Guard Dog

I forgot that one!

That which is long divided must unite. That which is long united must divide" -Lao Che. That one came to me while watching the US President's speech tonight.

Correction. The most ominous sound in the world is that of an eight year old boy gleefully saying 'Bang! Bang!' Behind you, followed by a soft click. Eugh. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That WILL make you sick to your stomach!

For most places, simply walk in and buy what you like. Most states have waiting periods for handguns. A few cities require you to register and every where you need a permit to carry it loaded and concealed. Anyone over 18 can carry one in their car so long as it is not loaded. To carry it loaded you need a permit. They are not difficult to get. Every state has it's own laws though. There are only a few federal laws and mainly those deal with full auto weapons.

I think the most ominous sound in the world is the sound of a single action revolver cylinder rotating as the hammer is locked. That soft little triple click is as loud as thunder, especially when it is coming from behind you.

It's pretty different now. A-Line was the name of the range at Parris Island. After Rifle Qual week you went to A-Line for a week to learn the Beretta, SAW, Grenades, and M203. Looks like they dropped it. They have swim qual in week 9. We did that in Forming Week it looks like they dropped forming week all together. Just as well, it's wasted time. They changed the end too. In week 9 we went to the field for BWT for 3 weeks (Gas Chamber, rapelling, land nav, leadership & tactics, etc). After that you come back for week 12 and do the final PFT and everything else on there and graduate. Defensive Driving course? In boot camp? WTF?

I didnt know that. Do they still do A-Line week (special weapons week I think they call in in SD. A-Line is a Parris Island term)? The only weapons training we did in MCT was the M-16, SAW, and M-60. But we used those all the time.

Heh, that would be me! You fam fire (familiarization fire) the beretta 9mm during A-Line week in boot camp. Just a half a day and each recruit only gets to shoot once 10 rounds, maybe twice if you are lucky. Most of your training is in the M-16, M203, and M249. Until you become an NCO (Corporal or higher) you will not need to qualify with the pistol. But you will qualify with the M-16 every year. There are exceptions. If you are an armorer you must qualify with every weapon and your primary weapon will be the 9mm. If you get assigned to armory duty (a 30 or 60 day stint as a guard) you will need to qualify for the 9mm or the .12GA. Or both. There ae other exceptions I'm sure but those are the only ones that come to mind. After I got out of boot camp I did not even see a pistol again until I made Corporal.

I've always preferred rifles to handguns. Like my Winchester .300. There is just something about being able to hit a target 1500 yards away.

You are right. I stand corrected. http://www.lge.com/ir/Corporate_Governance.jsp

Ok, wrong again. One of the reason discipline is so high in the Corps is is Esprit-de-Corps, pride in service, patriotisim, Marine Corps tradition, professional excellence, and love of country is drilled into every recruit from the moment they get off the bus at recruit training until they take off their uniform for the last time. it doesn't always stick with everyone (obviously), but most Marines take that with them even after they are out. The Foreign Legion has no loyalty to country so half of that is out the window. I'd also point out the Legion is nothing today compared to what it was in the past because disclipline is not as rigid as it is in the Marines today. We worked with a French unit that had Leigonares attached in 1992 during Cobra Gold in Thailand and in 1991 in Subic Bay after Pinatabo erupted. There was nothing special about them. In the past they were a force to be feared but discipline was enforced by brutal punishments. Flogging was common for the smallest infraction. Firing squads for larger offences. The motto of the Legion was "March or Die" because stragglers were often shot. Do you honsetly think the US will allow this kind of discipline? The French do not anymore. That is why the Legion is what it is today, and not what it used to be.

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!