Reply to topic  [ 205 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
 rai is home (for a minute) 
Author Message
Level 20
Level 20
User avatar

Cash on hand:
1,859.50
Posts: 2051
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:51 pm
Location: [nobody fills this out right, right?]
Group: Special Access
Post Re: rai is home (for a minute)
I exasperate in disgust. You are woefully bad at argumentation. Fine. If that's all you've got I'll refer to my previous post:

fluffy wrote:
The marines are the smallest branch of the military[…]

And god yes, they die. A lot. That is their role in the military. The infantry in the army knows this: eleven-bullet-stopper, or eleven-speed-bump we call them because the infantry—compared to cavalry, armor, artillery, airborne, air assault, and fuck the list just keeps going—is the least effective part of an army in modern combat. Infantry gets the least training in every branch of service because it's basic combat training and a few classes everyone else gets anyway at their unit during sergeants time training (look it up yourself) while, a great example, cavalry gets special training on combat that infantry units will never see.

The army infantry, "dismounts" we call them in heavy units, are for simple tasks. They are an important element in the unit, need to be very good at their job (to make it back alive) and the tasks they perform are indispensable… they are not. Every soldier and officer in the army is trained to be able to take the place of any infantry position in the very likely event of death. Acceptable rates of death for a four man team in the infantry is 75%: we need at least one person to report back and that is it.

[…]

The average enlisted army soldier becomes more heavily trained than the average enlisted equivalent MOS of any other branch of service, combat experience not withstanding, after two years. So yes, the shock troops of the military were used as such before the real power of the military (the army has always been the largest and most gratuitously over-trained branch of the military) stepped in and won the war. That is how our military works. You don't have to like it, you just have to know what the fuck you're talking about and you don't. Yeah, the army lets people die. Sure, I'll allow that even though that's not how this works. Infantry knows what it signed up for. This is war. People die. Infantry "leads the way" well guess what.


These are the parts where I address your entirely contrived opinion. What you provide (much later) in an attempt to substantiate your opinion as fact is fridge logic at best, outright bullshit at worst.

punk bitch wrote:
I somehow doubt your claims. Historically, Marines left the army in the dust when they fought side by side.

Damn Army got a lot of Marines killed in the Pacific campaign.
punk bitch wrote:
To WWI, up to at least Vietnam. Haven't really been in a massive clusterfuck to compare in quite some time.
punk bitch wrote:
Late 50's? U.S. was not involved in the Vietnam conflict in the 50's. Hell, we only got unofficially involved in the early 60's. 1965 would be the first time we probably had Marines there, including Force Recon.

Also, at least up to the Tet Offensive in '67.

World War I: 28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918 (4 years, 3 months and 2 weeks)
World War II: 1 September 1939 – 2 September 1945 (6 years and 1 day)
Vietnam War: 1 November 1955 – 30 April 1975 (19 years, 5 months, 4 weeks and 1 day)

Your timeline is all kinds of fucking wrong, not to mention the shit grammar makes it difficult to understand just what the hell you meant, anyway. Typically, and hey I'll admit there are exceptions to this, a unit consisting of primarily one branch of service is deployed. Not some mix of random people from different branches. If the army and marines fought "side-by-side" as you put it then the "joint-ops" task force would use marines as the shock troop infantry they are to do exactly what it says on the tin while the army would be the power behind them making sure the marines didn't die for nothing.

To address what you say later about ROTC, I'm going to assume you had even one classroom focused on tactics… Well you're a shit student because you demonstrate no working knowledge of how to conduct basic jungle warfare, some of the most simple shit around. If you knew your head from your ass on this you would facepalm at the idea that soldiers and marines fought "side-by-side." Provide examples because all you're doing is ignoring the simple fact that marines are marines and have a very specific role that has them die a lot.

Oh, and what are your thoughts on this:
Image
(Source: National Archives )

That kind of tells me that more than twice as many soldiers died compared to marines. That page has all kinds of statistics. Knowing that the army is always (much) larger than the marines maybe you want to say that as a percentage more marines died than soldiers? Have fun, I don't give a fuck. What else would you like to change about your ever-sinking shit argument?

_________________
In just under one-thousand eight-bit bytes I have to confer some glorious shrine to myself by means of text, images, hyper links, embeded flash compositions and possibly formatting. I could abuse this easily. Ten hour clips on youtube embeded in a single vertical stack. Multi-megapixel long transparent GIFs causing scrollbar hell. Nuero-linguistic programs that fuck your mind like a fresh squid. Eye raping color schemes using ascii full-width blocks. Images or links to images of things that can not be unseen. Anything called "epilepsy" dot SWF. This is what I want to do. I am not a good person. I just know that would be a flagrant display of disrespect. I'll wait until I can get away with it.
NOW IN GLORIOUS TODD A.O.!
fluffco™ LLC takes no responsibility for anything, ever, at all, under any circumstances and is entirely fictional outside Colorado.


Wed May 18, 2016 12:07 am
Profile E-mail
FH Pope
FH Pope
User avatar

Cash on hand:
109,105.50
Posts: 4570
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:40 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: rai is home (for a minute)
Man this site is outdated, I forgot how bad the quote clusterfucks became. Any who, let us continue, as I finally beat DOOM.


fluffy wrote:
You are woefully bad at argumentation.


Are you really using a ten dollar word in an attempt to sound intelligent? Debate, is what this is. A lazy one, but one none the less. Arguing would of worked too. Argumentation encompasses to many things to truly fit the bill here.


fluffy wrote:
These are the parts where I address your entirely contrived opinion. What you provide (much later) in an attempt to substantiate your opinion as fact is fridge logic at best, outright bullshit at worst.


This addresses nothing. It makes the claim they are "more heavily trained", with no real evidence. In what way are they trained? Trained for what? Is it Infantry tactics or jacking off? Considering their Infantry training time is considerably shorter than the Marines SOI/Boot Combined, I doubt your claim.

Remember, we're talking Infantry here, nothing else.

fluffy wrote:
World War I: 28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918 (4 years, 3 months and 2 weeks)
World War II: 1 September 1939 – 2 September 1945 (6 years and 1 day)
Vietnam War: 1 November 1955 – 30 April 1975 (19 years, 5 months, 4 weeks and 1 day)


I laughed so hard, you can't even begin to understand.
U.S. entered WWI on April 6th, 1917:
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/jazz/ ... wwi_1.html

U.S. Enters WWII on December 7th, 1941 (if you make me source this, you truly are retarded).

U.S. Enters Vietnam in advisory role: September of 1950:
http://olive-drab.com/od_history_vietnam_advisors.php

This is where I believe you think I fucked up, but I did not. We were not officially engaging in Military action against either Viet Cong or NVA. We were still using proxies(and had a total of about 800 folks over there by the end of 1959).

U.S. true military start: December of 1963, more vague than other war dates because... it was "technically", not a war. they use the excuse of escalation of Advisory role, but when we have 500,000 plus active personnel on the ground, it's a war.
http://olive-drab.com/od_history_vietnam_advisors.php
http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-w ... ar-history

Vietnam End Date for U.S.: January 1973. The date the last of our troops came home.:
http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-w ... ar-history

fluffy wrote:
marines as the shock troop infantry they are to do exactly what it says on the tin while the army would be the power behind them making sure the marines didn't die for nothing.


You made this claim earlier. Again, no. It was a solid Line after the initial beach landing. I am not taking into account the first 4 days or so of the battle, because like I said, that is solidly in the Marines job description. It was when they were both acting as standard infantry moving a line across the 5 mile island, where the Army failed them.
Sources here are harder to cite, as they are documentaries.
The History Channel Ultimate Collections World War II(Disc 6, I believe):
http://www.amazon.com/History-Channel-U ... B000H5U5US

Iwo Jima: 50 Years of Memories:
http://www.amazon.com/Iwo-Jima-50-Years ... B000NQQ4OM

fluffy wrote:
Well you're a shit student because you demonstrate no working knowledge of how to conduct basic jungle warfare, some of the most simple shit around. If you knew your head from your ass on this you would facepalm at the idea that soldiers and marines fought "side-by-side."


Lol... Jungle Warfare... do you know what Iwo Jima looks like?
Image

As for Squad Level tactics, you're right. I was a shitty student. I'm not even going to argue that.

When I say, side by side though, I don't mean mixed units. I mean Marine Divisions had one side of the Island while the Army Divisions had the other. So, side by side. Their lines met up in the middle of the island, more or less.


fluffy wrote:
Oh, and what are your thoughts on this:
Image
(Source: National Archives )


Ooh, you beat me to it. Yes, by percentage, Marines had a much higher casualty rate. That said, I'm not sure what that has to do with the initial argument, that Marines are better Infantry. That just means they were in the shit more.
My argument however, has not changed, but your attempts to change the argument have. I just follow along, son. With sources.

_________________
Image
Image
Image

Bubba wrote:
PKB's accent is... awesome and.. surprisingly sexy.

:)


Wed May 18, 2016 12:37 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 16
Level 16
User avatar

Cash on hand:
361,603.15

Bank:
10,000.00
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 6:40 pm
Location: Stop looking down here, ya pervert.
Group: Special Access
Post Re: rai is home (for a minute)
Why is this still a thing? We all stopped caring a long time ago.

_________________
Image

I'm back.... as a zombie lol

_________________
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
2 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.


Wed May 18, 2016 5:13 pm
Profile E-mail
FH Pope
FH Pope
User avatar

Cash on hand:
109,105.50
Posts: 4570
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:40 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: rai is home (for a minute)
Cause its fun? For me at least. I'm having trouble dredging up fucks to give about how you feel about it.

_________________
Image
Image
Image

Bubba wrote:
PKB's accent is... awesome and.. surprisingly sexy.

:)


Wed May 18, 2016 5:16 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 16
Level 16
User avatar

Cash on hand:
361,603.15

Bank:
10,000.00
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 6:40 pm
Location: Stop looking down here, ya pervert.
Group: Special Access
Post Re: rai is home (for a minute)
I'm sad to say that I have the same attitude towards you.

_________________
Image

I'm back.... as a zombie lol

_________________
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
2 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.


Thu May 19, 2016 10:25 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 22
Level 22
User avatar

Cash on hand:
174,929.20
Posts: 2255
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:10 am
Location: SR388
Group: Special Access
Post Re: rai is home (for a minute)
I've been instigating this because I'm bored out of my fucking mind and there's nothing better to instigate.

but if the marines died more doesn't that say they are shitty at doing their own job and get themselves killed versus your argument that it was the army's presence that got marines killed?

especially on different sides of an island.

_________________
mepsipax

Image

got any?

His name is not Robert Paulsen, His name is Gregory Matthew Bruni, he won so hard.

_________________
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.


Thu May 19, 2016 11:45 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 20
Level 20
User avatar

Cash on hand:
1,859.50
Posts: 2051
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:51 pm
Location: [nobody fills this out right, right?]
Group: Special Access
Post Re: rai is home (for a minute)
punk bitch wrote:
Man this site is outdated, I forgot how bad the quote clusterfucks became. Any who, let us continue, as I finally beat DOOM.
fluffy wrote:
You are woefully bad at argumentation.
Are you really using a ten dollar word in an attempt to sound intelligent? Debate, is what this is. A lazy one, but one none the less. Arguing would of worked too. Argumentation encompasses to many things to truly fit the bill here.
A debate is the thing we're having; argumentation is what you're bad at. It's forming the shit in your head into an argument. It's not making vague, continuously changing statements without any effort to refine them into a solid argument (the noun meaning what you think and not the noun meaning what we're having) then attempting to defend your argument by calling something a “ten dollar word” which is an idiot's reprieve.
punk bitch wrote:
fluffy wrote:
These are the parts where I address your entirely contrived opinion. What you provide (much later) in an attempt to substantiate your opinion as fact is fridge logic at best, outright bullshit at worst.
This addresses nothing. It makes the claim they are "more heavily trained", with no real evidence. In what way are they trained? Trained for what? Is it Infantry tactics or jacking off? Considering their Infantry training time is considerably shorter than the Marines SOI/Boot Combined, I doubt your claim.
Stop using the term "boot" where "basic" is correct. "Boot" just makes you sound like a retarded civilian child talking about war movies. Also stop capitalizing words like "combined" in the middle of a sentence since it really makes it easy to point out how dumb you are. Which isn't part of the argument unless you want me to point out that you have nothing but opinions to stand on. (At least this far along in the over ten page long thread.)

Also, if we trained in jacking off then we'd still be better at it than the marines. To back up my claim I'd have to list marines basic training and army basic training, then point out the infantry MOS for both and the AIT for them; oh, unless you only want to talk about the basic training that would, by definition, be the same for every MOS in a given branch of service (OSUT type training like mine excluded, obviously) meaning we're talking about every mos in a branch and not just infantry. This provides a nice segue for this little snippet.
punk bitch wrote:
Remember, we're talking Infantry here, nothing else.
I don't remember that scope ever having been defined, to be honest with you. This goes back to how you are bad at this. Did I do a good job making it easy to understand what I said? Were my words simple enough for you, this time? Oh, “segue” as I used it earlier means a transition from one speaking point to another. It's pronounced… ok, now I'm just being mean.
punk bitch wrote:
fluffy wrote:
World War I: 28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918 (4 years, 3 months and 2 weeks)
World War II: 1 September 1939 – 2 September 1945 (6 years and 1 day)
Vietnam War: 1 November 1955 – 30 April 1975 (19 years, 5 months, 4 weeks and 1 day)
I laughed so hard, you can't even begin to understand.
You uh… you didn't catch that I was pointing out what you called the “Pacific campaign” and later (in a different post) defined as “To WWI, up to at least Vietnam.” [SIC] which, even if we limit it to the time America spent with troops in the fight, is still what, fifty years? That's not a campaign, those are entirely different wars, and I don't even want to tell you that any of the [redacted following sleep: I'm probably confused since I care so little about military history] shit would have been a much better example you should have used instead. Seriously, now I'm making your argument for you since you're so fucking bad at it. This is pity.
punk bitch wrote:
U.S. entered WWI on April 6th, 1917:
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/jazz/ ... wwi_1.html

U.S. Enters WWII on December 7th, 1941 (if you make me source this, you truly are retarded).
That's Mexican Christmas, right?
punk bitch wrote:
U.S. Enters Vietnam in advisory role: September of 1950:
http://olive-drab.com/od_history_vietnam_advisors.php

This is where I believe you think I fucked up, but I did not. We were not officially engaging in Military action against either Viet Cong or NVA. We were still using proxies(and had a total of about 800 folks over there by the end of 1959).
No, I didn't quote dates for that reason. I also didn't point out what exactly you did wrong. I also didn't continue on about it. I said your timeline is wrong and moved on to talk about how war is conducted. That was also pity. You'd think you would have learned what a "campaign" is and is not while in ROTC but at this point I'm just going to assume that's why you got kicked out.
punk bitch wrote:
U.S. true military start: December of 1963, more vague than other war dates because... it was "technically", not a war. they use the excuse of escalation of Advisory role, but when we have 500,000 plus active personnel on the ground, it's a war.
http://olive-drab.com/od_history_vietnam_advisors.php
http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-w ... ar-history

Vietnam End Date for U.S.: January 1973. The date the last of our troops came home.:
http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-w ... ar-history

fluffy wrote:
marines as the shock troop infantry they are to do exactly what it says on the tin while the army would be the power behind them making sure the marines didn't die for nothing.
You made this claim earlier. Again, no. It was a solid Line after the initial beach landing. I am not taking into account the first 4 days or so of the battle, because like I said, that is solidly in the Marines job description.
You said that? Where? I missed it. Completely. It's possible, maybe you said it and I missed it. I did ignore you by not reading what you posted then actually ignore you for several pages, and I never went back to read anything you typed in that period. I just assumed you didn't say anything worth hearing.
punk bitch wrote:
It was when they were both acting as standard infantry moving a line across the 5 mile island, where the Army failed them.
Sources here are harder to cite, as they are documentaries.
The History Channel Ultimate Collections World War II(Disc 6, I believe):
http://www.amazon.com/History-Channel-U ... B000H5U5US
Finally! A lick of legitimacy! You have now pointed out one instance where the army can be considered to have "failed" the marines. Good job! You have managed to construct an argument, sort of, for the fact that the marines do not like being babysat by the army. If we take your shit at face value:

Given that the marines are the toughest trained, best trained, best infantry, unequivocally, then based on the outcomes of this and the following list of battles, assuming I give half a shit, then yes! The army commanders that made those decisions in those battles did let those marines die. I'm also sure that judging those decisions now would be—and now I might get this cliche wrong because I don't follow sports—Monday morning quarterbacking. Did I say that right? Here I'm suggesting that given the hindsight of something like half a century (you kind of list a range of dates here), a more clear picture of the battle data and knowledge of the outcomes of the battles… well shit, I would fucking hope you make better decisions.
punk bitch wrote:
Iwo Jima: 50 Years of Memories:
http://www.amazon.com/Iwo-Jima-50-Years ... B000NQQ4OM
fluffy wrote:
Well you're a shit student because you demonstrate no working knowledge of how to conduct basic jungle warfare, some of the most simple shit around. If you knew your head from your ass on this you would facepalm at the idea that soldiers and marines fought "side-by-side."
Lol... Jungle Warfare... do you know what Iwo Jima looks like?
Image
This image won't load for me. I think that's my fault, though, given my network. But yeah, my statement doesn't apply to the entire range of locations your woefully vague description of the “Pacific campaign” might encompass and I, somehow, had Vietnam stuck in my head.
punk bitch wrote:
As for Squad Level tactics, you're right. I was a shitty student. I'm not even going to argue that.

When I say, side by side though, I don't mean mixed units. I mean Marine Divisions had one side of the Island while the Army Divisions had the other. So, side by side. Their lines met up in the middle of the island, more or less.
Hold on. I think we need to clarify a few things here. A "division" of soldiers in the army… ok, when I was in 4ID my brigade alone was roughly 4,000 strong went we went to Iraq. That was second brigade. Of four. That I vaguely remember, maybe more, maybe less, I didn't really care and care even less now. I don't know if "division" means the same thing in the marines but I could make a call and find out.

What I'm trying to say here is that marines should be at least as able to handle that kind of thing, pound for pound. I don't care enough to check the data. That is a kind of minutia that I don't need cluttering my already troubled mind. If the marines fell and the army fell then whoever fell them were simply better. The scenario you describe should end in the marines saving the army, given your argument. Not the army needing to—how to delicately word this—not let the marines die… might you call that saving?
punk bitch wrote:
fluffy wrote:
Oh, and what are your thoughts on this:
Image
(Source: National Archives )
Ooh, you beat me to it. Yes, by percentage, Marines had a much higher casualty rate. That said, I'm not sure what that has to do with the initial argument, that Marines are better Infantry. That just means they were in the shit more.
My argument however, has not changed, but your attempts to change the argument have. I just follow along, son. With sources.
You never made an argument. Stop calling that weak ass shit you started up with an argument. This whole line of shit I just responded to? That might have been called an argument if you fucking coughed it up when I fucking told you to. Read the fuck up. I told you to make a real argument. I told you that you hadn't. I ignored you. I asked you to clarify your argument, politely even. I formed a rebuttal. You then changed your answer as to the scope of your argument. Twice, at least, I don't care much, probably more if I looked.

I could spend hours ripping you to shreds and still be unsatisfied. This is like arguing with a child who doesn't know how to talk. Seriously, you called "argumentation" a ten dollar word… then you didn't know what it meant. (Read that part again, you fucking moron.)

_________________
In just under one-thousand eight-bit bytes I have to confer some glorious shrine to myself by means of text, images, hyper links, embeded flash compositions and possibly formatting. I could abuse this easily. Ten hour clips on youtube embeded in a single vertical stack. Multi-megapixel long transparent GIFs causing scrollbar hell. Nuero-linguistic programs that fuck your mind like a fresh squid. Eye raping color schemes using ascii full-width blocks. Images or links to images of things that can not be unseen. Anything called "epilepsy" dot SWF. This is what I want to do. I am not a good person. I just know that would be a flagrant display of disrespect. I'll wait until I can get away with it.
NOW IN GLORIOUS TODD A.O.!
fluffco™ LLC takes no responsibility for anything, ever, at all, under any circumstances and is entirely fictional outside Colorado.


Fri May 20, 2016 1:20 am
Profile E-mail
Level 22
Level 22
User avatar

Cash on hand:
174,929.20
Posts: 2255
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:10 am
Location: SR388
Group: Special Access
Post Re: rai is home (for a minute)
fluffy wrote:
punk bitch wrote:
Man this site is outdated, I forgot how bad the quote clusterfucks became. Any who, let us continue, as I finally beat DOOM.
fluffy wrote:
You are woefully bad at argumentation.
Are you really using a ten dollar word in an attempt to sound intelligent? Debate, is what this is. A lazy one, but one none the less. Arguing would of worked too. Argumentation encompasses to many things to truly fit the bill here.
A debate is the thing we're having; argumentation is what you're bad at. It's forming the shit in your head into an argument. It's not making vague, continuously changing statements without any effort to refine them into a solid argument (the noun meaning what you think and not the noun meaning what we're having) then attempting to defend your argument by calling something a “ten dollar word” which is an idiot's reprieve.
punk bitch wrote:
fluffy wrote:
These are the parts where I address your entirely contrived opinion. What you provide (much later) in an attempt to substantiate your opinion as fact is fridge logic at best, outright bullshit at worst.
This addresses nothing. It makes the claim they are "more heavily trained", with no real evidence. In what way are they trained? Trained for what? Is it Infantry tactics or jacking off? Considering their Infantry training time is considerably shorter than the Marines SOI/Boot Combined, I doubt your claim.
Stop using the term "boot" where "basic" is correct. "Boot" just makes you sound like a retarded civilian child talking about war movies. Also stop capitalizing words like "combined" in the middle of a sentence since it really makes it easy to point out how dumb you are. Which isn't part of the argument unless you want me to point out that you have nothing but opinions to stand on. (At least this far along in the over ten page long thread.)

Also, if we trained in jacking off then we'd still be better at it than the marines. To back up my claim I'd have to list marines basic training and army basic training, then point out the infantry MOS for both and the AIT for them; oh, unless you only want to talk about the basic training that would, by definition, be the same for every MOS in a given branch of service (OSUT type training like mine excluded, obviously) meaning we're talking about every mos in a branch and not just infantry. This provides a nice segue for this little snippet.
punk bitch wrote:
Remember, we're talking Infantry here, nothing else.
I don't remember that scope ever having been defined, to be honest with you. This goes back to how you are bad at this. Did I do a good job making it easy to understand what I said? Were my words simple enough for you, this time? Oh, “segue” as I used it earlier means a transition from one speaking point to another. It's pronounced… ok, now I'm just being mean.
punk bitch wrote:
fluffy wrote:
World War I: 28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918 (4 years, 3 months and 2 weeks)
World War II: 1 September 1939 – 2 September 1945 (6 years and 1 day)
Vietnam War: 1 November 1955 – 30 April 1975 (19 years, 5 months, 4 weeks and 1 day)
I laughed so hard, you can't even begin to understand.
You uh… you didn't catch that I was pointing out what you called the “Pacific campaign” and later (in a different post) defined as “To WWI, up to at least Vietnam.” [SIC] which, even if we limit it to the time America spent with troops in the fight, is still what, fifty years? That's not a campaign, those are entirely different wars, and I don't even want to tell you that any of the [redacted following sleep: I'm probably confused since I care so little about military history] shit would have been a much better example you should have used instead. Seriously, now I'm making your argument for you since you're so fucking bad at it. This is pity.
punk bitch wrote:
U.S. entered WWI on April 6th, 1917:
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/jazz/ ... wwi_1.html

U.S. Enters WWII on December 7th, 1941 (if you make me source this, you truly are retarded).
That's Mexican Christmas, right?
punk bitch wrote:
U.S. Enters Vietnam in advisory role: September of 1950:
http://olive-drab.com/od_history_vietnam_advisors.php

This is where I believe you think I fucked up, but I did not. We were not officially engaging in Military action against either Viet Cong or NVA. We were still using proxies(and had a total of about 800 folks over there by the end of 1959).
No, I didn't quote dates for that reason. I also didn't point out what exactly you did wrong. I also didn't continue on about it. I said your timeline is wrong and moved on to talk about how war is conducted. That was also pity. You'd think you would have learned what a "campaign" is and is not while in ROTC but at this point I'm just going to assume that's why you got kicked out.
punk bitch wrote:
U.S. true military start: December of 1963, more vague than other war dates because... it was "technically", not a war. they use the excuse of escalation of Advisory role, but when we have 500,000 plus active personnel on the ground, it's a war.
http://olive-drab.com/od_history_vietnam_advisors.php
http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-w ... ar-history

Vietnam End Date for U.S.: January 1973. The date the last of our troops came home.:
http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-w ... ar-history

fluffy wrote:
marines as the shock troop infantry they are to do exactly what it says on the tin while the army would be the power behind them making sure the marines didn't die for nothing.
You made this claim earlier. Again, no. It was a solid Line after the initial beach landing. I am not taking into account the first 4 days or so of the battle, because like I said, that is solidly in the Marines job description.
You said that? Where? I missed it. Completely. It's possible, maybe you said it and I missed it. I did ignore you by not reading what you posted then actually ignore you for several pages, and I never went back to read anything you typed in that period. I just assumed you didn't say anything worth hearing.
punk bitch wrote:
It was when they were both acting as standard infantry moving a line across the 5 mile island, where the Army failed them.
Sources here are harder to cite, as they are documentaries.
The History Channel Ultimate Collections World War II(Disc 6, I believe):
http://www.amazon.com/History-Channel-U ... B000H5U5US
Finally! A lick of legitimacy! You have now pointed out one instance where the army can be considered to have "failed" the marines. Good job! You have managed to construct an argument, sort of, for the fact that the marines do not like being babysat by the army. If we take your shit at face value:

Given that the marines are the toughest trained, best trained, best infantry, unequivocally, then based on the outcomes of this and the following list of battles, assuming I give half a shit, then yes! The army commanders that made those decisions in those battles did let those marines die. I'm also sure that judging those decisions now would be—and now I might get this cliche wrong because I don't follow sports—Monday morning quarterbacking. Did I say that right? Here I'm suggesting that given the hindsight of something like half a century (you kind of list a range of dates here), a more clear picture of the battle data and knowledge of the outcomes of the battles… well shit, I would fucking hope you make better decisions.
punk bitch wrote:
Iwo Jima: 50 Years of Memories:
http://www.amazon.com/Iwo-Jima-50-Years ... B000NQQ4OM
fluffy wrote:
Well you're a shit student because you demonstrate no working knowledge of how to conduct basic jungle warfare, some of the most simple shit around. If you knew your head from your ass on this you would facepalm at the idea that soldiers and marines fought "side-by-side."
Lol... Jungle Warfare... do you know what Iwo Jima looks like?
Image
This image won't load for me. I think that's my fault, though, given my network. But yeah, my statement doesn't apply to the entire range of locations your woefully vague description of the “Pacific campaign” might encompass and I, somehow, had Vietnam stuck in my head.
punk bitch wrote:
As for Squad Level tactics, you're right. I was a shitty student. I'm not even going to argue that.

When I say, side by side though, I don't mean mixed units. I mean Marine Divisions had one side of the Island while the Army Divisions had the other. So, side by side. Their lines met up in the middle of the island, more or less.
Hold on. I think we need to clarify a few things here. A "division" of soldiers in the army… ok, when I was in 4ID my brigade alone was roughly 4,000 strong went we went to Iraq. That was second brigade. Of four. That I vaguely remember, maybe more, maybe less, I didn't really care and care even less now. I don't know if "division" means the same thing in the marines but I could make a call and find out.

What I'm trying to say here is that marines should be at least as able to handle that kind of thing, pound for pound. I don't care enough to check the data. That is a kind of minutia that I don't need cluttering my already troubled mind. If the marines fell and the army fell then whoever fell them were simply better. The scenario you describe should end in the marines saving the army, given your argument. Not the army needing to—how to delicately word this—not let the marines die… might you call that saving?
punk bitch wrote:
fluffy wrote:
Oh, and what are your thoughts on this:
Image
(Source: National Archives )
Ooh, you beat me to it. Yes, by percentage, Marines had a much higher casualty rate. That said, I'm not sure what that has to do with the initial argument, that Marines are better Infantry. That just means they were in the shit more.
My argument however, has not changed, but your attempts to change the argument have. I just follow along, son. With sources.
You never made an argument. Stop calling that weak ass shit you started up with an argument. This whole line of shit I just responded to? That might have been called an argument if you fucking coughed it up when I fucking told you to. Read the fuck up. I told you to make a real argument. I told you that you hadn't. I ignored you. I asked you to clarify your argument, politely even. I formed a rebuttal. You then changed your answer as to the scope of your argument. Twice, at least, I don't care much, probably more if I looked.

I could spend hours ripping you to shreds and still be unsatisfied. This is like arguing with a child who doesn't know how to talk. Seriously, you called "argumentation" a ten dollar word… then you didn't know what it meant. (Read that part again, you fucking moron.)


for an already troubled mind, an awful lot of careful thinking and work has gone into this post. or maybe he just knows the topic so well because he lived it. eitherway, this. this is how a flame is done.

_________________
mepsipax

Image

got any?

His name is not Robert Paulsen, His name is Gregory Matthew Bruni, he won so hard.

_________________
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.


Fri May 20, 2016 9:36 am
Profile E-mail
FH Pope
FH Pope
User avatar

Cash on hand:
109,105.50
Posts: 4570
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:40 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: rai is home (for a minute)
Again, man this shit gets long. Have company, so I'm only doing parts again.

We are indeed having a debate. However, again, you used a ten dollar word where debate actually holds ground. Debate is the ability to form and convey an argument. Argumentation works, but is unnecessary.




fluffy wrote:
I don't remember that scope ever having been defined, to be honest with you.


This is actually your failure, not mine. As again, the initial thesis statement was "Marines are better infantry", key word there being infantry. Your failure speaks volumes.


fluffy wrote:
You uh… you didn't catch that I was pointing out what you called the “Pacific campaign” and later (in a different post) defined as “To WWI, up to at least Vietnam.” [SIC] which, even if we limit it to the time America spent with troops in the fight, is still what, fifty years?


You're going to need to point exactly where I claimed the pacific campaign lasted through those wars/were included in them. Because what I actually said, in response to Yom, was that I am only aware of the U.S. Army and Marines working together in a real clusterfuck in those wars(WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam). Thus can only compare that time line. I believe I mentioned up to the Tet offensive, actually.

You you misinterpreted, as you have many things, it is probably because you were too busy claiming to be ignoring me to follow the actual conversation.


fluffy wrote:
You said that? Where? I missed it. Completely. It's possible, maybe you said it and I missed it. I did ignore you by not reading what you posted then actually ignore you for several pages, and I never went back to read anything you typed in that period. I just assumed you didn't say anything worth hearing.


psychokittyboy wrote:
It was a single line stretching the island, army had come in after Marines had taken the landing zone. That's fine, standard procedure. Army isn't exactly commonly trained for beached work outside D-Day.


That was actually on the last page, in the middle of what you claimed you were paying attention to. I think you may of even quoted the line.




fluffy wrote:
Monday morning quarterbacking. Did I say that right? Here I'm suggesting that given the hindsight of something like half a century (you kind of list a range of dates here), a more clear picture of the battle data and knowledge of the outcomes of the battles… well shit, I would fucking hope you make better decisions.


I think they call us something else. Something Generals. Couch Generals? I can't recall, I feel it was better than that though.

Point being, the Army failed to achieve their time table. They would do the same on Okinawa. This fucked up the whole line. Cost lives, etc etc, bad at their job. Their one fucking job.

fluffy wrote:
to the entire range of locations your woefully vague description of the “Pacific campaign” might encompass


The Pacific Campaign is, you know, not vague. It's the Pacific. It in short is our very short time in Alaska, Midway, the Philippines Island battles, and the 2 Japanese Islands we landed on. I of course only mean land battles, as sea battles were scattered to all hell (But, you know, still the pacific). Large ocean and all.

fluffy wrote:
Hold on. I think we need to clarify a few things here.


You're right, I was not clear, thought we were on the same page. Anyway, about 15,000-20,000 men, plus support elements. That is a division in pretty much all our armed forces, I believe.
Had 3 Marine Divisions and one Army on that specific island.



fluffy wrote:
The scenario you describe should end in the marines saving the army, given your argument. Not the army needing to—how to delicately word this—not let the marines die… might you call that saving?


No. I'd say it's doing your job and securing a flank, which was their assigned task in this situation. Hold the line so no one gets flanked. It isn't about saving someone, it's simply doing your job.

In terms I personally understand, it's keeping your tools and shit secured so as not to injure your co-workers. Doing your job doesn't mean you saved me.

fluffy wrote:
You never made an argument.


I made a simple argument, you seem to be unable to follow. I said the Marines are better Infantry, and the Army has historically gone out of their way to get them killed. You said I didn't know what I was talking about, then "ignored" me. If you can show me where you asked me to clarify, and I did not, I'll shut up. I however don't think you did.

So, until you can refute that simple argument, you have failed. You will, indeed, remain unsatisfied.

Also, I know what argumentation is. Covered that at the beginning up here.

So, are you going to divert again, or actually tell me how I was wrong about what I said? :)


Edit:
You do know what the Pacific Campaign of WWII included... right? For the U.S.?

_________________
Image
Image
Image

Bubba wrote:
PKB's accent is... awesome and.. surprisingly sexy.

:)


Sat May 21, 2016 5:25 pm
Profile E-mail
FH Pope
FH Pope
User avatar

Cash on hand:
109,105.50
Posts: 4570
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:40 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: rai is home (for a minute)
Armchair general, it was fucking Armchair General. I knew I'd remember it as soon as I posted.

_________________
Image
Image
Image

Bubba wrote:
PKB's accent is... awesome and.. surprisingly sexy.

:)


Sat May 21, 2016 5:25 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 20
Level 20
User avatar

Cash on hand:
1,859.50
Posts: 2051
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:51 pm
Location: [nobody fills this out right, right?]
Group: Special Access
Post Re: rai is home (for a minute)
punk bitch wrote:
This is actually your failure, not mine. As again, the initial thesis statement was "Marines are better infantry", key word there being infantry. Your failure speaks volumes.


Let me stop you there.

Here follows a list of quotes of your posts, unabridged, from the first NINE PAGES of this thread.

punk bitch wrote:
Who are you?

punk bitch wrote:
Also, are you made of saltines?

punk bitch wrote:
Seriously, no one going to answer me on how you're breaking so much shit?

punk bitch wrote:
It's the army... the pussies of the U.S. Infantry. I know at least 3 Marines, no fractures in basic.

More in the Army, Navy, and especially Air Force(not far from lackland). Fractures in basic are not that damn common.

punk bitch wrote:
I somehow doubt your claims. Historically, Marines left the army in the dust when they fought side by side.

Damn Army got a lot of Marines killed in the Pacific campaign.

punk bitch wrote:
To WWI, up to at least Vietnam. Haven't really been in a massive clusterfuck to compare in quite some time.

punk bitch wrote:
Late 50's? U.S. was not involved in the Vietnam conflict in the 50's. Hell, we only got unofficially involved in the early 60's. 1965 would be the first time we probably had Marines there, including Force Recon.

Also, at least up to the Tet Offensive in '67.

punk bitch wrote:
Probably not. Their basic is still significantly shorter. They're not all rifleman, etc, etc.

punk bitch wrote:
fluffy wrote:
punk bitch wrote:
Probably not. Their basic is still significantly shorter. They're not all rifleman, etc, etc.

You sure don't know what you're talking about. That's cool, though. Please, do go on.


Enlighten me. Where am I wrong?

punk bitch wrote:
What I'm hearing is, I'm right, and you can't find a legit argument to counter me. Your attempt to distract from that is adorable, but it fails.

punk bitch wrote:
Man, y'all suck at this shit. Hard core.

punk bitch wrote:
Aww, you're adorable. That's now how arguments work. It just shows you have nothing to back up :)

Go get real men killed some more.

punk bitch wrote:
Oh shit, spelling mistake. Damn, argument is invalid now. Oh well.

Wait, no, still not how this works.

punk bitch wrote:
I never said it was. I said rai is a pussy for breaking 3 bones, and you chose the shitty infantry.

punk bitch wrote:
fluffy wrote:
Shh, shush, shhh. Shh. You've lost. Accept defeat and slink quietly into the dark.


Alas, the problem is simple. You said I didn't know what I was talking about, yet have failed to disprove me. Thus, failure is on your part. Cute, but declaring victory is not victory. I suppose... that is kind of how the army works though.

punk bitch wrote:
Welcome to Forkheads.

punk bitch wrote:
Cause they're fun, and y'all are easy.

punk bitch wrote:
Oh, bite me. I couldn't join the Corps do to criminal record.

punk bitch wrote:
See, you don't have to have served to have access to information.

Historically, The Army gets Marines killed. In no way poorly defined, especially when your argument is I didn't know what I'm talking about. If I am wrong, prove it so. If not, shh.

Also, Skyling called me PeeBee in '07. Way to be 9 years behind the times.

Edit:
I didn't have a felony. I had 4 misdemeanors for assault/varying tickets for assault. Marines were not cool with it. I probably could of got in the Army, but as mentioned before, didn't want to be a pussy who gets men killed.

punk bitch wrote:
fluffy wrote:
Beats me. They let anybody that wasn't physically deformed (too much) in. I swear we had a Sasquatch or two.

To put it another way, violence just among ourselves was often a problem. We're very violent.


Look at that, the Army letting in anyone who walks in the door. Who would of guessed?


But yes, Marines don't want any criminal record. Least didn't circa 2004. I hear all branches have loosened rules, even allowing tats and shit.

punk bitch wrote:
He's so adorable guys. He can't rebuttal, or apparently read. I suppose that is what I expect of people who often manage to flunk out of a 8 week boot.

punk bitch wrote:
?YVAN EHT NIOJ






Also, you actually made a false claim. That differs from an opinion, in that it makes you look fucking retarded.

punk bitch wrote:
?YVAN EHT NIOJ


Keep trying to hide the fact you failed, it's okay kiddo.

punk bitch wrote:
?YVAN EHT NIOJ

Now you're not even trying. That's a shame.

punk bitch wrote:
joshex wrote:
fluffy wrote:


punk bitch has been avoiding answering the implications about the donkey nuts. I believe this means guilty as charged.


?YVAN EHT NIOJ

I have donkey nuts, if this helps.

Also, again, pony up or shut up.

punk bitch wrote:
?YVAN EHT NIOJ

So far, no one has gotten the reference.

punk bitch wrote:
?YVAN EHT NIOJ

Apparently retard can't keep up.

punk bitch wrote:
?YVAN EHT NIOJ

That does seem to still be the case.

punk bitch wrote:
!Yvan eht noij

Also, breaking bones=pussy, in that it generally implies poor physical fitness. You will achieve strong bones if you have decent muscle density, as bones gain strength as they are placed under strain.

Exactly how astronauts lose bone density do to lack of strain.

punk bitch wrote:
!Yvan eht noij

I'm not the one who got mad, son.

punk bitch wrote:
Fucking finally, someone translates it.

punk bitch wrote:
Look at the size of your mom.

punk bitch wrote:
joshex wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/seal-trainee-dies-during-basic-training-215833834.html

I'll just drop this here.

apparently there is more than one case of shit going down bad in basic training.


That's fucking SEAL training, you dumb fuck. That is apples and oranges, especially since, again... that's not even Basic/Boot.

punk bitch wrote:
Oooh? That Seamen (you know, already through boot), died in his MOS training? Pardon, his Rate, I believe.

punk bitch wrote:
Dumb ass here doesn't even know how Basic to MOS training works... I now doubt his military claims.

punk bitch wrote:
He's trying to distract from the fact he done goofed.

punk bitch wrote:
Unable to join. Wanted to, couldn't.

I asked how the fuck one does it to begin with, then transitioned to calling her a pussy. I might transition into this is why women should be in the kitchen or something next.

Point is, while it is possible to break something, that generally means you're out of that training cycle. You are not completing boot with a broken anything other than a nose/finger. It is also fairly uncommon, as it means fewer people moving on to specific job training, and losing valuable time.

punk bitch wrote:
No, it's universal. Military is under federal regulation.

As for trying now, I sadly can't for different reasons. Some may recall, but March 13th, 2009 found I had a brain tumor(via grand mal seizure). While that shit is under control, I'm now epileptic. So, all in all, I guess not getting in worked out. While it's my greatest regret, I would of had my seizure while serving(I was... 21?), and that could of fucked overs other.

punk bitch wrote:
joshex wrote:
punk bitch wrote:
He's trying to distract from the fact he done goofed.


james' loveless seaman. died while treading water.

SEAL training is the navy not the army, and SEALs are technically better than the marines, they are like in between a marine and james bond.

experts of stealth and infiltration, trained in deadly kungfu moves, equipped with special tech per the mission.

so how is it that someone physically qualified to enter SEAL basic training died during it.


It is, again, not basic training. Basic is already done by the time you're allowed into SEALs training. You still have done goofed. Also, Force Recon for the win.

As for floof's tl;dr, he still done goofed. He sadly cannot declare victory, because he doesn't even know how training works, putting his service into question. Stolen Valor, if you will.

punk bitch wrote:
Again, considering you didn't know how boot works, I'm assuming you're a civilian with less military experience than I. Least I was in ROTC till I got kicked out, and understand how training works.

punk bitch wrote:
Blah blah blah, stolen valor. Trying so hard to hide that fact, he... blocks me, which may or may not be a thing.

punk bitch wrote:
Yeah, so wide... as it fits perfectly on my laptop.

And right, all about me. Does it show you how much of a dip shit you showed yourself to be? Stolen Valor, son.

punk bitch wrote:
joshex wrote:
punk bitch wrote:
joshex wrote:
punk bitch wrote:
He's trying to distract from the fact he done goofed.


james' loveless seaman. died while treading water.

SEAL training is the navy not the army, and SEALs are technically better than the marines, they are like in between a marine and james bond.

experts of stealth and infiltration, trained in deadly kungfu moves, equipped with special tech per the mission.

so how is it that someone physically qualified to enter SEAL basic training died during it.


It is, again, not basic training. Basic is already done by the time you're allowed into SEALs training. You still have done goofed. Also, Force Recon for the win.


did I misread the article? "SEAL trainee dies during basic training"

OK, even me someone whose never been in the military who has friends who have knows this shit: each part of the armed forces/military has it own recruitment branch, the seals is no different, you can opt to directly join the seals then undergo seal basic training.

If I remember correctly there is a placement test as well. then there's the easy route: have the military pay for your college, once you get your degree you start immediately as a second lieutenant (at least I know that's how it works in the air-force). nice cushy job with advancement perks there.

but still point is, it is basic training.


SEALS aren't a branch. They're Naval Spec Ops, thus a MOS. Basic would of been when they became a Naval Seamen, the... 7 week program(maybe 8, could be thinking of Air Force) of conditioning and training to bring you up to speed on life in the Military. SEALs, again, do not have a basic training. Lrn2Basic.

punk bitch wrote:
What they're trying to describe in the article is known as "Indoctrination". It is not basic, but a means to weed out the "weak", mentally and physically. While deaths are uncommon, they are not unheard of.

Possibly Phase 1: Physical Conditioning, as well.


That said, again, none of these are basic training.


Edit:
http://www.military.com/military-fitnes ... en-to-seal

I'm just so helpful today :)

punk bitch wrote:
You know you win when people block you.


Anywho, I showed that boot/basic differentiate from SEALs training.

punk bitch wrote:
You are a newfag, ain't ya? Offended by double posting.

Come on son, stop with the stolen valor.

punk bitch wrote:
Aww look, it gives me a cute kitten. I can live with that.

Gah though, I do love victory.

punk bitch wrote:
:)

punk bitch wrote:
This is oddly amusing.

In all my years of being a dick on every incarnation of FH, never had one person block me till today... it's like, I can finally die knowing I've achieved that.

... that part might be sad, I don't know.

punk bitch wrote:
Is it that whats his nuts is so upset he blocked me?

Also, again, that link I showed proved you have to go through basic before Indoc.

punk bitch wrote:
You do, you blocked me :)


So you fucking idiot, where did I miss that quote you made up? Could you point it out to me? Or maybe I don't know what “initial” means and you made your “initial thesis statement” on page ten? You're a fucking tard.

_________________
In just under one-thousand eight-bit bytes I have to confer some glorious shrine to myself by means of text, images, hyper links, embeded flash compositions and possibly formatting. I could abuse this easily. Ten hour clips on youtube embeded in a single vertical stack. Multi-megapixel long transparent GIFs causing scrollbar hell. Nuero-linguistic programs that fuck your mind like a fresh squid. Eye raping color schemes using ascii full-width blocks. Images or links to images of things that can not be unseen. Anything called "epilepsy" dot SWF. This is what I want to do. I am not a good person. I just know that would be a flagrant display of disrespect. I'll wait until I can get away with it.
NOW IN GLORIOUS TODD A.O.!
fluffco™ LLC takes no responsibility for anything, ever, at all, under any circumstances and is entirely fictional outside Colorado.


Sat May 21, 2016 11:34 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 22
Level 22
User avatar

Cash on hand:
174,929.20
Posts: 2255
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:10 am
Location: SR388
Group: Special Access
Post Re: rai is home (for a minute)
fluffy wrote:
punk bitch wrote:
This is actually your failure, not mine. As again, the initial thesis statement was "Marines are better infantry", key word there being infantry. Your failure speaks volumes.


Let me stop you there.

Here follows a list of quotes of your posts, unabridged, from the first NINE PAGES of this thread.

punk bitch wrote:
Who are you?

punk bitch wrote:
Also, are you made of saltines?

punk bitch wrote:
Seriously, no one going to answer me on how you're breaking so much shit?

punk bitch wrote:
It's the army... the pussies of the U.S. Infantry. I know at least 3 Marines, no fractures in basic.

More in the Army, Navy, and especially Air Force(not far from lackland). Fractures in basic are not that damn common.

punk bitch wrote:
I somehow doubt your claims. Historically, Marines left the army in the dust when they fought side by side.

Damn Army got a lot of Marines killed in the Pacific campaign.

punk bitch wrote:
To WWI, up to at least Vietnam. Haven't really been in a massive clusterfuck to compare in quite some time.

punk bitch wrote:
Late 50's? U.S. was not involved in the Vietnam conflict in the 50's. Hell, we only got unofficially involved in the early 60's. 1965 would be the first time we probably had Marines there, including Force Recon.

Also, at least up to the Tet Offensive in '67.

punk bitch wrote:
Probably not. Their basic is still significantly shorter. They're not all rifleman, etc, etc.

punk bitch wrote:
fluffy wrote:
punk bitch wrote:
Probably not. Their basic is still significantly shorter. They're not all rifleman, etc, etc.

You sure don't know what you're talking about. That's cool, though. Please, do go on.


Enlighten me. Where am I wrong?

punk bitch wrote:
What I'm hearing is, I'm right, and you can't find a legit argument to counter me. Your attempt to distract from that is adorable, but it fails.

punk bitch wrote:
Man, y'all suck at this shit. Hard core.

punk bitch wrote:
Aww, you're adorable. That's now how arguments work. It just shows you have nothing to back up :)

Go get real men killed some more.

punk bitch wrote:
Oh shit, spelling mistake. Damn, argument is invalid now. Oh well.

Wait, no, still not how this works.

punk bitch wrote:
I never said it was. I said rai is a pussy for breaking 3 bones, and you chose the shitty infantry.

punk bitch wrote:
fluffy wrote:
Shh, shush, shhh. Shh. You've lost. Accept defeat and slink quietly into the dark.


Alas, the problem is simple. You said I didn't know what I was talking about, yet have failed to disprove me. Thus, failure is on your part. Cute, but declaring victory is not victory. I suppose... that is kind of how the army works though.

punk bitch wrote:
Welcome to Forkheads.

punk bitch wrote:
Cause they're fun, and y'all are easy.

punk bitch wrote:
Oh, bite me. I couldn't join the Corps do to criminal record.

punk bitch wrote:
See, you don't have to have served to have access to information.

Historically, The Army gets Marines killed. In no way poorly defined, especially when your argument is I didn't know what I'm talking about. If I am wrong, prove it so. If not, shh.

Also, Skyling called me PeeBee in '07. Way to be 9 years behind the times.

Edit:
I didn't have a felony. I had 4 misdemeanors for assault/varying tickets for assault. Marines were not cool with it. I probably could of got in the Army, but as mentioned before, didn't want to be a pussy who gets men killed.

punk bitch wrote:
fluffy wrote:
Beats me. They let anybody that wasn't physically deformed (too much) in. I swear we had a Sasquatch or two.

To put it another way, violence just among ourselves was often a problem. We're very violent.


Look at that, the Army letting in anyone who walks in the door. Who would of guessed?


But yes, Marines don't want any criminal record. Least didn't circa 2004. I hear all branches have loosened rules, even allowing tats and shit.

punk bitch wrote:
He's so adorable guys. He can't rebuttal, or apparently read. I suppose that is what I expect of people who often manage to flunk out of a 8 week boot.

punk bitch wrote:
?YVAN EHT NIOJ






Also, you actually made a false claim. That differs from an opinion, in that it makes you look fucking retarded.

punk bitch wrote:
?YVAN EHT NIOJ


Keep trying to hide the fact you failed, it's okay kiddo.

punk bitch wrote:
?YVAN EHT NIOJ

Now you're not even trying. That's a shame.

punk bitch wrote:
joshex wrote:
fluffy wrote:


punk bitch has been avoiding answering the implications about the donkey nuts. I believe this means guilty as charged.


?YVAN EHT NIOJ

I have donkey nuts, if this helps.

Also, again, pony up or shut up.

punk bitch wrote:
?YVAN EHT NIOJ

So far, no one has gotten the reference.

punk bitch wrote:
?YVAN EHT NIOJ

Apparently retard can't keep up.

punk bitch wrote:
?YVAN EHT NIOJ

That does seem to still be the case.

punk bitch wrote:
!Yvan eht noij

Also, breaking bones=pussy, in that it generally implies poor physical fitness. You will achieve strong bones if you have decent muscle density, as bones gain strength as they are placed under strain.

Exactly how astronauts lose bone density do to lack of strain.

punk bitch wrote:
!Yvan eht noij

I'm not the one who got mad, son.

punk bitch wrote:
Fucking finally, someone translates it.

punk bitch wrote:
Look at the size of your mom.

punk bitch wrote:
joshex wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/seal-trainee-dies-during-basic-training-215833834.html

I'll just drop this here.

apparently there is more than one case of shit going down bad in basic training.


That's fucking SEAL training, you dumb fuck. That is apples and oranges, especially since, again... that's not even Basic/Boot.

punk bitch wrote:
Oooh? That Seamen (you know, already through boot), died in his MOS training? Pardon, his Rate, I believe.

punk bitch wrote:
Dumb ass here doesn't even know how Basic to MOS training works... I now doubt his military claims.

punk bitch wrote:
He's trying to distract from the fact he done goofed.

punk bitch wrote:
Unable to join. Wanted to, couldn't.

I asked how the fuck one does it to begin with, then transitioned to calling her a pussy. I might transition into this is why women should be in the kitchen or something next.

Point is, while it is possible to break something, that generally means you're out of that training cycle. You are not completing boot with a broken anything other than a nose/finger. It is also fairly uncommon, as it means fewer people moving on to specific job training, and losing valuable time.

punk bitch wrote:
No, it's universal. Military is under federal regulation.

As for trying now, I sadly can't for different reasons. Some may recall, but March 13th, 2009 found I had a brain tumor(via grand mal seizure). While that shit is under control, I'm now epileptic. So, all in all, I guess not getting in worked out. While it's my greatest regret, I would of had my seizure while serving(I was... 21?), and that could of fucked overs other.

punk bitch wrote:
joshex wrote:
punk bitch wrote:
He's trying to distract from the fact he done goofed.


james' loveless seaman. died while treading water.

SEAL training is the navy not the army, and SEALs are technically better than the marines, they are like in between a marine and james bond.

experts of stealth and infiltration, trained in deadly kungfu moves, equipped with special tech per the mission.

so how is it that someone physically qualified to enter SEAL basic training died during it.


It is, again, not basic training. Basic is already done by the time you're allowed into SEALs training. You still have done goofed. Also, Force Recon for the win.

As for floof's tl;dr, he still done goofed. He sadly cannot declare victory, because he doesn't even know how training works, putting his service into question. Stolen Valor, if you will.

punk bitch wrote:
Again, considering you didn't know how boot works, I'm assuming you're a civilian with less military experience than I. Least I was in ROTC till I got kicked out, and understand how training works.

punk bitch wrote:
Blah blah blah, stolen valor. Trying so hard to hide that fact, he... blocks me, which may or may not be a thing.

punk bitch wrote:
Yeah, so wide... as it fits perfectly on my laptop.

And right, all about me. Does it show you how much of a dip shit you showed yourself to be? Stolen Valor, son.

punk bitch wrote:
joshex wrote:
punk bitch wrote:
joshex wrote:
punk bitch wrote:
He's trying to distract from the fact he done goofed.


james' loveless seaman. died while treading water.

SEAL training is the navy not the army, and SEALs are technically better than the marines, they are like in between a marine and james bond.

experts of stealth and infiltration, trained in deadly kungfu moves, equipped with special tech per the mission.

so how is it that someone physically qualified to enter SEAL basic training died during it.


It is, again, not basic training. Basic is already done by the time you're allowed into SEALs training. You still have done goofed. Also, Force Recon for the win.


did I misread the article? "SEAL trainee dies during basic training"

OK, even me someone whose never been in the military who has friends who have knows this shit: each part of the armed forces/military has it own recruitment branch, the seals is no different, you can opt to directly join the seals then undergo seal basic training.

If I remember correctly there is a placement test as well. then there's the easy route: have the military pay for your college, once you get your degree you start immediately as a second lieutenant (at least I know that's how it works in the air-force). nice cushy job with advancement perks there.

but still point is, it is basic training.


SEALS aren't a branch. They're Naval Spec Ops, thus a MOS. Basic would of been when they became a Naval Seamen, the... 7 week program(maybe 8, could be thinking of Air Force) of conditioning and training to bring you up to speed on life in the Military. SEALs, again, do not have a basic training. Lrn2Basic.

punk bitch wrote:
What they're trying to describe in the article is known as "Indoctrination". It is not basic, but a means to weed out the "weak", mentally and physically. While deaths are uncommon, they are not unheard of.

Possibly Phase 1: Physical Conditioning, as well.


That said, again, none of these are basic training.


Edit:
http://www.military.com/military-fitnes ... en-to-seal

I'm just so helpful today :)

punk bitch wrote:
You know you win when people block you.


Anywho, I showed that boot/basic differentiate from SEALs training.

punk bitch wrote:
You are a newfag, ain't ya? Offended by double posting.

Come on son, stop with the stolen valor.

punk bitch wrote:
Aww look, it gives me a cute kitten. I can live with that.

Gah though, I do love victory.

punk bitch wrote:
:)

punk bitch wrote:
This is oddly amusing.

In all my years of being a dick on every incarnation of FH, never had one person block me till today... it's like, I can finally die knowing I've achieved that.

... that part might be sad, I don't know.

punk bitch wrote:
Is it that whats his nuts is so upset he blocked me?

Also, again, that link I showed proved you have to go through basic before Indoc.

punk bitch wrote:
You do, you blocked me :)


So you fucking idiot, where did I miss that quote you made up? Could you point it out to me? Or maybe I don't know what “initial” means and you made your “initial thesis statement” on page ten? You're a fucking tard.


I found this less fun when punk bitch started arguing with himself on this last page where he flip-sided his original starting argument and supported the opposite. it was like reading an article where a feminazi just got off a rant on how a man holding a door for a lady is required of every decent man but also makes them a despicable sexist for stereotyping and how much they should have their balls cut off for it. I mean at that point fluffy completely won the debate, it was an admit to defeat. after that anything else said is moot and null. I mean it's one of those things you can't take back by expressing a counter opinion later as if it never happened. that's what dumbocrat politicians do when they are caught accidentally something, but they are smarter in that they attempt to erase the original source and flame and discredit anyone who tries to call them on their shit.

_________________
mepsipax

Image

got any?

His name is not Robert Paulsen, His name is Gregory Matthew Bruni, he won so hard.

_________________
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.


Sun May 22, 2016 5:13 am
Profile E-mail
FH Pope
FH Pope
User avatar

Cash on hand:
109,105.50
Posts: 4570
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:40 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: rai is home (for a minute)
I didn't "quote", I said thesis statement. I can see some confusion there, however, I'd say it was:

Quote:
Historically, Marines left the army in the dust when they fought side by side.

Damn Army got a lot of Marines killed in the Pacific campaign.


Edit:
To further clarify, I believe that's when you first told me I was wrong. Thus, the beginning of debate. I see here I did not say infantry, touche`. However, what else do they have in common? Is it guarding ships? I don't think so.

Edit 2:
Quote:
I never said it was. I said rai is a pussy for breaking 3 bones, and you chose the shitty infantry.


Okay, here we have the infantry statement. It was just less cohesive. However, was part of the same conversation.

_________________
Image
Image
Image

Bubba wrote:
PKB's accent is... awesome and.. surprisingly sexy.

:)


Sun May 22, 2016 11:32 am
Profile E-mail
FH Pope
FH Pope
User avatar

Cash on hand:
109,105.50
Posts: 4570
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:40 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: rai is home (for a minute)
It dawns on me you mean the other one. The one you missed and claimed never existed. You should of clarified.

Page 10, as I said. Also, just realize I said "beached" instead of Beach Head. My bad.

_________________
Image
Image
Image

Bubba wrote:
PKB's accent is... awesome and.. surprisingly sexy.

:)


Sun May 22, 2016 12:18 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 20
Level 20
User avatar

Cash on hand:
1,859.50
Posts: 2051
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:51 pm
Location: [nobody fills this out right, right?]
Group: Special Access
Post Re: rai is home (for a minute)
I stopped at your first error. Let me check your (latest) correction. Ah, here it is, post number 144 in this thread and the post after I reprise you for taking what turned out to be ten pages and 140 posts just to clarify the scope of the argument. Before I even bother reading the next thing that needs to be torn the fuck apart, would you like to make any more corrections? Maybe use this page on argumentation before you decide. And I fucking quote:

Argumentation theory, or argumentation, is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be reached through logical reasoning; that is, claims based, soundly or not, on premises.

To abuse a cliche that's trending: git gud

_________________
In just under one-thousand eight-bit bytes I have to confer some glorious shrine to myself by means of text, images, hyper links, embeded flash compositions and possibly formatting. I could abuse this easily. Ten hour clips on youtube embeded in a single vertical stack. Multi-megapixel long transparent GIFs causing scrollbar hell. Nuero-linguistic programs that fuck your mind like a fresh squid. Eye raping color schemes using ascii full-width blocks. Images or links to images of things that can not be unseen. Anything called "epilepsy" dot SWF. This is what I want to do. I am not a good person. I just know that would be a flagrant display of disrespect. I'll wait until I can get away with it.
NOW IN GLORIOUS TODD A.O.!
fluffco™ LLC takes no responsibility for anything, ever, at all, under any circumstances and is entirely fictional outside Colorado.


Sun May 22, 2016 5:33 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 205 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
 

Similar topics

 
Chatango: Home of the intellectuals.
Forum: ./General Spam
Author: Rem
Replies: 33
Every minute to me now, baby, seems like a day!
Forum: ./General Spam
Author: Meta-Hanzo
Replies: 3
You are going to investigate an old home in 1920s boston
Forum: ./TEXT-based RPG
Author: tuypo1
Replies: 18
Forkheads: NOT the home of the stupidest people.
Forum: ./General Spam
Author: n0th1n
Replies: 29
Tutorial: geting a ftp server running on your home computer
Forum: ./General Spam
Author: cluelessfurball
Replies: 0
Top


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Mods Database :: Imprint :: Crawler Feeds :: Reset blocks
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.

Portal XL 5.0 ~ Premod 0.3 phpBB SEO