you have is opinion whereas I have the law on my side...YOU LOSE AGAIN!!!!
> 
> *Now go pout and cry to momma that big meany Patek kicked your ass again.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can the law be on your side when countless world top lawyers point out it is illegal?  Suddenly experts on the law don't matter because you know better?  Rotfl!
> 
> You said you were coming to boston in a couple of weeks.  I look forward to buying you a beer, or if you prefer a shirley temple, I'll be happy to get you that.  When you know the exact day let me know.  We can meet at the Purple Shamrock and when you get there just use their landline phone to give me a ring to confirm you're there and I will arrive shortly after.  Yes, I'll give you a cell number you can call.  Look forward to it PP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please cite the court cases, legal precedents and laws specifically relating to the Iraq Use of Force Resolution being illegal to back up your claim.
> 
> Otherwise...You lose again CurveLight.  The law is on my side right now...all you have is opinions from a bunch of anti-war lawyers AND NOT A SINGLE CONVICTION.
Click to expand...



You ignore the lawyers on the claim they are anti war?  Got a link showing all those lawyers are anti war or is this another wee wee PP attempt to ignore the facts?

You also ignored the other part of my post.  No worries, the fact you are a dishonest coward will be our little secret.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Please cite the court cases, legal precedents and laws specifically relating to the Iraq Use of Force Resolution being illegal to back up your claim.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Hint:  You won't find anything in any search engine...so don't bother....you have NOTHING CurveLight...NOTHING to back up your CLAIMS.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...you are just too stupid to explain legal concepts, like double jeopardy, to.
> 
> Perhaps you may want to consider finishing highschool before entering into any more discussions on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know they are separate incidents you dumbass.  I used it to point out the charges are two different crimes.  That's why the UCMJ has them listed under two different Articles with two different legal definitions.  Lol...you are a riot.  You probably believe your own bullshit eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both charges relate to 2 different incidences of this soldier not reporting for duty.  They BOTH involve absence from is unit without permission.  The other court case you cite as proof the war is illegal consisted of ONE SINGLE INCIDENT so they went with ONE CHARGE due to the other one being "duplicative".
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...




It was really entertaining how you quoted two different Articles from the UCMJ with two different definitions of the two different crimes to then try and convince everyone they are the same thing.  That was funny.  But not nearly as funny as you claiming you can ignore all the lawyers because they are anti-war.  There really is no limit to how ridiculous you will get to try and maintain what is clearly a dumb fucking claim.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Please cite the court cases, legal precedents and laws specifically relating to the Iraq Use of Force Resolution being illegal to back up your claim. 
Hint: You won't find anything in any search engine...so don't bother....you have NOTHING CurveLight...NOTHING to back up your CLAIMS.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> Hint:  You won't find anything in any search engine...so don't bother....you have NOTHING CurveLight...NOTHING to back up your CLAIMS.



ROTFL!  Now you're just trying to convince yourself.  Shut your eyes a little tighter.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know they are separate incidents you dumbass.  I used it to point out the charges are two different crimes.  That's why the UCMJ has them listed under two different Articles with two different legal definitions.  Lol...you are a riot.  You probably believe your own bullshit eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both charges relate to 2 different incidences of this soldier not reporting for duty.  They BOTH involve absence from is unit without permission.  The other court case you cite as proof the war is illegal consisted of ONE SINGLE INCIDENT so they went with ONE CHARGE due to the other one being "duplicative".
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was really entertaining how you quoted two different Articles from the UCMJ with two different definitions of the two different crimes to then try and convince everyone they are the same thing.  That was funny.  But not nearly as funny as you claiming you can ignore all the lawyers because they are anti-war.  There really is no limit to how ridiculous you will get to try and maintain what is clearly a dumb fucking claim.
Click to expand...


Damn woman....calm down...you're going to have a heart attack...  Now...about the legality of your CLAIMS and the legal precedents in a U.S. court of law concerning the IUOFA.....


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hint:  You won't find anything in any search engine...so don't bother....you have NOTHING CurveLight...NOTHING to back up your CLAIMS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFL!  Now you're just trying to convince yourself.  Shut your eyes a little tighter.
Click to expand...


Cite your specific case law regarding the Iraq Use of Force Agreement and it's legality.


----------



## jillian

PatekPhilippe said:


> See posts above for specific LEGAL authorization to invade Iraq.  As far as the right to invade?  Please see the plethora of UN security council resolutions that LEGALLY authorized un to invade Iraq.
> Hint:  It was legal
> 
> Oh Dr. Grump...you are blinded by your petty hatred of America and her pro-active foreign policy.  Yet when the shit hit's the fan you and other european types begin to whine "Where's America???!!!  Why didn't they stop it!!!????  Please try to remember if it wasn't for us intervening on your country's behalf in WW2 more than likely you would have squinty eyes and buck teeth.
> 
> and as far as Israel...why don't you put "invade Israel" in your government's suggestion box.



There was no legal authorization to invade Iraq the SECOND TIME. 

FWIW, I've known Grump for almost seven years. He doesn't hate America at all. And the overly aggressive foreign policy of Dubya was offensive to most people outside of the U.S. and a good number of us here.

I don't think we intervened on behalf of his country either, though his country sent a lot of people to help the war effort.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

jillian said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> See posts above for specific LEGAL authorization to invade Iraq.  As far as the right to invade?  Please see the plethora of UN security council resolutions that LEGALLY authorized un to invade Iraq.
> Hint:  It was legal
> 
> Oh Dr. Grump...you are blinded by your petty hatred of America and her pro-active foreign policy.  Yet when the shit hit's the fan you and other european types begin to whine "Where's America???!!!  Why didn't they stop it!!!????  Please try to remember if it wasn't for us intervening on your country's behalf in WW2 more than likely you would have squinty eyes and buck teeth.
> 
> and as far as Israel...why don't you put "invade Israel" in your government's suggestion box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no legal authorization to invade Iraq the SECOND TIME.
> 
> FWIW, I've known Grump for almost seven years. He doesn't hate America at all. And the overly aggressive foreign policy of Dubya was offensive to most people outside of the U.S. and a good number of us here.
> 
> I don't think we intervened on behalf of his country either, though his country sent a lot of people to help the war effort.
Click to expand...


Please see Battle of the Coral Sea for the history of our intervention on behalf of New Zealand.

What the good Dr. is not seeing is this.  If we just let it all go and say "oh well, fuck it" and blame ourselves for what happened the terrorists would NEVER stop.  Do I agree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq?  No.  Do I support it and his policy of pre-emptive war?  Unequivocally yes.  There is no question that this has saved countless American lives.  He was my Commander in Chief and I support all of his policies...just as I must now support all of the current President's policies even though I disagree with them in a political context.  That's where Dr. Grump and CurveLight cannot make the distinction....and that is why they have lost the argument here.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hint:  You won't find anything in any search engine...so don't bother....you have NOTHING CurveLight...NOTHING to back up your CLAIMS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFL!  Now you're just trying to convince yourself.  Shut your eyes a little tighter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cite your specific case law regarding the Iraq Use of Force Agreement and it's legality.
Click to expand...


You just ignored what the legal experts have said on the totally baseless claim they are anti-war.  You are a waste of time.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFL!  Now you're just trying to convince yourself.  Shut your eyes a little tighter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cite your specific case law regarding the Iraq Use of Force Agreement and it's legality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just ignored what the legal experts have said on the totally baseless claim they are anti-war.  You are a waste of time.
Click to expand...


Legal experts voiced OPINIONS!!!!  That is NOT case law!!!!!

What exactly are you having trouble understanding here?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hey PP I am going to have to disagree with you on this one point..............

"Do I support it and his policy of pre-emptive war? Unequivocally yes."

Iraq was NOT pre-emptive which is LEGAL Iraq was PREVENTITIVE which is NOT legal. Pre-emptive indicates that there is an IMMINENT THREAT. For example if we found the Japanese fleet within striking distance of Pearl Harbour we would be TOTALLY justified in attacking them and going to war. If we found out that they were building a fleet that would be at some time in the future capable of striking Pearl Harbour and we sunk their ships in their ports that would be an ILLEGAL PREVENTITIVE act of war.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

The fact that it's the opinion of many on the left that Iraq was pre-emptive war is one of their main bitches about Bush.

but since the use of military force was authorized by the UN and further re-enforced by the Iraq Use of Force Resolution...all opinions on what was what are just that....opinions.  Until the IUOFA is PROVEN TO BE ILLEGAL in a U.S. court of law...no one has a leg to stand on....all they have are opinions..

That's the bottom line.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Again, The US Ambassador with the British Ambassador agreeing with him that the war was indeed legal.

Discussion on UN Resolution 1441
"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 discussion.[But] if the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce the relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security."( U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte)(The British ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, agreed. )
International Law - War in Iraq - United Nations - Iraq

Now I have to wonder, If there truly was a case for the war to be illegal:

1. Why hasn't someone in the USA sued the Government over it ?

2. Where are the UN Sanctions against the USA ?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

sfc ollie said:


> again, the us ambassador with the british ambassador agreeing with him that the war was indeed legal.
> 
> Discussion on un resolution 1441
> "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 discussion.[but] if the security council fails to act decisively in the event of further iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by iraq or to enforce the relevant united nations resolutions and protect world peace and security."( u.s. Ambassador to the u.n. John negroponte)(the british ambassador, sir jeremy greenstock, agreed. )
> international law - war in iraq - united nations - iraq
> 
> now i have to wonder, if there truly was a case for the war to be illegal:
> 
> 1. Why hasn't someone in the usa sued the government over it ?
> 
> 2. Where are the un sanctions against the usa ?



exactly!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Basically you are saying it was an EXTENSION of the original GW which I would agree with you on. I just don't like the use of the term PRE-EMPTIVE because they did NOT pose an EMMINENT threat. IMHO.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Basically you are saying it was an EXTENSION of the original GW which I would agree with you on. I just don't like the use of the term PRE-EMPTIVE because they did NOT pose an EMMINENT threat. IMHO.



and that is precisely where the anti-war crowd has placed their marbles yet there is absolutely no court cases in the United States that have arrived at their conclusions based on sound proof and legal precedent...hence the argument that legally...the war in Iraq was in fact legal as no one has proven otherwise at this point in time.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

I'm going to the gym...I'll be back later


----------



## CurveLight

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Basically you are saying it was an EXTENSION of the original GW which I would agree with you on. I just don't like the use of the term PRE-EMPTIVE because they did NOT pose an EMMINENT threat. IMHO.



That is exactly why it is illegal.  They keep citing R1441 but refuse to address the fact it purposefully points out there must be a new UNSC Vote to approve resuming military action.  The No Fly Zones were illegal so people cannot refer to iraq firing on our aircraft that violated Iraqi airspace.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> I'm going to the gym...I'll be back later




Damn.  Your arrogance is beyond scope.  Nobody gives a fuck where you are going.


----------



## jillian

PatekPhilippe said:


> Exactly...so all it is is spin from the left.
> 
> Now can you tell, me as a lawyer...does a Judge dismissing a charge equate to a finding of "not guilty" or "aquittal"?



depends on the point in the proceeding at which they're dismissed and the basis for the dismissal.


----------



## jillian

PatekPhilippe said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. They didn't. In fact, Kofi Annan specifically called it illegal on September 16, 2004.
> 
> BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Jillian...you left out the part of the story that said this....
> 
> 
> 
> When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. *I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now...this is where the war was legal from the standpoint of the UN....Resolution 1441authorizes the use of military force against Iraq.  What part of "all necessary means" is confusing everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) *authorized Member States to use all
> necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 *(1990) of 2 August
> 1990 *and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 *(1990) and to restore
> international peace and security in the area,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ODS HOME PAGE
> 
> and then there is this LAW signed by our Congress...
> 
> US Government Printing Office - FDsys - More Information
> 
> The sooner you progressives realize that OUR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY and OUR OWN LAWS trump International law...the sooner we can move on.
> 
> and then theres this...if the war was illegal...how come no charges have been filed against anyone?  How come there have been no trials of anyone?
> 
> Sorry...you guys just have to accept the fact that the war WAS LEGAL.  Now move on.
> 
> NO ONE HERE has provided specific proof that the war in Iraq was illegal.  Not a single one.  I've made my case for it's legality and apparently, the the law is on my side.  All you guys have is opinion...not a single fact proven in any court of law.
Click to expand...


1. our congress can't make something legal under international law which isn't.

2. iraq was allowing inspections. if you look at the final report of hans blix, it was clear that all access issues had been resolved. so were they, in fact, in violation at the time we invaded? And it wasn't up to us to unilaterally determine whether they were in violation.

3. bush didn't even comply with our own resolution which required that he exhaust all diplomatic efforts AND return to congress with specific reports BEFORE attacking Iraq.

4, We had no security interest in attacking Iraq....which had nothing to do with the attack on us. It was like attackig mexico after the japanese bombed pearl harbor.


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> See posts above for specific LEGAL authorization to invade Iraq.  As far as the right to invade?  Please see the plethora of UN security council resolutions that LEGALLY authorized un to invade Iraq.
> Hint:  It was legal
> 
> Oh Dr. Grump...you are blinded by your petty hatred of America and her pro-active foreign policy.  Yet when the shit hit's the fan you and other european types begin to whine "Where's America???!!!  Why didn't they stop it!!!????  Please try to remember if it wasn't for us intervening on your country's behalf in WW2 more than likely you would have squinty eyes and buck teeth.
> 
> and as far as Israel...why don't you put "invade Israel" in your government's suggestion box.



Having and then making it legal are two different things..

I have never asked "where's America"..

and you haven't a clue about WWII with regard to NZ

The Battle of the Coral Sea had nothing to do with Japan's designs on NZ..

I have no hatred for America, just an extreme dislike for neocon whackjobs who are all about "freedom and the American way" until they open their yaps, and they start sounding like everything they claim to despise..


----------



## CurveLight

Dr Grump said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> See posts above for specific LEGAL authorization to invade Iraq.  As far as the right to invade?  Please see the plethora of UN security council resolutions that LEGALLY authorized un to invade Iraq.
> Hint:  It was legal
> 
> Oh Dr. Grump...you are blinded by your petty hatred of America and her pro-active foreign policy.  Yet when the shit hit's the fan you and other european types begin to whine "Where's America???!!!  Why didn't they stop it!!!????  Please try to remember if it wasn't for us intervening on your country's behalf in WW2 more than likely you would have squinty eyes and buck teeth.
> 
> and as far as Israel...why don't you put "invade Israel" in your government's suggestion box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having and then making it legal are two different things..
> 
> I have never asked "where's America"..
> 
> and you haven't a clue about WWII with regard to NZ
> 
> The Battle of the Coral Sea had nothing to do with Japan's designs on NZ..
> 
> I have no hatred for America, just an extreme dislike for neocon whackjobs who are all about "freedom and the American way" until they open their yaps, and they start sounding like everything they claim to despise..
Click to expand...



Dumbasses like him think the US was the world's savior in WW2 which is why they always refer to Germany and Japan to defend the installation of "long term" bases in Irafghaqistan.  Honestly, at one time I was a Nationalist like PP and a few others so while I understand their self chosen cloak of ignorance it doesn't make it any less frustrating.  

There is nothing any of us can say nor any information we can provide that will get people like him to admit the US did anything illegal or immoral.


----------



## Dr Grump

CurveLight said:


> There is nothing any of us can say nor any information we can provide that will get people like him to admit the US did anything illegal or immoral.



I know, but you can live in hope....


----------



## CurveLight

Dr Grump said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing any of us can say nor any information we can provide that will get people like him to admit the US did anything illegal or immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, but you can live in hope....
Click to expand...


I try but man, there is some seriously nasty shit coming our way.  You cannot do what we have done over the past decade and escape the pendulum. Just as the character of a person determines her/his destiny the same is true for a nation.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> 1. our congress can't make something legal under international law which isn't.



Therefore by passing The Iraq use of Force Resolution THE WAR WAS LEGAL!!!!!


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> The Battle of the Coral Sea had nothing to do with Japan's designs on NZ..



I see history wasn't your strong suit in school....fair enough.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> There is nothing any of us can say nor any information we can provide that will get people like him to admit the US did anything illegal or immoral.



You're right....consider this while your trying to change the world.....perhaps the U.S. DIDN'T do anything illegal or immoral.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> Dumbasses like him think the US was the world's savior in WW2 which is why they always refer to Germany and Japan to defend the installation of "long term" bases in Irafghaqistan.  Honestly, at one time I was a Nationalist like PP and a few others so while I understand their self chosen cloak of ignorance it doesn't make it any less frustrating.




Now you are a pacifist...and remember it's people like you who are the first to die when calamity strikes...

In the natural world the weak are culled from species as they are not fit to propagate and this simple law of nature insures the survival of the strongest genes.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing any of us can say nor any information we can provide that will get people like him to admit the US did anything illegal or immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, but you can live in hope....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I try but man, there is some seriously nasty shit coming our way.
Click to expand...


Who's skirt are you going to hide behind when "nasty shit" comes knocking at your door?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> I have never asked "where's America"..



Your welcome!


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> 1. our congress can't make something legal under international law which isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore by passing The Iraq use of Force Resolution THE WAR WAS LEGAL!!!!!
Click to expand...



Congress is not a universal trump card.  Have you ever heard of Amendments or the Supreme Court?  H. J. 114 invoked the UNSC to justify authorization.  As a member of the UNSC we were bound by the Charter to receive authorization from the UN.  You can't say H. J. 114 trumped the UN because it did not remove us as a member of the UNSC.  As long as we choose to remain a member we are bound by those international laws.  Nobody is saying the US is run by international law.  We are saying by US Law the US must honor all treaties it is a member of.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. our congress can't make something legal under international law which isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore by passing The Iraq use of Force Resolution THE WAR WAS LEGAL!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Congress is not a universal trump card.  Have you ever heard of Amendments or the Supreme Court?  H. J. 114 invoked the UNSC to justify authorization.  As a member of the UNSC we were bound by the Charter to receive authorization from the UN.  You can't say H. J. 114 trumped the UN because it did not remove us as a member of the UNSC.  As long as we choose to remain a member we are bound by those international laws.  Nobody is saying the US is run by international law.  We are saying by US Law the US must honor all treaties it is a member of.
Click to expand...


Sorry.  Once again you are mistaken.  The national security and interests of the United Staes takes precedence over any international law or treaty.  I have a COURT CASE THAT HAS SET THE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND FAVORS MY POSITION FOR A REFERENCE.

Here is a quote:


> The opinion said all of al-Bihani's arguments "rely heavily on the premise that the *war powers granted by the (congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force) and other statutes are limited by the international laws of war. This premise is mistaken. *There is no indication in the AUMF, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 ... or the MCA of 2006 or 2009, that Congress intended the international laws of war to act as extra-textual limiting principles for the president's war powers under the AUMF. The international laws of war as a whole have not been implemented domestically by Congress and are therefore not a source of authority for U.S. courts. ...


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore by passing The Iraq use of Force Resolution THE WAR WAS LEGAL!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress is not a universal trump card.  Have you ever heard of Amendments or the Supreme Court?  H. J. 114 invoked the UNSC to justify authorization.  As a member of the UNSC we were bound by the Charter to receive authorization from the UN.  You can't say H. J. 114 trumped the UN because it did not remove us as a member of the UNSC.  As long as we choose to remain a member we are bound by those international laws.  Nobody is saying the US is run by international law.  We are saying by US Law the US must honor all treaties it is a member of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry.  Once again you are mistaken.  The national security and interests of the United Staes takes precedence over any international law or treaty.  I have a COURT CASE THAT HAS SET THE LEGAL PRECEDENCE AND FAVORS MY POSITION FOR A REFERENCE.
> 
> Here is a quote:
> 
> 
> 
> The opinion said all of al-Bihani's arguments "rely heavily on the premise that the *war powers granted by the (congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force) and other statutes are limited by the international laws of war. This premise is mistaken. *There is no indication in the AUMF, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 ... or the MCA of 2006 or 2009, that Congress intended the international laws of war to act as extra-textual limiting principles for the president's war powers under the AUMF. The international laws of war as a whole have not been implemented domestically by Congress and are therefore not a source of authority for U.S. courts. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



You completely ignored my post to distract with this non-sequitur.  Iraq is under a different AUMF and this is jus saying saying international criminal law does not have domestic jurisprudence in the US court system.  It means someone in Dallas can't be tried and convicted on laws from the ICJ.


But let's pull a page out of your book.  That opinion was written by a bunch of pro war freaks so it doesn't count.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Sorry..once again you are mistaken...and ...I had no idea there were multiple AUMF's with respect to Iraq...please cite their Public Law Codes.


> That opinion was written by a bunch of pro war freaks so it doesn't count



  The Judges seated on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit are now pro war freaks are they?



> A powerful federal court, ruling on broad issues, has brushed aside international law and the laws of war, saying only domestic law restricts the president's power to hold an enemy combatant.


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/01/10/US-Supreme-Court-In-terror-war-to-hell-with-international-law/UPI-45561263112200/

In other words this ruling states that international law is meaningless to curtail the power of the President of the United States and that domestic law i.e. The Iraq Use of Force Agreement, TRUMPS INTERNATIONAL LAW.

You truly are in the dark aren't you.  Laws in the U.S. have no meaning for you do they?  You chose international law that supports your delusional fantasies...and those laws are meaningless in the United States when it comes to our national security and sovereignty as a nation.

Guess what...YOU lost again!!!!


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Keep trying CurveLight...you are actually quite entertaining....I have done nothing but back up my positions with cited laws and facts...all you have done is whine, complain and present op-eds...


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> Keep trying CurveLight...you are actually quite entertaining....I have done nothing but back up my positions with cited laws and facts...all you have done is whine, complain and present op-eds...




You're absolutely correct.  I must have been out of my mind to ever disagree with you.  Will you please forgive me?  You still coming to Boston in a couple of weeks?  You seem to keep overlooking that.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Look tough girl...what are you going to do?  You know how to PM me or email me...


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep trying CurveLight...you are actually quite entertaining....I have done nothing but back up my positions with cited laws and facts...all you have done is whine, complain and present op-eds...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely correct.  I must have been out of my mind to ever disagree with you.  Will you please forgive me?  You still coming to Boston in a couple of weeks?  You seem to keep overlooking that.
Click to expand...


I could care less if you disagree with me but I refuse to let you trample on the Institutions that make our country the greatest place on earth with your progressive liberal lies and anti-American opinions.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

I checked my mail....nothing.
Just like Obama...all talk and no substance.


----------



## SFC Ollie

He's kind of stupid. I don't know how you put up with his stupidity. I have had him on ignore most of the time I've been on this board. I just don't do well with stupidity. My hats off to you.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep trying CurveLight...you are actually quite entertaining....I have done nothing but back up my positions with cited laws and facts...all you have done is whine, complain and present op-eds...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely correct.  I must have been out of my mind to ever disagree with you.  Will you please forgive me?  You still coming to Boston in a couple of weeks?  You seem to keep overlooking that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could care less if you disagree with me but I refuse to let you trample on the Institutions that make our country the greatest place on earth with your progressive liberal lies and anti-American opinions.
Click to expand...



You represent the worst anti-American group in the world.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> I checked my mail....nothing.
> Just like Obama...all talk and no substance.




What are squawking about?  Couple of days ago I said if you are ever in Boston to let me know so I could buy you a beer.  You responded by saying you'd see me in about three weeks.  Has your itinerary changed all of a sudden?


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> He's kind of stupid. I don't know how you put up with his stupidity. I have had him on ignore most of the time I've been on this board. I just don't do well with stupidity. My hats off to you.



You have to be one of the oldest first graders I've ever encountered.  Do you really think you are fooling anyone other than yourself?  You have me on ignore because I pwn you.  There is nothing you can do about it but whine, leave stupid one liners with the rep button, and talk about me almost everyday you post.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely correct.  I must have been out of my mind to ever disagree with you.  Will you please forgive me?  You still coming to Boston in a couple of weeks?  You seem to keep overlooking that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could care less if you disagree with me but I refuse to let you trample on the Institutions that make our country the greatest place on earth with your progressive liberal lies and anti-American opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You represent the worst anti-American group in the world.
Click to expand...


Ya...the Armed Services of the United States are "anti-American" .... according to you.....and I notice how you've digressed into a submissive role in this thread as your lame rant has been shot down in flames.  My itinerary hasn't changed either...right now my family and I are enjoying some down time here in beautiful San Diego...tomorrow we will go out to the amphib base in Coronado so I can look up some of my fellow "anti-American" friends and have a beer or 2 at McP's.  Hope you are enjoying yourself there in Boston and freezing your ass off.....eat a bowl of beans and then lock yourself in the closet with a book of matches....that'll keep you warm.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could care less if you disagree with me but I refuse to let you trample on the Institutions that make our country the greatest place on earth with your progressive liberal lies and anti-American opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You represent the worst anti-American group in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya...the Armed Services of the United States are "anti-American" .... according to you.....and I notice how you've digressed into a submissive role in this thread as your lame rant has been shot down in flames.  My itinerary hasn't changed either...right now my family and I are enjoying some down time here in beautiful San Diego...tomorrow we will go out to the amphib base in Coronado so I can look up some of my fellow "anti-American" friends and have a beer or 2 at McP's.  Hope you are enjoying yourself there in Boston and freezing your ass off.....eat a bowl of beans and then lock yourself in the closet with a book of matches....that'll keep you warm.
Click to expand...



You don't represent the Armed Forces of the US.  So you're still coming to Boston in a couple of weeks?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Beg to differ dear lady....I do in fact represent the Armed Services as I served an honorable 20 years.  What have you done for your country other than take up space and contribute to global warming?


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> The Battle of the Coral Sea had nothing to do with Japan's designs on NZ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see history wasn't your strong suit in school....fair enough.
Click to expand...


Actually I got straight A's all through high school.

However, it is plainly not yours...carry on!


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> Now you are a pacifist...



And the opposite of a pacifist is a war monger.

Are you a war monger?


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> I have never asked "where's America"..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your welcome!
Click to expand...


As are you....


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> [
> make our country *the greatest place on earth*



I disagree.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Dr Grump said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> make our country *the greatest place on earth*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
Click to expand...


How sad you have to edit posts to distort their meaning....but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.


----------



## Dr Grump

PatekPhilippe said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> make our country *the greatest place on earth*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How sad you have to edit posts to distort their meaning....but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
Click to expand...


1) People can see the original post
2) There is no ambiguity in what I have posted


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lord Goldsmith(the governments most senior legal adviser at the time) gave evidence to Chilcot this morning, to paraphrase, he thought the invasion would be illegal and told Bush and Blair this, they did not like it, he changed his mind just before the invasion and after a visit to the US.
> 
> This afternoon he will be cross examined on what caused his sudden epiphany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By what law is he basing his OPINION on?
Click to expand...

International Law.


----------



## B L Zeebub

I really want to wait till the end of Chilcot before I comment more, but so far,it would appear so far that Lord Goldsmith the Attorney General at the time,up till 2 months before the invasion, advised Bush and Blair that without a specific UN resolution the Invasion of Iraq would be illegal under International Law, at the time and to this day, the then most senior lawyer in the Foreign office stated without the resolution the Invasion would be illegal. 168 cross party Members of Parliament (conservatives, liberals, labour ect) place a rebel amendment to stop the invasion as they also thought that it was illegal.

I doubt that the US would have invaded if the UK had not joined in.

It is for Goldsmiths conscience, as to why after months of warning Blair, he changed his mind suddenly after a visit to the US, two months before the invasion.

I wonder what really changed his mind in America, perhaps you water-boarded him .

May I ask you Patek, as you seem to think International law is irrelevant in this case, why did your top lawyer work so hard to convert Goldsmith?


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> our country the greatest place on earth


I concur, and what makes that fact more obvious in Europes eye's is the quality of your wonderfull President Obama


----------



## B L Zeebub

It does rather amuse me when debate devolve's into penis size rather than substance.

I do find these places are more about personality and point scoring than true debate, but they are for me amusing.


----------



## sboyle24

If I had diarrhea, this thread would be a suitable target.


----------



## B L Zeebub

sboyle24 said:


> If I had diarrhea, this thread would be a suitable target.


Olive, your sphincter would the be a WMD


----------



## JW Frogen

B L Zeebub said:


> It does rather amuse me when debate devolve's into penis size rather than substance.



Penis size is the only true thing that matters in this world.

Oh, that and girth, don't forget girth.


----------



## California Girl

JW Frogen said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does rather amuse me when debate devolve's into penis size rather than substance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penis size is the only true thing that matters in this world.
> 
> Oh, that and girth, don't forget girth.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm. If we could just get men to think with what is between their ears instead of what is between their legs, the world would be a better place.


----------



## JW Frogen

California Girl said:


> Hmmmm. If we could just get men to think with what is between their ears instead of what is between their legs, the world would be a better place.



I try to think with my brain but my penis has a higher IQ and looks better naked.


----------



## B L Zeebub

Fuck off the pair of you, this is the only thread I have ever been serious in


----------



## B L Zeebub

JW Frogen said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does rather amuse me when debate devolve's into penis size rather than substance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penis size is the only true thing that matters in this world.
> 
> Oh, that and girth, don't forget girth.
Click to expand...

Okay then have you heard the one about women and penis size.

I call my boyfriend long tom, its good and long but not to thick.

I call my boyfriend thick mick, it aint to long but its good and thick.

I call my husband Remy Martin.

Why,isnt thats some fancy french liquer?


Yep thats my Remy


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> Beg to differ dear lady....I do in fact represent the Armed Services as I served an honorable 20 years.  What have you done for your country other than take up space and contribute to global warming?



You served 20 years and you didn't know not all Ready Reservists don't Drill?  ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!  Your arrogant head rises sky high again because it doesn't matter how many years you served.  You don't represent the Armed Services.  Show some fucking respect for others who have and are Serving.


----------



## CurveLight

B L Zeebub said:


> I really want to wait till the end of Chilcot before I comment more, but so far,it would appear so far that Lord Goldsmith the Attorney General at the time,up till 2 months before the invasion, advised Bush and Blair that without a specific UN resolution the Invasion of Iraq would be illegal under International Law, at the time and to this day, the then most senior lawyer in the Foreign office stated without the resolution the Invasion would be illegal. 168 cross party Members of Parliament (conservatives, liberals, labour ect) place a rebel amendment to stop the invasion as they also thought that it was illegal.
> 
> I doubt that the US would have invaded if the UK had not joined in.
> 
> It is for Goldsmiths conscience, as to why after months of warning Blair, he changed his mind suddenly after a visit to the US, two months before the invasion.
> 
> I wonder what really changed his mind in America, perhaps you water-boarded him .
> 
> May I ask you Patek, as you seem to think International law is irrelevant in this case, why did your top lawyer work so hard to convert Goldsmith?



Patek is guilty of hypocrisy on the International law issue.  He will say it doesn't matter and does not apply only to follow that up by claiming international law is what made the invasion legal.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beg to differ dear lady....I do in fact represent the Armed Services as I served an honorable 20 years.  What have you done for your country other than take up space and contribute to global warming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You served 20 years and you didn't know not all Ready Reservists don't Drill?  ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!  Your arrogant head rises sky high again because it doesn't matter how many years you served.  You don't represent the Armed Services.  Show some fucking respect for others who have and are Serving.
Click to expand...


You already admitted you made an error in that post...please continue to be as dishonest as you can.

and I served....what have you done for your country....hint:  NOTHING.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

B L Zeebub said:


> I really want to wait till the end of Chilcot before I comment more, but so far,it would appear so far that Lord Goldsmith the Attorney General at the time,up till 2 months before the invasion, advised Bush and Blair that without a specific UN resolution the Invasion of Iraq would be illegal under International Law, at the time and to this day, the then most senior lawyer in the Foreign office stated without the resolution the Invasion would be illegal. 168 cross party Members of Parliament (conservatives, liberals, labour ect) place a rebel amendment to stop the invasion as they also thought that it was illegal.
> 
> I doubt that the US would have invaded if the UK had not joined in.
> 
> It is for Goldsmiths conscience, as to why after months of warning Blair, he changed his mind suddenly after a visit to the US, two months before the invasion.
> 
> I wonder what really changed his mind in America, perhaps you water-boarded him .
> 
> May I ask you Patek, as you seem to think International law is irrelevant in this case, why did your top lawyer work so hard to convert Goldsmith?



International law IS IN FACT, irrelevant when it comes to the power placed in the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain or any country for that matter.  International law CANNOT be allowed to trump the power of the head of governments or the sovereignty of any Nation when it comes to national security issues.  That's the bottom line.... and thats why there is a clause in ANY international treaty signed by the U.S.A. that specifically addresses this fact.  We aren't Europeans who capitulate, we are Americans, an independent nation and a free people who look out for #1.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> Patek is guilty of hypocrisy on the International law issue.  He will say it doesn't matter and does not apply only to follow that up by claiming international law is what made the invasion legal.



International law DID allow the invasion of Iraq...you're either too stupid to see it...or...just too ashamed that you've gotten your fat ass handed to you daily here for 2 weeks.


----------



## SFC Ollie

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patek is guilty of hypocrisy on the International law issue.  He will say it doesn't matter and does not apply only to follow that up by claiming international law is what made the invasion legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International DID allow the invasion of Iraq...you're either too stupid to see it...or...just too ashamed that you've gotten your fat ass handed to you daily here for 2 weeks.
Click to expand...


I told you he /she/it was stupid.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patek is guilty of hypocrisy on the International law issue.  He will say it doesn't matter and does not apply only to follow that up by claiming international law is what made the invasion legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law DID allow the invasion of Iraq...you're either too stupid to see it...or...just too ashamed that you've gotten your fat ass handed to you daily here for 2 weeks.
Click to expand...


So are you still coming to Boston? You seem to keep accidentally forgetting you said you'd be here in a couple of weeks and you said your itinerary has not changed.  So roughly what date do you plan on being here?


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patek is guilty of hypocrisy on the International law issue.  He will say it doesn't matter and does not apply only to follow that up by claiming international law is what made the invasion legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International DID allow the invasion of Iraq...you're either too stupid to see it...or...just too ashamed that you've gotten your fat ass handed to you daily here for 2 weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you he /she/it was stupid.
Click to expand...



I'm smart enough to put so much fear into your heart you can't handle responding to my posts yet you talk about me consistently.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really want to wait till the end of Chilcot before I comment more, but so far,it would appear so far that Lord Goldsmith the Attorney General at the time,up till 2 months before the invasion, advised Bush and Blair that without a specific UN resolution the Invasion of Iraq would be illegal under International Law, at the time and to this day, the then most senior lawyer in the Foreign office stated without the resolution the Invasion would be illegal. 168 cross party Members of Parliament (conservatives, liberals, labour ect) place a rebel amendment to stop the invasion as they also thought that it was illegal.
> 
> I doubt that the US would have invaded if the UK had not joined in.
> 
> It is for Goldsmiths conscience, as to why after months of warning Blair, he changed his mind suddenly after a visit to the US, two months before the invasion.
> 
> I wonder what really changed his mind in America, perhaps you water-boarded him .
> 
> May I ask you Patek, as you seem to think International law is irrelevant in this case, why did your top lawyer work so hard to convert Goldsmith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law IS IN FACT, irrelevant when it comes to the power placed in the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain or any country for that matter.  International law CANNOT be allowed to trump the power of the head of governments or the sovereignty of any Nation when it comes to national security issues.  That's the bottom line.... and thats why there is a clause in ANY international treaty signed by the U.S.A. that specifically addresses this fact.  We aren't Europeans who capitulate, we are Americans, an independent nation and a free people who look out for #1.
Click to expand...



This is a decent example of how it could be argued Nationalism is a mental disease.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patek is guilty of hypocrisy on the International law issue.  He will say it doesn't matter and does not apply only to follow that up by claiming international law is what made the invasion legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law DID allow the invasion of Iraq...you're either too stupid to see it...or...just too ashamed that you've gotten your fat ass handed to you daily here for 2 weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you still coming to Boston? You seem to keep accidentally forgetting you said you'd be here in a couple of weeks and you said your itinerary has not changed.  So roughly what date do you plan on being here?
Click to expand...


Why are you so concerned with my arrival in your fair city?  You have something planned?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really want to wait till the end of Chilcot before I comment more, but so far,it would appear so far that Lord Goldsmith the Attorney General at the time,up till 2 months before the invasion, advised Bush and Blair that without a specific UN resolution the Invasion of Iraq would be illegal under International Law, at the time and to this day, the then most senior lawyer in the Foreign office stated without the resolution the Invasion would be illegal. 168 cross party Members of Parliament (conservatives, liberals, labour ect) place a rebel amendment to stop the invasion as they also thought that it was illegal.
> 
> I doubt that the US would have invaded if the UK had not joined in.
> 
> It is for Goldsmiths conscience, as to why after months of warning Blair, he changed his mind suddenly after a visit to the US, two months before the invasion.
> 
> I wonder what really changed his mind in America, perhaps you water-boarded him .
> 
> May I ask you Patek, as you seem to think International law is irrelevant in this case, why did your top lawyer work so hard to convert Goldsmith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law IS IN FACT, irrelevant when it comes to the power placed in the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain or any country for that matter.  International law CANNOT be allowed to trump the power of the head of governments or the sovereignty of any Nation when it comes to national security issues.  That's the bottom line.... and thats why there is a clause in ANY international treaty signed by the U.S.A. that specifically addresses this fact.  We aren't Europeans who capitulate, we are Americans, an independent nation and a free people who look out for #1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is a decent example of how it could be argued Nationalism is a mental disease.
Click to expand...


and people like you are a perfect example of how Neville Chamberlain allowed the entire world to be plunged into war and subsequently responsible for the deaths of 80 million people.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> International law IS IN FACT, irrelevant when it comes to the power placed in the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain or any country for that matter.  International law CANNOT be allowed to trump the power of the head of governments or the sovereignty of any Nation when it comes to national security issues.  That's the bottom line.... and thats why there is a clause in ANY international treaty signed by the U.S.A. that specifically addresses this fact.  We aren't Europeans who capitulate, we are Americans, an independent nation and a free people who look out for #1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a decent example of how it could be argued Nationalism is a mental disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and people like you are a perfect example of how Neville Chamberlain allowed the entire world to be plunged into war and subsequently responsible for the deaths of 80 million people.
Click to expand...


Lol


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> International law DID allow the invasion of Iraq...you're either too stupid to see it...or...just too ashamed that you've gotten your fat ass handed to you daily here for 2 weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you still coming to Boston? You seem to keep accidentally forgetting you said you'd be here in a couple of weeks and you said your itinerary has not changed.  So roughly what date do you plan on being here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you so concerned with my arrival in your fair city?  You have something planned?
Click to expand...


Good grief.  Stop being a crybaby.  For the what....6th time.   I said if you are ever in Boston let me know and I would be happy to buy you a beer.  You responded and said you'd see me in about three weeks.  Now you keep avoiding it.  Seems like you're scared out of your fucking mind.  No doubt it is your guilty conscience wreaking havoc. It was a friendly invite for a free beer.  Maybe you should think about the tough guy persona you portray because when reality hits it is quite clear you're nothing but a scared little child.


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really want to wait till the end of Chilcot before I comment more, but so far,it would appear so far that Lord Goldsmith the Attorney General at the time,up till 2 months before the invasion, advised Bush and Blair that without a specific UN resolution the Invasion of Iraq would be illegal under International Law, at the time and to this day, the then most senior lawyer in the Foreign office stated without the resolution the Invasion would be illegal. 168 cross party Members of Parliament (conservatives, liberals, labour ect) place a rebel amendment to stop the invasion as they also thought that it was illegal.
> 
> I doubt that the US would have invaded if the UK had not joined in.
> 
> It is for Goldsmiths conscience, as to why after months of warning Blair, he changed his mind suddenly after a visit to the US, two months before the invasion.
> 
> I wonder what really changed his mind in America, perhaps you water-boarded him .
> 
> May I ask you Patek, as you seem to think International law is irrelevant in this case, why did your top lawyer work so hard to convert Goldsmith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law IS IN FACT, irrelevant when it comes to the power placed in the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain or any country for that matter.  International law CANNOT be allowed to trump the power of the head of governments or the sovereignty of any Nation when it comes to national security issues.  That's the bottom line.... and thats why there is a clause in ANY international treaty signed by the U.S.A. that specifically addresses this fact.  We aren't Europeans who capitulate, we are Americans, an independent nation and a free people who look out for #1.
Click to expand...

then again I ask, why did Bush and his legal advisors work so hard to convert Goldsmith if international law did not matter?


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patek is guilty of hypocrisy on the International law issue.  He will say it doesn't matter and does not apply only to follow that up by claiming international law is what made the invasion legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law DID allow the invasion of Iraq...you're either too stupid to see it...or...just too ashamed that you've gotten your fat ass handed to you daily here for 2 weeks.
Click to expand...

I think you should read about the Chilcot inquiry on the BBC news site, both the US and Uk relied on the advise of their legal teams, those teams(taking into consideration Goldsmiths sudden change of mind) stated it was, this like the false intelligence about WMD's ect created a fall back position( we acted on the best advise at the time), Blair stated yesterday he had no regrets, that he had to make a decision even if this advise was right or wrong.

A BBC correspondent stated he had never seen Blair look so scared since 16yrs prior when he stood for election for the leadership of the Labour Party, I voted for John Prescott as the lesser of three evils.

Ps it was one of my duties as a Senior constituency party member, to interview prospective candidates, one of Blair's speech writers and advisor's applied, we had a very interesting "off the record conversation" about Iraq.


----------



## B L Zeebub

I would add one comment about advise, Bush was interviewed by the BBC at that time.

He was asked did he ask his father for advice on how to deal with Saddam, Bush looked up to the ceiling and stated no, a higher father gives me advise.

I was watching this in a pub with colleagues before a Labour party meeting, there was silence, then someone said, the fucking nutter, the most powerful man in the world, gets advice from voices in his head.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

yeah...as long as it's anti-Bush you Europeans sure had a good time trashing him and blaming all the world's problems on the U.S. for the last decade but when you guys are on your knees facing annihilation....who do you come running to?

I could care less about all of these "inquiries" and if you notice.....there will be NO prosecutions based on what the outcomes of these are.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you still coming to Boston? You seem to keep accidentally forgetting you said you'd be here in a couple of weeks and you said your itinerary has not changed.  So roughly what date do you plan on being here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so concerned with my arrival in your fair city?  You have something planned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief.  Stop being a crybaby.  For the what....6th time.   I said if you are ever in Boston let me know and I would be happy to buy you a beer.  You responded and said you'd see me in about three weeks.  Now you keep avoiding it.  Seems like you're scared out of your fucking mind.  No doubt it is your guilty conscience wreaking havoc. It was a friendly invite for a free beer.  Maybe you should think about the tough guy persona you portray because when reality hits it is quite clear you're nothing but a scared little child.
Click to expand...


You got your argument shot down in flames so now you choose the personal attack...figures...you've lost any credibility you have with people here and they rep you because they feel sorry for you......and yes I'll be in Boston in about 3 weeks.  Looking forward to that beer you now owe me.


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> yeah...as long as it's anti-Bush you Europeans sure had a good time trashing him and blaming all the world's problems on the U.S. for the last decade but when you guys are on your knees facing annihilation....who do you come running to?
> 
> I could care less about all of these "inquiries" and if you notice.....there will be NO prosecutions based on what the outcomes of these are.


Fine, I have bad teeth as well, but I will ask the same question for the third time, why if international law is so un-important to your goverment did they spend time and effort in converting Lord Goldsmith

I love the US and its people, well the 51% who voted for your wonderful President Obama


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> yeah...as long as it's anti-Bush you Europeans sure had a good time trashing him and blaming all the world's problems on the U.S. for the last decade but when you guys are on your knees facing annihilation....who do you come running to?
> 
> I could care less about all of these "inquiries" and if you notice.....there will be NO prosecutions based on what the outcomes of these are.


Ahhh the dreaded big prick rhetoric syndrome, a stunning post


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so concerned with my arrival in your fair city?  You have something planned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief.  Stop being a crybaby.  For the what....6th time.   I said if you are ever in Boston let me know and I would be happy to buy you a beer.  You responded and said you'd see me in about three weeks.  Now you keep avoiding it.  Seems like you're scared out of your fucking mind.  No doubt it is your guilty conscience wreaking havoc. It was a friendly invite for a free beer.  Maybe you should think about the tough guy persona you portray because when reality hits it is quite clear you're nothing but a scared little child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got your argument shot down in flames so now you choose the personal attack...figures...you've lost any credibility you have with people here and they rep you because they feel sorry for you......and yes I'll be in Boston in about 3 weeks.  Looking forward to that beer you now owe me.
Click to expand...



You actually think you speak for all other USMB members?  Lol!  Do you have to do that shit to bring your illusions full circle?  

You actually ignored what lawyers said based on the claim they are all anti war.  It's that kind of childish garbage that makes you so pathetic.  You said you'd be in Boston in 3 weeks about a week ago.  So now will you keep dancing and keep saying three weeks?


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so concerned with my arrival in your fair city?  You have something planned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief.  Stop being a crybaby.  For the what....6th time.   I said if you are ever in Boston let me know and I would be happy to buy you a beer.  You responded and said you'd see me in about three weeks.  Now you keep avoiding it.  Seems like you're scared out of your fucking mind.  No doubt it is your guilty conscience wreaking havoc. It was a friendly invite for a free beer.  Maybe you should think about the tough guy persona you portray because when reality hits it is quite clear you're nothing but a scared little child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got your argument shot down in flames so now you choose the personal attack...figures...you've lost any credibility you have with people here and they rep you because they feel sorry for you......and yes I'll be in Boston in about 3 weeks.  Looking forward to that beer you now owe me.
Click to expand...



You actually think you speak for all other USMB members?  Lol!  Do you have to do that shit to bring your illusions full circle?  

You actually ignored what lawyers said based on the claim they are all anti war.  It's that kind of childish garbage that makes you so pathetic.  You said you'd be in Boston in 3 weeks about a week ago.  So now will you keep dancing and keep saying three weeks?


----------



## SFC Ollie

B L Zeebub said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah...as long as it's anti-Bush you Europeans sure had a good time trashing him and blaming all the world's problems on the U.S. for the last decade but when you guys are on your knees facing annihilation....who do you come running to?
> 
> I could care less about all of these "inquiries" and if you notice.....there will be NO prosecutions based on what the outcomes of these are.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, I have bad teeth as well, but I will ask the same question for the third time, why if international law is so un-important to your goverment did they spend time and effort in converting Lord Goldsmith
> 
> I love the US and its people, well the 51% who voted for your wonderful President Obama
Click to expand...


Yes, I bet all our enemies love Obama too.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah...as long as it's anti-Bush you Europeans sure had a good time trashing him and blaming all the world's problems on the U.S. for the last decade but when you guys are on your knees facing annihilation....who do you come running to?
> 
> I could care less about all of these "inquiries" and if you notice.....there will be NO prosecutions based on what the outcomes of these are.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, I have bad teeth as well, but I will ask the same question for the third time, why if international law is so un-important to your goverment did they spend time and effort in converting Lord Goldsmith
> 
> I love the US and its people, well the 51% who voted for your wonderful President Obama
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I bet all our enemies love Obama too.
Click to expand...



Obama is a bitch sell out and if you actually possessed even the slightest drop of information you would know the bush admin was alkida's best friend.  Of course Obushama's continuation of many policies keep that rolling but don't be so fucking ignorant as to claim bush harmed alkida while obama helps them.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief.  Stop being a crybaby.  For the what....6th time.   I said if you are ever in Boston let me know and I would be happy to buy you a beer.  You responded and said you'd see me in about three weeks.  Now you keep avoiding it.  Seems like you're scared out of your fucking mind.  No doubt it is your guilty conscience wreaking havoc. It was a friendly invite for a free beer.  Maybe you should think about the tough guy persona you portray because when reality hits it is quite clear you're nothing but a scared little child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got your argument shot down in flames so now you choose the personal attack...figures...you've lost any credibility you have with people here and they rep you because they feel sorry for you......and yes I'll be in Boston in about 3 weeks.  Looking forward to that beer you now owe me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think you speak for all other USMB members?  Lol!  Do you have to do that shit to bring your illusions full circle?
> 
> *You actually ignored what lawyers said based on the claim they are all anti war.  It's that kind of childish garbage that makes you so pathetic.*  You said you'd be in Boston in 3 weeks about a week ago.  So now will you keep dancing and keep saying three weeks?
Click to expand...


The depth of your ignorance is barely exceeded by the depth of the Marianna's trench.  It's pathetic fools like you who refuse to accept reality....and that reality is you have lost the debate due to a lack of knowledge and the refusal to accept that the law favors my side of the debate.  Instead you choose the personal attack, call me out to Boston to "buy me a beer" after I soundly spanked your fat ass and still refuse to see reality.  If I don't come to Boston you will launch in to a "he's a chicken" rant and if I do come to Boston you'll probably throw a brick through the window of my new Mercedes Benz E550.

You represent the worst of America.....a childish bitch who lost the argument who now has to resort to personal attacks because there is someone out there who doesn't agree with your politics and you FAILED to convert them...or anyone reading this thread.... to your way of thinking.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

B L Zeebub said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah...as long as it's anti-Bush you Europeans sure had a good time trashing him and blaming all the world's problems on the U.S. for the last decade but when you guys are on your knees facing annihilation....who do you come running to?
> 
> I could care less about all of these "inquiries" and if you notice.....there will be NO prosecutions based on what the outcomes of these are.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, I have bad teeth as well, but I will ask the same question for the third time, why if international law is so un-important to your goverment did they spend time and effort in converting Lord Goldsmith
> 
> I love the US and its people, well the 51% who voted for your wonderful President Obama
Click to expand...


Did they "convert" Lord Goldsmith to the neo-con side?


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got your argument shot down in flames so now you choose the personal attack...figures...you've lost any credibility you have with people here and they rep you because they feel sorry for you......and yes I'll be in Boston in about 3 weeks.  Looking forward to that beer you now owe me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think you speak for all other USMB members?  Lol!  Do you have to do that shit to bring your illusions full circle?
> 
> *You actually ignored what lawyers said based on the claim they are all anti war.  It's that kind of childish garbage that makes you so pathetic.*  You said you'd be in Boston in 3 weeks about a week ago.  So now will you keep dancing and keep saying three weeks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The depth of your ignorance is barely exceeded by the depth of the Marianna's trench.  It's pathetic fools like you who refuse to accept reality....and that reality is you have lost the debate due to a lack of knowledge and the refusal to accept that the law favors my side of the debate.  Instead you choose the personal attack, call me out to Boston to "buy me a beer" after I soundly spanked your fat ass and still refuse to see reality.  If I don't come to Boston you will launch in to a "he's a chicken" rant and if I do come to Boston you'll probably throw a brick through the window of my new Mercedes Benz E550.
> 
> You represent the worst of America.....a childish bitch who lost the argument who now has to resort to personal attacks because there is someone out there who doesn't agree with your politics and you FAILED to convert them...or anyone reading this thread.... to your way of thinking.
Click to expand...



Fat?  I'm a little over 6 feet with a 33" waist and weigh about 190.  Is that what a fat person looks like to you?  As for your constant bullshit about the law being on your side...numerous posters have wasted their time showing you the invasion was illegal and you refuse to address any of those facts.  I also didn't invite you to Boston.  I said "if you are ever in Boston."  You said last week you'd see me in about three weeks.  Now you keep dodging because you're nothing but a hollow, weak, hypocritical child.  You may have the last word because sacred cowards like you always feel better if you can have the last word....so take it.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think you speak for all other USMB members?  Lol!  Do you have to do that shit to bring your illusions full circle?
> 
> *You actually ignored what lawyers said based on the claim they are all anti war.  It's that kind of childish garbage that makes you so pathetic.*  You said you'd be in Boston in 3 weeks about a week ago.  So now will you keep dancing and keep saying three weeks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The depth of your ignorance is barely exceeded by the depth of the Marianna's trench.  It's pathetic fools like you who refuse to accept reality....and that reality is you have lost the debate due to a lack of knowledge and the refusal to accept that the law favors my side of the debate.  Instead you choose the personal attack, call me out to Boston to "buy me a beer" after I soundly spanked your fat ass and still refuse to see reality.  If I don't come to Boston you will launch in to a "he's a chicken" rant and if I do come to Boston you'll probably throw a brick through the window of my new Mercedes Benz E550.
> 
> You represent the worst of America.....a childish bitch who lost the argument who now has to resort to personal attacks because there is someone out there who doesn't agree with your politics and you FAILED to convert them...or anyone reading this thread.... to your way of thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fat?  *I'm a little over 6 feet with a 33" waist and weigh about 190*.  Is that what a fat person looks like to you?  As for your constant bullshit about the law being on your side...numerous posters have wasted their time showing you the invasion was illegal and you refuse to address any of those facts.  I also didn't invite you to Boston.  I said "if you are ever in Boston."  You said last week you'd see me in about three weeks.  Now you keep dodging because you're nothing but a hollow, weak, hypocritical child.  You may have the last word because sacred cowards like you always feel better if you can have the last word....so take it.
Click to expand...


Sorry dude..I'm not gay and I don't think this is the place to be cruising for boyfriends...



> As for your constant bullshit about the law being on your side...numerous posters have wasted their time showing you the invasion was illegal and you refuse to address any of those facts



Not one of their claims was a FACT, it was their opinion and a CLAIM



> Now you keep dodging because you're nothing but a hollow, weak, hypocritical child.



Wow...I nailed this fucker!!!!!  See red highlight....


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah...as long as it's anti-Bush you Europeans sure had a good time trashing him and blaming all the world's problems on the U.S. for the last decade but when you guys are on your knees facing annihilation....who do you come running to?
> 
> I could care less about all of these "inquiries" and if you notice.....there will be NO prosecutions based on what the outcomes of these are.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, I have bad teeth as well, but I will ask the same question for the third time, why if international law is so un-important to your government did they spend time and effort in converting Lord Goldsmith
> 
> I love the US and its people, well the 51% who voted for your wonderful President Obama
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they "convert" Lord Goldsmith to the neo-con side?
Click to expand...

you will have to ask Goldsmith, he may answer.

I will ask you for the 4th time, if international law is so irrelevant to your government as you postulate, why was it necessary to convert the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith from his previous stance, that to invade would be illegal under the said law?


----------



## B L Zeebub

SFC Ollie said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah...as long as it's anti-Bush you Europeans sure had a good time trashing him and blaming all the world's problems on the U.S. for the last decade but when you guys are on your knees facing annihilation....who do you come running to?
> 
> I could care less about all of these "inquiries" and if you notice.....there will be NO prosecutions based on what the outcomes of these are.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, I have bad teeth as well, but I will ask the same question for the third time, why if international law is so un-important to your government did they spend time and effort in converting Lord Goldsmith
> 
> I love the US and its people, well the 51% who voted for your wonderful President Obama
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I bet all our enemies love Obama too.
Click to expand...

How much would you like to wager, and you may set the level of proof require to determine the winner. I'm sorry I could not work the word "Wanker" into my reply, but I dislike using gratuitous insults.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

B L Zeebub said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, I have bad teeth as well, but I will ask the same question for the third time, why if international law is so un-important to your government did they spend time and effort in converting Lord Goldsmith
> 
> I love the US and its people, well the 51% who voted for your wonderful President Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they "convert" Lord Goldsmith to the neo-con side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you will have to ask Goldsmith, he may answer.
> 
> I will ask you for the 4th time, if international law is so irrelevant to your government as you postulate, why was it necessary to convert the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith from his previous stance, that to invade would be illegal under the said law?
Click to expand...


for the fourth time...I'm not Lord Goldsmith nor am I the one who "converted" him....besides...the more people you have agreeing with your position the stronger case you can make for a solution that benefits your foreign policy decision.


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they "convert" Lord Goldsmith to the neo-con side?
> 
> 
> 
> you will have to ask Goldsmith, he may answer.
> 
> I will ask you for the 4th time, if international law is so irrelevant to your government as you postulate, why was it necessary to convert the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith from his previous stance, that to invade would be illegal under the said law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> for the fourth time...I'm not Lord Goldsmith nor am I the one who "converted" him....besides...the more people you have agreeing with your position the stronger case you can make for a solution that benefits your foreign policy decision.
Click to expand...

For the 5th time, the question was why did your governments legal advisers need to convert Goldsmith, if as you postulate International Law is irrelevant to your government.Please stop bloviating and try to give the best answer you can


----------



## PatekPhilippe

B L Zeebub said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> you will have to ask Goldsmith, he may answer.
> 
> I will ask you for the 4th time, if international law is so irrelevant to your government as you postulate, why was it necessary to convert the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith from his previous stance, that to invade would be illegal under the said law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for the fourth time...I'm not Lord Goldsmith nor am I the one who "converted" him....besides...the more people you have agreeing with your position the stronger case you can make for a solution that benefits your foreign policy decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the 5th time, the question was why did your governments legal advisers need to convert Goldsmith, if as you postulate International Law is irrelevant to your government.Please stop bloviating and try to give the best answer you can
Click to expand...


You are addressing the wrong person....perhaps you should ask someone who tried to convert Goldsmith....I provided a legal precedent that said that the laws of the USA trumped international law....  I could care less about anyone trying to convert Goldsmith and it doesn't have anything to do with this thread.  Your asking me to hypothesize about what someone elses, who I don't even know, motivations were....and I didn't postulate shit...I provided a legal precedent....a court case to back up what I said.  Now go find a court case that proves Goldsmith was "converted".


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> for the fourth time...I'm not Lord Goldsmith nor am I the one who "converted" him....besides...the more people you have agreeing with your position the stronger case you can make for a solution that benefits your foreign policy decision.
> 
> 
> 
> For the 5th time, the question was why did your governments legal advisers need to convert Goldsmith, if as you postulate International Law is irrelevant to your government.Please stop bloviating and try to give the best answer you can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are addressing the wrong person....perhaps you should ask someone who tried to convert Goldsmith....I provided a legal precedent that said that the laws of the USA trumped international law....  I could care less about anyone trying to convert Goldsmith and it doesn't have anything to do with this thread.  Your asking me to hypothesize about what someone elses, who I don't even know, motivations were....and I didn't postulate shit...I provided a legal precedent....a court case to back up what I said.  Now go find a court case that proves Goldsmith was "converted".
Click to expand...

obviously your most senior lawyers do not have the same knowledge of the law as you do.


----------



## sboyle24




----------



## PatekPhilippe

B L Zeebub said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the 5th time, the question was why did your governments legal advisers need to convert Goldsmith, if as you postulate International Law is irrelevant to your government.Please stop bloviating and try to give the best answer you can
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are addressing the wrong person....perhaps you should ask someone who tried to convert Goldsmith....I provided a legal precedent that said that the laws of the USA trumped international law....  I could care less about anyone trying to convert Goldsmith and it doesn't have anything to do with this thread.  Your asking me to hypothesize about what someone elses, who I don't even know, motivations were....and I didn't postulate shit...I provided a legal precedent....a court case to back up what I said.  Now go find a court case that proves Goldsmith was "converted".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously your most senior lawyers do not have the same knowledge of the law as you do.
Click to expand...


You got some kind of crystal ball or something?  How do you know what was shown to Lord Goldsmith that convinced him Iraq was an imminent threat?


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are addressing the wrong person....perhaps you should ask someone who tried to convert Goldsmith....I provided a legal precedent that said that the laws of the USA trumped international law....  I could care less about anyone trying to convert Goldsmith and it doesn't have anything to do with this thread.  Your asking me to hypothesize about what someone elses, who I don't even know, motivations were....and I didn't postulate shit...I provided a legal precedent....a court case to back up what I said.  Now go find a court case that proves Goldsmith was "converted".
> 
> 
> 
> obviously your most senior lawyers do not have the same knowledge of the law as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got some kind of crystal ball or something?  How do you know what was shown to Lord Goldsmith that convinced him Iraq was an imminent threat?
Click to expand...

you should read his statements from the  Chilcot inquiry, he at first believed that without a specific UN resolution covering the invasion of another soverign nation, it would be illegal under international law. Imminent threat, ( a proven load of bollocks) had nothing to do with his conversion.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

B L Zeebub said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> obviously your most senior lawyers do not have the same knowledge of the law as you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got some kind of crystal ball or something?  How do you know what was shown to Lord Goldsmith that convinced him Iraq was an imminent threat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you should read his statements from the  Chilcot inquiry, he at first believed that without a specific UN resolution covering the invasion of another soverign nation, it would be illegal under international law. Imminent threat, ( a proven load of bollocks) had nothing to do with his conversion.
Click to expand...


Not true...nothing was PROVEN to be "bullocks" other than WMD's weren't present in the quantities THE ENTIRE PLANET'S INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES SAID THEY WERE.  If Lord Goldsmith was convinced of the LEGALITY of the invasion of Iraq then apparently what he was shown convinced him of the LEGALITY of the war.  End of story.  The Iraq war was LEGAL by U.S. law and the violation of UN sanctions made the Iraq war legal by international standards....otherwise the invasion would have never happened.


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got some kind of crystal ball or something?  How do you know what was shown to Lord Goldsmith that convinced him Iraq was an imminent threat?
> 
> 
> 
> you should read his statements from the  Chilcot inquiry, he at first believed that without a specific UN resolution covering the invasion of another soverign nation, it would be illegal under international law. Imminent threat, ( a proven load of bollocks) had nothing to do with his conversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true...nothing was PROVEN to be "bullocks" other than WMD's weren't present in the quantities THE ENTIRE PLANET'S INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES SAID THEY WERE.  If Lord Goldsmith was convinced of the LEGALITY of the invasion of Iraq then apparently what he was shown convinced him of the LEGALITY of the war.  End of story.  The Iraq war was LEGAL by U.S. law and the violation of UN sanctions made the Iraq war legal by international standards....otherwise the invasion would have never happened.
Click to expand...

what interested me was your pompous claim that America took no notice of international law, which of course you do.

"other than the WMD"  even Blair has altered his stance on the 45 minute claim, and the WMD


----------



## PatekPhilippe

B L Zeebub said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should read his statements from the  Chilcot inquiry, he at first believed that without a specific UN resolution covering the invasion of another soverign nation, it would be illegal under international law. Imminent threat, ( a proven load of bollocks) had nothing to do with his conversion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true...nothing was PROVEN to be "bullocks" other than WMD's weren't present in the quantities THE ENTIRE PLANET'S INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES SAID THEY WERE.  If Lord Goldsmith was convinced of the LEGALITY of the invasion of Iraq then apparently what he was shown convinced him of the LEGALITY of the war.  End of story.  The Iraq war was LEGAL by U.S. law and the violation of UN sanctions made the Iraq war legal by international standards....otherwise the invasion would have never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what interested me was your pompous claim that America took no notice of international law, which of course you do.
> 
> "other than the WMD"  even Blair has altered his stance on the 45 minute claim, and the WMD
Click to expand...

When you are trying to build a coalition of nations to support you sometimes one must appease the eurotrash assholes who think international law trumps their own sovereignty and your idiotic belief that international law trumps the law and power of your own nation proves that you have no idea what your talking about.  Even if we didn't get the help we got from the U.K we would have put an end to this madman's reign.


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true...nothing was PROVEN to be "bullocks" other than WMD's weren't present in the quantities THE ENTIRE PLANET'S INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES SAID THEY WERE.  If Lord Goldsmith was convinced of the LEGALITY of the invasion of Iraq then apparently what he was shown convinced him of the LEGALITY of the war.  End of story.  The Iraq war was LEGAL by U.S. law and the violation of UN sanctions made the Iraq war legal by international standards....otherwise the invasion would have never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> what interested me was your pompous claim that America took no notice of international law, which of course you do.
> 
> "other than the WMD"  even Blair has altered his stance on the 45 minute claim, and the WMD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you are trying to build a coalition of nations to support you sometimes one must appease the eurotrash assholes who think international law trumps their own sovereignty and your idiotic belief that international law trumps the law and power of your own nation proves that you have no idea what your talking about.  Even if we didn't get the help we got from the U.K we would have put an end to this madman's reign.
Click to expand...

arrogant as well as pompous, you do amuse me.

Ps I cant wait for you to invade N/Korea or maybe Iran, oh wait you dont have a loony anymore as commander in chief.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Funny how you get all spun up when things don't go your way.


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> Funny how you get all spun up when things don't go your way.


 you do amuse me


----------



## PatekPhilippe

and you amuse me as well....

It's as simple as this....we can sit here for the next 20 years and second guess the decisions made over the last 8 years....or we can move on.


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> and you amuse me as well....
> 
> It's as simple as this....we can sit here for the next 20 years and second guess the decisions made over the last 8 years....or we can move on.


I concur, and it probably a good thing for your Hemorrhoids

Ps did I mention what happens to your name when you use the spell checker


----------



## PatekPhilippe

B L Zeebub said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you amuse me as well....
> 
> It's as simple as this....we can sit here for the next 20 years and second guess the decisions made over the last 8 years....or we can move on.
> 
> 
> 
> I concur, and it probably a good thing for your Hemorrhoids
> 
> Ps did I mention what happens to your name when you use the spell checker
Click to expand...


When you don't get your way why do you devolve into a childish name calling rant?

I googled your name and here's what came up.


----------



## Vast LWC

PatekPhilippe said:


> Marines...proud...heads high...will leave Iraq knowing their duty was done to the best of their ability.  They kicked ass, took names and served with honor.
> 
> Marines end role in Iraq; Biden visits - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com



Indeed they did, as they always do.

It's too effing bad that the guy who sent them there was so incompetent.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Vast LWC said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marines...proud...heads high...will leave Iraq knowing their duty was done to the best of their ability.  They kicked ass, took names and served with honor.
> 
> Marines end role in Iraq; Biden visits - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed they did, as they always do.
> 
> It's too effing bad that the guy who sent them there was so incompetent.
Click to expand...


It's your opinion....not fact as evidenced by 2 terms as POTUS.....but your opinion nonetheless.


----------



## Vast LWC

PatekPhilippe said:


> It's your opinion....not fact as evidenced by 2 terms as POTUS.....but your opinion nonetheless.



My opinion is that the Marines kick ass, and that the only reason their tours in Iraq were so prone with difficulty is that the politicians in charge did a shitty job.

If you have a different opinion, well that's fine, but most of the country will disagree with you.

Even most Republicans think Bush did a shitty job with Iraq.  Hell, Bill O'Reilly said that in his interview with Jon Stewart just the other day.


----------



## Vast LWC

Vast LWC said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's your opinion....not fact as evidenced by 2 terms as POTUS.....but your opinion nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is that the Marines kick ass, and that the only reason their tours in Iraq were so prone with difficulty is that the politicians in charge did a shitty job.
> 
> If you have a different opinion, well that's fine, but most of the country will disagree with you.
> 
> Even most Republicans think Bush did a shitty job with Iraq.  Hell, Bill O'Reilly said that in his interview with Jon Stewart just the other day.
Click to expand...


Crap, was that me complimenting Jarheads?

I mean the ARMY kicks ass.  LOL.

Oh, alright, fine, the Marines kick SOME ass, but not as much as the Army.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Vast LWC said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's your opinion....not fact as evidenced by 2 terms as POTUS.....but your opinion nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is that the Marines kick ass, and that the only reason their tours in Iraq were so prone with difficulty is that the politicians in charge did a shitty job.
> 
> If you have a different opinion, well that's fine, but most of the country will disagree with you.
> 
> Even most Republicans think Bush did a shitty job with Iraq.  Hell, Bill O'Reilly said that in his interview with Jon Stewart just the other day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Crap, was that me complimenting Jarheads?
> 
> I mean the ARMY kicks ass.  LOL.
> 
> Oh, alright, fine, the Marines kick SOME ass, but not as much as the Army.
Click to expand...


The US Military kicks big time but.

Different Uniforms
Different Missions
Same flag.


----------



## Mike458877

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all you DON'T understand what a Marine is...work that out and come back with an intelligent post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU DO know what the Marine Corps' Mission is?
> 
> I'll try again, although you'll probably be completely happy to moronically run around in circles after the shiny objects that CurveLight throws into the thread to get your attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The official mission of the Marine Corps is established in the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1952.  _*Marines are trained, organized and equipped for
> Offensive amphibious employment and as a force in readiness.*_  According to the Act, Marines stand prepared to meet mission requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, wanna have an intelligent discussion, or would you like to entertain the idiot?
> 
> What about deploying Marines to Iraq for 7 years is anything like the mission the marine corps the National Security Act of 1947 spells out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why you avoid explaining why our troops were used to set up an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?  Go ahead and derail the thread instead of discussing what they are coming home from.
Click to expand...



Though I never agreed with Bush's choice of how to handle Iraq, I do have to ask you, if you understand the formal agreements signed which gave Bush the legal right to cross into Iraq and defeat their armed forces, which resulted in the fall of their government? 

Please give this some consideration before responding. Bush didn't have to put on the dog and pony show he did for congress or for the UN. Those were done for political reasons and goals. 

I don't care for your disrespectful tone towards our men and women in uniform or your general disrespect for our nation. You could share your views without that tone and I am not going to engage in your petty tit for tat name calling. 

But, I am curious if you truly understand the entire situation as thoroughly as you feel you do!

Mike


----------



## B L Zeebub

PatekPhilippe said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you amuse me as well....
> 
> It's as simple as this....we can sit here for the next 20 years and second guess the decisions made over the last 8 years....or we can move on.
> 
> 
> 
> I concur, and it probably a good thing for your Hemorrhoids
> 
> Ps did I mention what happens to your name when you use the spell checker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you don't get your way why do you devolve into a childish name calling rant?
> 
> I googled your name and here's what came up.
Click to expand...

sorry did I hit a subconscious nerd, sorry that was a subconscious nerve.


----------



## JW Frogen

B L Zeebub said:


> I concur, and it probably a good thing for your Hemorrhoids:eusa_angel



My hemorrhroids once played the harmonica for Bob Dylan.

True story.


----------

