Jump to content

Guard Dog

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Guard Dog

  1. Give a proof from recent history (IE: Iraq War after 2003) of things the Marines and Army done that are different from each other that requires an entirely different branch to do then, jarhead. And you can try to be bias all you can be about Oorah and Semper Fi, and all that USMC motto esprit de corps. What does it come down to in realism that makes you more capable than a regular US Army soldier other than maybe you make a better janitor than them?

    Since 2003, can't think of a thing. But then, I'm not there and not seeing the day to day operations so I'm not qualified to answer as to how the Corps has been used in the current conflict. I would agree they are not being used according to the doctrine but that does not mean the doctrine can be discarded now.


    But in 1991 the 22 MEU loaded up for an amphibious invasion west of Kuwaitt City. Two divisions of Iraqi republican guards were deployed to meet them. While they were waiting to fight the landing the Army 2nd Armored Cavalry, and elements of the First and Second Marines plus a Saudi-Syrian force took Al Wafra, Al Jahara, and Kuwaitt city, almost unopposed. Fear of the Marines amphibious ability made them a distraction. The landings in Hue City in Viet-Nam, Inchon in Korea, Grenada, Tarawa, could not have been done by the Army with the equipment at the time.


    Even now, the Army does not have landing craft enough to land a single division, let alone four as the Marines have. The Army does not have fixed wing attack aircraft, the Corps does. The Navy does not have ground support aircraft. The Marines do. At the same time, the Marine Corps does not have heavy armor. The Army does. The Marines have only limited artillery, the Army is well equipped. The Marines do not have anti-missle batteries, and has only 4 LAAD battalions. The Army has many. They are different in equipment, training and doctrine.


    I will not say a Marine is a better fighter than a Soldier. You said that, not me. But you were right about one thing. In the Corps you will learn all there is to know about GP Cleaner, Johnsons paste wax, CLP, Duraglit, Brasso, buffing machines and you will know how to make a deck shine.


    One other note, every Navy warship and every US Embassy has a Marine Security Forces detachment. Also, the Marines are tasked with security on Air Force One, and provide Marine One to the President of the US.

  2. The US came to be a power too late to have any colonies in the traditional sense. This is only relevant however if you are going to stick to the colonial aspect of imperialism.


    I cited those nations because they were the most recent historical examples. You cannot talk about early 20th Century imperialisim without talking about colonies. But if that is an aspect the British, French, Germans, etc, all had in common and they all referred to as "empires" then in that they are dissimilar to the US.



    This is a self-contradicting statement. If a nation is sovereign, it by definition is not controlled externally by anyone else. Otherwise, there is no proper sovereignty. You are also quite conveniently omitting the fact that the US has exerted influence in the domestic and foreign policies of many countries over time, the extent of that influence is still the subject of much debate. Again, yes. There haven't been any American governors or viceroys in the traditional colonial sense, but that alone does not make an empire.


    What nation of any size has not exerted influence over a smaller or weaker nation? There is a difference between influence and domination. There is a difference between using culture or economics to influence a nation and using military to control and coercie. Empires seek to dominate through military means. Did any people seek to join the Roman Empire before the cohorts were at their gates?


    It's quite easy to appear lawful when you're the one making the law.

    Prior to Iraq I could have made a better argument here. But if you boil it down to it's basics, the Iraq war today is an extension of the 1991 Gulf War that was resumed when Saddam broke the terms of the cease fire. That cease fire agreement was sanctioned by the UN and while they are not a body to determine what is or is not lawful, they are the next best thing. But there is a truth here that is somewhat damaging to my argument but I'll point it out it anyway. In the real world might really does make right. It is not fair, bit it is true.



    Heh, I'm surprised you brought this up. I guess this is an exception to the rule of "if they want us out, we leave", then.


    We'll leave when the lease runs out. Unless a more friendly government appears by then.


    Your next points come back to what you define as an empire. Generally, empire may be defined as a state that extends dominion over areas and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power. I took that straight out of the Wiki and it makes sense to me. And no one could honestly argue the US does that. We do not force the people of Puerto Rico to speak english, the are not turning Iraq into the 51st state. Extending dominion to me means military coercion and we are not in that business.


    Now if you define empire as a cultural and economic hegemony you might have a case but that can ALWAYS be rejected. Look at Canada as an example. No other nation shares so much with the US in terms of culture, history, etc. But they have always maintained a distinct identity

    It's just an argument of semantics, then.


    Aren't they all!

  3. Anyway, why get so worked up about it? Unlike many people, I do not believe that imperialism has the negative connotations that the word seems to have acquired recently. I'm not attempting a thinly veiled attack against your country, either. But if I were to rephrase and say that the US is a "superpower", would you dispute that as well?


    It's just an argument of semantics, then.


    I did not take it as an attack. Just a good debate in which you brought up some good points, followed up by more good points. Anyway, I'll reply point by point in a little bit (I'm at work right now) I just wanted to clear the air that I don't regard your comments as attacking at all. But just to define the playing field, what is your definition of "empire"?

  4. If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck...


    Well, lets do a little side by side comparison between the US and a few notable empires from history.


    The US has no colonies, never has. The US controls the government in no sovreign nations and never has for much longer than a short trasitional period. The US has never began a war when not attacked or under the pretext of a treaty violation (and that is new). The US maintained ownership of no foreign posessions won in any war except Puerto Rico and Guam and they voted to become US territories. When a nation like the Philipenes asked us to leave, we left. US military bases overseas are there by the consent of the host nation. There are leases and those nations are paid for the use of their soil. Even Cuba receives payment for Guantanamo Bay as dictated in our treaty of 1909.


    Now compare that to a few of the old colonial "empires" like France. The heads of all foreign posessions were frenchmen. The natives were not allowed to own property and with few exceptions those colonies were only surrendered back to local government at gunpoint.


    Even the largest most succesful empire in history, the British, could not match the US record. The British have a good track record for transitioning colonies to independant states but often enough it also had to be done at gunpoint. Did they leave the 13 colonies just because we declared independance? No. Plus the British have never been shy in attacking sovreign nations for real or percieved threats to colonial interests. The Crimean War, the Anglo-Afghan wars. They were not above brutally repressing free people not wanting to join the commomwealth. The two Boer wars serve an example. Heck WWI was ALL about empire, colonial interests and mercantilisim. If not for the Zimmerman Telegram Incident the US would not even have involved itself in THAT. We had no colonial interests or territory to defend.


    To suggest the US is an empire is both factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest. No ducks here.

  5. You are not a veteran are you Eddo? You statement about the Army and Marines being similar is uninformed. In terms of organization, doctrine, and function they are VERY different and serve different purposes. As Gen Marshall said in 1949 "It's the Marine's job to win the first battle of the war and the Soldier's job to win the last." The Marines are built to seize a beachead, or a city, or island. The Army is built to fight prolonged campaigns. The Marines cannot match the army logisticly. The army cannot compete with the Corps' flexibility. They are not and cannot be the same.


    The Foreign Legion was usually an effective fighting force but it was never a standing army or security force such as the US employs. Historicly the French used them in their colonies and overseas commitments for the exact reason Walsh pointed out. no one sheds a tear when a legionare dies. The US has no colonies.

    Also, the French have had reason to fear the Legion a number of times. Most notably after they pulled out of Algeria there was nearly a coup led by the Legion commandant. The loyalty of the legionares is to the Legion, not to France. That is why they seldom served in France. Historically speaking anyway.


    No thank you. It's a bad idea. America is NOT an empire. We do not need a military force made only for foreign service.

  6. We should just let bygones be bygones you know.  I mean i totaly understand your guys jealously issues, it's not everyday you have someone as awesome as myself come to these boards.  Before i came, these boards were lame and like a phoenix from the ashes it's been reborn into something almost cool.  No need for thanks guys, we can just leave it at I'm right, you're pretty much wrong.  We can all agree that marijuana is for dirty immoral heathens.  ONto the next topic!  Abortion!  :huh:



  7. For you people who want to legalize marijuana.  You are a manager and you need to hire someone for the most important project of your lifetime.  Both canidates have the same qualifications but one smokes weed and the other doesn't.  Who would you pick?  You're a father, do you want your kids smoking weed on a regular basis?

    Are you actually reading the posts on ths thread? I brought that up on the last page. You are completely right there. If pot were legal and the HR director decided he did not wand pot heads in his company he certainly does not have to hire them. And if he wants to screen with drug tests, that is fine too. Freedom is a two way street. If you decide to do something you are accepting all of the benefits and consequences. But the government is not your mother and it should not be empowered to give you to bubba for simply doing something it deems "unhealthy" in the privacy of your own home.

  8. We are talking about drugs not transportation.  To drive you have to become qualified and show that you are a safe and responsible driver.  A car only becomes dangerous when you, oh i don't know take a mind altering substance and endanger yourself and others.  I actually somewhat agree with legalizing marijuana as long as it goes to the people who need it.  If they allowed the people who need it to own it while picking up some tax on it, but enforce it heavily so that people who abuse it are seriously reprimanded I'd be fine.  Sure it would allow people to get ahold of marijuana easier but once they start to see friends who get reamed by the system maybe they will make it just a one time thing and leave it alone.

    Freedom imposes responsability. You are free to drink all you like but the moment you get behind the wheel, bubba will be waiting. Same thing with pot. If it were legal you would be required to use it responasbly. If not bubba is waiting.

  9. While we're at it we should legalize black tar heroine.  There is a reason why marijuana is illegal because its a drug.  It's a mind altering and a potentially dangerous substance, maybe not to the user but to someone around them.  For example, some kid smokes quite a bit, his reaction time is lessened and he decides to hop into a car to get some grub.  Someone makes a sudden stop and he doesn't react like he normally does.  Next thing you know he collides into the car launching it into the cross walk murdering a young wife with her 3 young children and 5 others shes baby sitting and her 4 cute little puppy dogs shes watching.  The road is just soaked in the blood of the innocent, it's complete and utter devastation.  People rush over to see the carnage.  Women are crying, men are holding there wives and children close shocked and filled with grief.  You stumble out of the car confused and scared.  A squadron of police cars pull up and the next thing you know is you're in jail serving 10 consecutive life sentences, and on top of that big bubba works like clock work.  Every morning at dawn you wake up clawing the cell door as your raped and sodomized until you pass out from massive blood loss.  :cat:

    The same thing would have happened if he got drunk and went to get some grub.

  10. As a card carrying Libertarian Party member I'm going to say yes it should be both legal and taxed. It is potentially harmful but so is alcohol, and tobaccco and moutain climbing and running with scissors, you get the idea. The government is not your mother nor should it try to assume that role by passing laws that protect you from harmful things in life. In the USA at least, the purpose of the state is not to look out for you or take care of you. You need to do that yourself.


    Now at the same time, if the company you work for wants to hold you accountable for that activity by drug testing, that is perfectly fine too. Freedom is a two way street. You are free to do it and they are free to fire you for it. But it should not be illegal.


    Besides, as a friend of mine once said, "no one ever got stoned and killed their wife."

  11. What do you mean?  Seeing how people act before and after taking a substance is a decent start.  You're results won't be 100% scientific, since it can't take into account placebo effect, and the resulting "roleplay" elements.  For example, studies have shown that giving people flavoured water and telling them that it is alcohol may result in them acting drunk. 


    A girl in my psyc class in college actually DID that. She had a keg of Buckler NA beer, poured listerene in a Seagrams bottle and mixed it with coke in front of her guests and had a party. She said it was really amazing how many people acted drunk when they could not have been. It was less than half the people there but more than a few.

  12. I've got to tell you, die hard Trekkies scare me. The real die hard ones, that have the uniforms and actually wear them. The ones that actually learned to speak klingon. The ones who are constantly talking about the shows as though they were real. They are right up there with Star Wars fanatics, Oakland Raiders fans, and religous zealots. I'm always worried they are just a little too close to strapping on a bomb or something.








    Just kidding guys!

  13. Klingons in the White House

    Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.) captured the award for nuttiest speech of the new Congress when he delivered this statement on the floor of Congress: "This president has listened to some people, the so-called Vulcans in the White House, the ideologues. But you know, unlike the Vulcans of Star Trek who made the decisions based on logic and fact, these guys make it on ideology. These aren't Vulcans. There are Klingons in the White House. But unlike the real Klingons of Star Trek, these Klingons have never fought a battle of their own. Don't let faux Klingons send real Americans to war




    Shields up Mr. Chekov! Klingons in the White House, Trekkies in the Congress. God help us.


    What is the hand basket we're in and where are we going?

  14. Cuba will not change until Raul is gone too. Maybe not even then. As a rule, governments only change at gunpoint. But when Fidel dies there will be a party like the world has never seen in Miami. He has destroyed many families down here and his reign in Cuba could be called nothing if not brutal. Sometimes, just outliving a S.O.B like that is cause for celebration.

  • Create New...