We don't need no stinkin' airforce!

[Lightbringer]

They have a valuable role to provide, but seem hell bent on trying to become a mini-Army.

Exactly.

That is what my Tasmanian Devil post was attempting to convey. The proper role for the Marines is assaulting enemy positions too tough and/or remote for the cumbersome, lumbering Army to be properly effective in taking. Islands, remote mountainous areas, or large cities. Their lack of logistical structure was designed partly to enhance their training as fanatics. Simply remove the possibility of retreat or long drawn out campaigns. Kill the enemy as viciously and expeditiously as possible, or run out of supplies and die. I am exaggerating somewhat, but the concept is truth. The regular Army is not incapable of taking on very tough enemy positions mind you, but having a whole Army division chewed up causes adverse affects on the entire front. The Marines should be a weapon. Sort of an atomic bomb made out of crazy, bloodthirsty, killing machines, not just another group of boots on the ground filling a spot in the line. Making friends with "wittle children" and building water treatment plants is for the Corp of Engineers.

But, between inter branch politics and each branch grabbing as much of the budget pie as they can, and the limp wristed liberals trying to turn war into something where no one gets offended, and treating world politics like a popularity contest, we get what we have today. We can't even finish killing the enemy before we start worrying about how to make everyone like us again, and we try to use our swords as plows. We are the United States, we are supposed to sell them plows (at a handsome profit!) after we kick their butts.

-Light

[BigStone]

Long gone are the days of brave Marines storming the shore aboard assault craft. Today, Marines are carried ashore in amphib vehicles

Yep ... IF they are lucky :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5sHcXRec_I

[Lightbringer]

ROFL!

[killerflood]

that was feiken hilarious

[The Khan]

The Marines should be a weapon. Sort of an atomic bomb made out of crazy, bloodthirsty, killing machines, not just another group of boots on the ground filling a spot in the line. Making friends with "wittle children" and building water treatment plants is for the Corp of Engineers.

I hope this was sarcasm. The rest about selling guns to other countries after defeating them and liberals being limp wristed was rather unpleasant to read.

[Lightbringer]

Khan,

I apologize if my opinions were unpleasant for you to read. I humbly admit that I vented a bit of my real world, bad day blues into that post. Perhaps if I explained my point of view in less inflammatory language...?

1. Marines = weapon ... Marines do not = civil engineers/police forces/goodwill ambassadors...
The Marines have a long and proud heritage. They were formed to endure and survive the most grueling combat missions and emerge victorious. They were not formed to build schools, check ID cards at police road blocks, or hand out Hershey bars to local civilians. The United States has plenty of less combat intensive units within it's military structure that are vastly better suited to these activities. Imagine your father had two vehicles, a fast sports car, and a heavy duty pick-up truck. Would you agree with your father when he began welding storage racks on the sports car and started hauling lumber and bricks stacked on top of it, even though the pick-up truck was sitting there empty? I was exaggerating my feelings about the role of the Marines, but I was not being sarcastic. I was not endorsing attacking everyone possible with the Marines and having them slaughter whole populations. BUT... if the U.S. engages in hostilities, then our forces should be used properly, not as red cross relief.

2. Selling Plows....
Yes, reread my statement. I said selling plows, not guns. My main point with this is that the U.S. has entered into a dangerous and self defeating habit of waging public relations campaigns instead of warfare. If the U.S. had finished the job in Iraq, at full force and full speed, instead of doing as little as possible and worrying so much about insulting or offending everyone, then the "insurgency" (which is much more a proxy war by Iran and terrorist organizations) would have been stillborn. Once the hostilities are properly squashed is the proper time to start rebuilding things full time. Also, just so you know, the United States has historically spent much more than the vanquished country in rebuilding. We are paying most of the bill to rebuild Iraq, just as we did in Japan and Germany.

3. Limp wristed liberals...
Yes, that term is harsh, and it can not be painted universally on all liberals/Democrats etc. I used it out of frustration with a group of people whose actions have shown me from my earliest memories until this very day forty years later that they wish to weaken my homeland. Their actions almost always aim to weaken our strength, to give away our advantages, and to deal with others from a position of being the bad guys begging for forgiveness. I do not believe that they truly wish to rule over a weak nation. I believe that they feel they can control the populace of a weak nation more easily than the people of a strong proud nation. Between them and the media, they have been pounding the message that a strong America is a bad thing into people's heads for decades. If you are a liberal, and you felt insulted thinking I was speaking of you as limp wristed, then again, I apologize. I was referring to the ruling class of American Democrats, and the term is inaccurate. (so unless you are Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy in real life I did not mean you. )

To sum up... I am not a war mongering monster, I simply want my nation to remain strong and not weaken itself for one party's political power.

-Light

[The Khan]

O I reread the plow part, sorry, for the rest. As for the marines, don't you think that the very government uses them to tarnish their past, and glorious history? I am starting to think so. Not to mention that the personnel's behaviour and religious mindset is something to be desired. Their morale must have begun to deteriorate badly, as I heard of many violence situations done against Iraqis. And I believe Republicans are simply damaging them further to force your nation to spend more on more on weapons. Of course, that is my opinion.


Light,

The Americans are a strong and innovative people. I admit this. I am not one of those hyperliberal fanatics that want to instill an "American guilt" in the hearts and minds of all Americans. I do honor the achievements reached in the American soil, the very industrial revolution and the honorable uprising to a remote morbid kingdom. I have read the quotes and deeds of your Founding Fathers, and they clearly state that such people may have been the best minds and leader-men ever come in history, and so proud and individualist to state that "those who sacrifice liberty for security gain neither and lose both" (Benjamin Franklin) in an age of kings and religion, a word being the pinnacle of anarchistic individualism, even more surprising, said by a leader.

However, the latest years have been little than a debacle. Let me explain.

We are paying most of the bill to rebuild Iraq, just as we did in Japan and Germany.

light, the money just doesn't go to Iraqi treasury like in Civilisation :(

Plus, if you read the news, there are reports of mass corruption in the governmental body, and almost none of the infrastructure is up and running like at Saddam's reign. Damage mounts with millions losing their stable jobs and lives and now, cheap sex tours to Syria for newly arrived Iraqi widows along with their daughters. I am not exaggarating, say if you want links. (also it is not the US's fault solely, the ******* Saudis never did any charity organisation with their limitless petrodollars if they really cared about women, the misogynist pigs, however the U.S caused this chain disaster, unfortunately).

In short, Saddam was an ice blade stuck in the artery of Iraq. You just pulled it before the body itself could melt,mend around it and eject it. You really don't believe Saddam had WMD's stockpiled, right? US Backed Israel, Shi'a Iran fresh with the injuries of the Old war (with Iraq paid by the U.S, quite a filthy and dishonorable act I say), and my little country armed to the teeth and watchful for Kurdish terrorists would run his ass over like a deer in a redneck country in seconds by the time he'd launch ANYTHING chemical. He'd be surrounded in hours, but to gallows in a few days.

You all know the reason for the invasion. I even remember reading he wanted to switch to Euro in Oil trade months before the invasion.

Yes, that term is harsh, and it can not be painted universally on all liberals/Democrats etc. I used it out of frustration with a group of people whose actions have shown me from my earliest memories until this very day forty years later that they wish to weaken my homeland.

hmm, how do you think that action is logical. Do you really think a political group would want to weaken the very people they want to reign over? I think they are just reduced to sap the power of republicans whenever they can, and end up hurting you folks as well.

Well, I CAN be considered as a liberal, as I think banning gay marriages for the sanctity of marriage, along with an endless war to support Israel, pushing a Christian agenda into the government, bannign abortion, tax cuts for rich people and burden of tax on the poor is retarded and should be stopped at any cost.

[tkobo]

Please, please ,please dont just "believe things cause you read them or hear them on the news"

All governments are corrupt, all sides of those governments are corrupt.

In america though, there are a few things more corrupt than the government, and the so called "news organizations" regardless of the side they are on are among them.

"Yellow" journalism of old has nothing on modern media news when it comes to putting out complete tripe as news.

AND you can always count on the side NOT in power at any given time
to be the worst in this behavior, the ones who twist things the most to mislead people the most.

Currently thats the left in the U.S.

So the most news you will see now will be anti-right oriented ,with the firm intent to mislead and exagerate to make the left look better.

Saddam was a serious issue and threat, of course by now his son would likely have killed him and taken over.
AND that boy would have been even worse.

You think Iraqis are dying now in large numbers,that boy would have put this body count to shame in no time.

And though Saddams threat to the US was basically indirect, you can be 1000% sure, if he (or his kin) was still in power it would be the US the world would cry to,to protect them from him.
Even his own "people" would be crying for us to do something,just like many of them were already.

As for expensive,heck the "no fly zone" alone was costing the US over 2 billion dollars a year and tying up over 200 aircraft, 19 ships and circa 22 K soldiers.
That was allowed to go on for circa 11 years.
WITH no end in sight .AND likely worse on the horizon.

Though many left leaners will never understand this, invading iraq was the correct thing to do.
Removing Saddam's line from power, was the correct thing to do.

Trying to help them become a democracy is the correct thing to do.

And if we fail, we fail.BUT its one of those times we will be able to point back to and say "we tried".

Much like Somalia is.

And theres that one thing thats always worse then failing, and thats not trying.Something the rest of the world excels at.

And whichever way this goes, the US will agian have done more than any other nation in the world to try and make things better in a region that was a complete disaster before hand, and would be even worse now if we simply sat back and tried to "contain" or ignore the problem,like so many otehr nations choose to do.

[The Khan]

Please, please ,please dont just "believe things cause you read them or hear them on the news"

All governments are corrupt, all sides of those governments are corrupt.

The problem is, how good can a war be if the very cause is proven to be a hoax? WMD's? If Bush said: "Saddam must be removed because we want the region to be more democratic, and to have the Kurds as closer and more free allies" I would kindly STFU. HE lied, and you know it. The oil wells are pumping, debts are piling, guns are bought, and his circle of power is feeding off the war. Prove me wrong on this please.

I am not sure if Saddam wanted to change oil currency, but it sounds more credible than WMD's Saddam only gassed Kurds once, Iran another time, and then he ditched the rest. Don't know why.

Trying to help them become a democracy is the correct thing to do.

And if we fail, we fail.BUT its one of those times we will be able to point back to and say "we tried".

Much like Somalia is.

We know. The critical question is: "Are you sure Bush wanted to stabilize region, or keep it chaotic to feed arms sales and military buildup and social budget cuts to feed his power buddies, the neo-cons?"

If this would be true, starting the war would have been the biggest mistake EVER. Iran,Israel and Turkey could smoke Saddam in days if he did anything stupid. We just didn't want to get a chemical on the face and lose popularity. (poor kurdish villagers duct taped every gap in their homes and made makeshift air pipes aroudn their hovels when the first Gulf War began.

By the way, what idiot president failed to smoke that idiot Saddam in the first war and why the ****?

[Lightbringer]

Well, I CAN be considered as a liberal, as I think banning gay marriages for the sanctity of marriage, along with an endless war to support Israel, pushing a Christian agenda into the government, bannign abortion, tax cuts for rich people and burden of tax on the poor is retarded and should be stopped at any cost.

Let me reply to this part of your post first. I guess some further clarification is in order. I don't have a problem with "Liberals", I have a problem with U.S. American Socialists. I don't even have a problem with foreign socialists. To the French peasants who helped invent socialism/communism, this form of government represented a very real improvement in their quality of life when compared to be being virtual slaves of the French aristocrats. The same can be said about the Russian serfs. Human nature proved stronger than the guillotine and the gulags, and true pure socialism, but that is for another debate.

You may be under the impression that the media wants you to have, that all conservatives are right wing Christian religious fanatics. We are not. I could care less if you want to marry another man. I do not believe that Christ has a place in the government (although I find the growing persecution of public displays of Christianity to be hypocritical and ridiculous when compared to the encouragement and support of every single other religion possible). As for abortion, I believe it should be an available option for adult women. I don't believe it should be available without parent's consent (or even knowledge) for minors.

The United States continues to support Israel, in large part, because the Muslim nations surrounding Israel continue to attack it. We can trade stories about the Jews hurting Muslims and Muslims hurting Jews back and forth into the mists of antiquity if you like, but that will not solve anything. I do know that Israel has no history of switching sides against the United States. Turkey, in fact, is the only other nation in the region to share that history since WWII.

Tax cuts for the Rich. What a wonderful propaganda slogan. Do you know what % of the income tax bill the top 1% of American wage earners pays? 60%. The top 5%? 80%. Have you ever been offered a job by someone earning 40k$ a year? Me neither. I work for a small company owned by a modestly rich man. If the government starts taxing him harder and harder, do you know who is going to suffer? Not him, even if he has less money. It will be me whom he can no longer afford to pay and still make a profit. Multiply that by millions and your "tax the rich" policy will quickly become "increase the unemployment".

That brings me to another question you raised. Why would a political party want to weaken it's own country? Well I do not think that the socialists want to weaken America. They want to weaken the will of it's people. Socialism depends on victims to support it. People that the socialists can promise crap to. If a majority of the population is doing pretty good and doesn't feel like a victim of oppression, then the socialists can't promise them a better life and be taken seriously. So they want Americans to feel helpless and like victims...not like independent, strong people who do not need the government hand outs.

Let us take the poor as an example. In the 1960's the Democrats began a war on poverty. Since that time, over 14 Trillion dollars have been spent to raise people up out of poverty. 14,000,000,000,000 $$$. Yet today we hear reports that more people are in poverty today than then. Maybe socialism doesn't work, or maybe the socialists do not want that voting block removed from poverty. What would they promise them then? The same pattern of grand promises and almost zero solutions has been perpetrated on the African American population. I could go on and on...

You are entitled to your dislike of Bush. You spout out media slogans very well. You are making a mistake if you think that Bush is some sort of Hero to conservatives. Basically my advice would be to remember that BOTH sides lie. You are doing yourself a disservice if you recognize one set of lies, and then swallow a different set of lies like a fish swallows a fish hook hidden in a worm.

You mentioned the U.S. attacking Iraq before it could cleanse itself of Saddam. I don't recall that the invasion interrupted any massive anti Saddam protests. How many millions more would have died or been tortured before the Iraqis overthrew him or his son? How many would have been tortured and killed by whomever took his place? Totalitarian regimes do not topple very often without outside interference, and very often they are replaced by even worse.

The money may not be going into the treasury of Iraq as some big giant grant. But it is being spent rebuilding what Saddam neglected for decades. Democracy does not happen overnight. Remember this and we shall discuss Iraq in 20 years when it has become what becomes. Most conservatives are not cheerleaders for the Iraq war, but since we are there now, we want to do the job right, not run away and leave the Iraqi people to their fates.

Be well,

Lightbringer

[tkobo]

The problem is, how good can a war be if the very cause is proven to be a hoax? WMD's? If Bush said: "Saddam must be removed because we want the region to be more democratic, and to have the Kurds as closer and more free allies" I would kindly STFU. HE lied, and you know it. The oil wells are pumping, debts are piling, guns are bought, and his circle of power is feeding off the war. Prove me wrong on this please.

I will.
i doubt you will though

Removing Saddam and "bringing" democracy were mentioned from the VERY beginning.
BUT since those reasons didnt have the "fear and hype" factors that wmd/threat does,AND since the opponents knew they'd have an easier time sowing doubt on the threat reason, thats all they (the media and politicians) talked about.
The biggest failure relating to this war, was the way its opponents were allowed to control the conversation about it.

But even now, should you do some research (start with some research on the Iraq Liberation Act, passed by that hoser Clinton,when he wasnt busy abusing women)(than do some research on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 which mentions Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population" as a key reason for the authorization)you should be able to find more than a few debate articles over whether or not "democracy could be forced upon Iraq".

And yes, thats the wording the wars opponents used on thier end .Because they knew they'd have a harder time selling their lines if they used words like "liberate" or "Bring democracy".


And the jury is still out on wmd.Some small amounts were found (over 500 chemical shells alone) and theres still a very convincing collection of information that says some wmds were moved out of Iraq before the war.

I am not sure if Saddam wanted to change oil currency, but it sounds more credible than WMD's Saddam only gassed Kurds once, Iran another time, and then he ditched the rest. Don't know why.

He didnt "ditch" it. Alot of it was found and ordered destroyed by the U.N.
And alot of it was hidden, by dispersing it among the normal weapons.

We know. The critical question is: "Are you sure Bush wanted to stabilize region, or keep it chaotic to feed arms sales and military buildup and social budget cuts to feed his power buddies, the neo-cons?"

Yes, i am.Im not saddled with a left leaning bias,so i have NO problem seeing that there were and still are good intentions,and that though they (the good intentions) may have been accompanied by some bad intentions, they(the good intentions) exist none the less.

If this would be true, starting the war would have been the biggest mistake EVER. Iran,Israel and Turkey could smoke Saddam in days if he did anything stupid. We just didn't want to get a chemical on the face and lose popularity. (poor kurdish villagers duct taped every gap in their homes and made makeshift air pipes aroudn their hovels when the first Gulf War began.

Oh please. Saddam was around for decades and all the regions you mention did squat.
Saddam invaded Kuwait and all the regions you mention did squat.
Almost all the regions WORLD WIDE did nothing.

As they do nothing almost every day in every trouble region in the world.

Iran saw the chance to steal Iraqi equipment and get some payback for the last war without having to actually fight.

Turkey sat back and hid not donating any forces to the 34 nation coalition because it feared being atatcked by iraq AND it feared the possible outcome of a Kurdish state being born.
Even the basing and air rights they did allow had a price tag that included
protecting Turkey from iraqi reprisals.
Turkey on all important fronts , was a no-show to defend a friendly neighbor against a very questionable one.

Israel had little choice but to stand back and down,the rest of the world did everything but stand on their heads begging them to do nothing.

By the way, what idiot president failed to smoke that idiot Saddam in the first war and why the ****?

That was the other Bush.Or did you forget there were two.
AND one of the main reasons they didnt go after and finish Saddam than, was the rest of the world whinning about how "it would be wrong to do so".

The rest of the world was happy to sit back and fail for yet more decades, using the U.N. and its utterly ineffective little resolutions and utterly useless little diplomatic crap sessions.

Lastly you might want to look up a little thing called The Vienna Convention ,which states "a party may invoke a "material breach" to suspend a multilateral treaty."
And remember that the UN itself had declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under UN Resolution 687 (1991), which required cooperation with weapons inspectors.

So legally, the second gulf war WAS the completion of the first.

Im sorry Khan, but your not very informed on this topic at all, let alone to have such a strong opinion on it.

[Balthagor]

simple comment; these threads in off topic remain HIGHLY unmoderated, post here at your own risks. I will try and watch for problems but I know everyone wants me focused on development...

To The Khan; Tkobo and Lightbringer have very strong opinions, clashing with them is likely to do little more than frustrate you unless your willing to let the discussion be "learning what the other side thinks and why". Please avoid "STFU" statements.

To Tk and LB; Be sure to be polite, I feel like a lonely liberal around here...

[tkobo]

Your not alone, Reds with you

[Balthagor]

2 in 2000 is still lonely

[The Khan]

simple comment; these threads in off topic remain HIGHLY unmoderated, post here at your own risks. I will try and watch for problems but I know everyone wants me focused on development...

To The Khan; Tkobo and Lightbringer have very strong opinions, clashing with them is likely to do little more than frustrate you unless your willing to let the discussion be "learning what the other side thinks and why". Please avoid "STFU" statements.

To Tk and LB; Be sure to be polite, I feel like a lonely liberal around here...

Dude... I said I'd STFU. Self cursing shouldn't count.