Guard Dog

To add to what Meta said (which I agree with by the way), China has had MFN status with the US for over 14 years now. Our economy is so entertwined with theirs neither could afford to be enemies. Haier, LG, Container, just to name a few are all Chinese owned companies that do most of their business in the US. Tens of thousands of Chinese are employed in manufacturing contracts with US companies. All of those businesses weild a lot of influence in both governments. There will not be a war.

It doesn't matter what I say at this point. You have an axe to grind and that is your perogative. As to your original point, so far the majority have been against destroying the Marine Corps and creating a "foreign legion". I'm against it because of what I stated in my original post. As Azarkon said, were way off the path here and you an I debating the Corps relevance is pretty pointless. We are not going to agree.

All right, that is a fair criticisim. I've been out of the service for ten years now and have not made any real effort to keep up. There is little more I can say on the subject except I think you are wrong so I'll let David Hackworth make my final point for me: THE MARINES HAVE LANDED -- AGAIN

I suspected it was something like that. He said a few things to make me think he was familiar with the service and he is obviously hostile to it.

Good one! They will fight a third world war. I do not know when or with what weapons. But I an certin the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstien

There always expansions to address the AI in. We hope!

Yep, but as I said, the 4 MAWs are not meant to do what the Air Force can and vice versa.

If I have not convinced you yet Eddo, I never will. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. President Truman and Gen McArthur both thought as you do so you are in good company. It cannot be argued that they are the same. They can be made to be the same and I think that is what you believe. I think it would be a mistake. Different tools for different jobs. Then again, my thinking may be out of date. The doctrine of US forces was built around the concept of fighting two major (WWII or larger) conflicts simutaneously. That may never happen. But I'd rather be able to and not have to than have to and not be able to.

The Marines do not have bombers, stealth technology, long range surveilance air craft, have only a limited air to air combat squadrons, we did not have recon drones and the USAFs electronic warfare is the best in the world. The Marines do not have that. But the USAF is built to operate from air bases from the theater "rear". The Marine Air wings operate from carriers and forward air fields. Plus the Marines have one thing the AF does not, infantry. The AF is built to destroy an enemy's ability to wage war before a campaign begins then support a land campaign conducted by the Army. The Marine Air wings are built to support rapidly deploying infantry and amphibious operations. Diffrent aircraft, different uses. Simply put, the AF is a strategic force, the Marines are a tactical force. In 1991 the B-1s flew from the US all the way to Iraq and then back to complete a single misson. Marine sorties came from Al-Asra or from a carrier in the Gulf. Or Diego Garcia.

Also, the Army does not posess the ability to construct and operate a forward fixed wing air base (deployable radar, navigational aids, etc). We do! That is what I did in the Corps.

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.

I served in the USMC from 1990 to 1995. I strongly disagree. But I can't convince you, you can't convince me so there we are. Agree to disagree.

XM Channel 49 Big Tracks.

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. 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? 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. 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 Aren't they all!

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"?

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.

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.

Stephen Colbert explains the whole AT&T thing! The new at&t. You WILL be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln That one is good!

Not much debate. Most agree and the main one who did not was Slug and he was trapped by his own logic.

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.

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.

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

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."